Yesterday in my women’s history class, we began making our way through Joan Brumberg’s The Body Project. I’ve been using the book for years and years, and it’s a huge hit with my students each semester.
It is Brumberg who first drew my attention to statistics about menarche, marriage, and the loss of virginity. She points out that a century ago, girls menstruated for the first time at an average age of 16 and got married at an average age of around 21. Today, girls menstruate at an average age of just under 12 and get married for the first time at just over 25.
(A quick note about statistics. The problem with teaching statistics — especially with something like menarche — is that very, very few folks end up being "average". Almost every girl seems to have a sense of herself as being "early" or "late" — a Goldilocks effect, I suppose!)
Here’s where it gets interesting. A century ago, the time between the onset of puberty and marriage was but five years; today it’s close to fifteen. If a contemporary young woman is trying to "wait" until marriage to lose her virginity, she is waiting — in a very real sense — three times as long as women did in her great-great grandmother’s era! She’s got three times the frustration of coping with unexpressed sexual feelings and longings, three times as long to struggle to live up to a cultural and religious standard of purity. Forget trying to live up to the standards of one’s ancestors; today’s young women who remain committed to virginity are trying to accomplish something that has, from a demographic and physiological standpoint, never been achieved before.
My class is 75% non-white, and of those, most are first-generation Americans. (Latinas and Asians make up two-thirds of the young women in the course; given the demographics of the area, many of the remainder are first-generation Armenians whose families have arrived from Iran, Lebanon, or the former Soviet Union.) Yesterday, I asked them the following questions:
1. How many of you have parents who want you to be virgins when you marry?
2. How many of you have parents who want you to go to college and get a degree before you get married?
3. How many of those same parents also want you to be skilled at cooking and cleaning in order to attract a husband?
After half the class had raised their hands to all three questions, I asked them a follow-up:
"Based on what you’ve read in Brumberg, and based on what you’ve experienced in your family, how does it feel to be asked to do something no one in your family has ever been asked to do before?"
The answers came pouring out! Many of these young women are the first in their families to go to college; they’ve often been raised by immigrant parents with a tremendous faith in education. Most of these families have embraced at least one aspect of feminism: the notion that women have a right to education, and perhaps an obligation to become economically self-sufficient. (Most of my students have been warned by at least one older adult to "get an education so you won’t have to rely on a man.") But even as they’ve been encouraged to do what women in the past were not able to do (go to school and earn at least a bachelor’s degree, if not something higher), these young women are still being given a message about sexuality that is as traditional as the one that their grandmothers received in little villages in Michoacan and Martuni and Mindanao and Mae Hong Son. And to top it off, their bodies (and the concomitant emergence of sexual desire) are developing earlier!
Over and over again, students say things like "Wow, do you know my mother?" Everyone laughs. It’s not that they think that I’m personally so insightful, it’s that they’ve never realized just how absurd — and historically unique — the bind is into which they have been placed. Their ambitious yet culture-bound parents are extolling a crushing set of contradictory ideals; they demand daughters who can be domestically proficient, financially independent, professionally autonomous, yet traditionally demure and asexual until marriage! No wonder so many of these young women appear so damned tired!
Some of my students make it clear (explicitly or obliquely) that they are rejecting their parents’ values. Some have rebelled more successfully than others; the guilt in the faces and voices of some is painfully evident. Others are still making heroic attempts to live up to all of the hopes and dreams and values of their parents and their culture. Some have internalized these values to the point that they can claim them as their own, but most — when made aware of their unique historical status as the first generation to face this particularly brutal constellation of pressures — get appropriately ticked off.
In so many traditionally-minded families, there is still an unfortunately explicit connection between virginity and success. In the semi-mythical old days that the abuelas and the po-pos talk about, a girl who had lost her virginity before marriage would lose her opportunity to make a good marriage — and that could mean a life of struggle and poverty. In the modern equation, the fear is of single motherhood. Having children outside of marriage while still young and uneducated is the contemporary stigma, one that all too often guarantees long-term financial hardship. In the old days, virginity might attract a good husband; in the modern age, these girls are raised to believe, abstinence is the surest guarantee that they’ll be able to finish college and become self-supporting without being burdened by a child.
During these discussions, some of my white middle-class students (especially those from secular backgrounds) sit aghast. Raised by affluent baby-boomer parents who took them to Planned Parenthood when they were 16, the stories they hear from their classmates of color bewilder and horrify them. My privileged ones have never had to equate abstinence with success; their parents have never asked them to spend more than a decade as a physically sexual being without any outlet for their God-given desires. These young women express sympathy; some make the unfortunate mistake of issuing derogatory remarks about how appalling these "backwards" cultures are in which their classmates have had the misfortune to be raised. (I try and nip that sort of thing in the bud.)
After years and years of these discussions in my immensely diverse community college women’s studies classes, I’ve become convinced that we’re dealing with a vital feminist issue here. My younger — and not so young — sisters are trying live up to conflicting and contradictory imperatives that ask them to have a foot in two completely different worlds. As one of my students, a 20 year-old from an Armenian immigrant family, put it a semester or two ago: "My family dreams of me as their brilliant, virginal, medical doctor daughter — who drives her own Mercedes, makes amazing baklava, has a perfect figure and has never kissed a man until she meets her husband."
If I were teaching at Wellesley or Vassar, that young woman might not be speaking for the parents of over half of of her classmates. But here at Pasadena City College, she is — and as a result, the feminist curriculum has to be tailored to speak to her and those like her. Before they can become articulate activists for a global feminist agenda, these young women need to find the voice to speak out against the cruel and nonsensical double binds in which they have been placed. They need teachers who will encourage them to demand the right to be full and complete human beings. They need to be encouraged to offer each other support, to build feminist community, to help each other escape the crushing and contradictory burdens that weigh upon their minds and bodies. The culture tells them they need to be Superwomen; in a feminist classroom, they can learn to say "No" to the pressure and say "Yes" or even "Hell, yes!" to their deepest and most basic desires.
Is an almost middle-aged heterosexual Anglo man from Carmel by-the-Sea the right person to lead these discussions? Who knows? I may not be able to empathize with the majority of my students, but that doesn’t mean I can’t share some simple statistics, ask some simple — and provocative — questions, and then facilitate the ensuing firestorm of discussion. And from that discussion, I can only hope what all teachers hope — that my students will find the inspiration and the tools to begin to make real changes in their lives.
Note: There are some obvious similiarities to the experiences of young conservative Christian women of any race who are also trying to manage both education and delayed marriage on one hand and traditional ideas about purity on the other. This post at Thursday PM is very powerful; a young Christian woman asks exactly the right question:
What if denying healthy sexuality is just as harmful to the psyche and self image as engaging in unhealthy sexual activity?
Another post, that one.
Very interesting post, Hugo. And I can see how your point holds generally. It’s interesting that the parts of the United States and the non-immigrant cultural contexts in which teenage abstinence is most emphasized seem to result in the earliest marriages. And yet because of the emphasis of immigrant cultures on education, there are contradictory expectations (as you point out). One solution that I’ve heard from the likes of Frederica Matthews-Greene is that people should be marrying in college or straight out of college (and presumably put off childbearing for a while). And as long as both spouses’ careers or graduate education are considered of equal importance, I’m not inclined to disagree. The culture just seems to say: you shouldn’t get married until you’re fully and professionally settled. And some people who would make good husbands, wives, or partners in the early to mid 20s will not reach that stage until their 30s.
Is Brumberg using American data for her statistics? I know in Ireland, for instance, that marriages in the 18th and 19th centuries were notoriously late because of economic conditions. So I suspect some of my ancestreses found themselves in the same boat as women in your classes.
I hope this isn’t terribly tangential, but how do you factor in a committment to celibacy, religious or otherwise? I’m not going to suggest it should be the main route for most people, but you seem to be assuming sexuality as the default, with asexuality as an unhealthy expectation imposed by others.
The increasing sexualization we see in our culture of course makes the expectations you speak of more difficult to “live up to”, but you don’t mention much about the agency of those who choose for themselves not to be sexually active.
I’m confused about what the age of menstruation and puberty has to do with waiting longer to have sex. If years ago girls didn’t menstruate until they were 16, does that prove they didn’t have sex before then? Does it prove they didn’t want to have sex before then? The way you’ve worded it sounds as if the girls who menstruated at age 16 only thought about sex once they turned 16, and thus only had to wait to have it 5 more years until they were married at 21. And that these modern 12 years olds are starting to think about sex right away at 12, due to their “concomitant emergence of sexual desire.”
Maybe this true, because it seems as if younger teenager girls are definitely more sexually aware nowadays, but is this due only to the early onset of puberty or is it due to our culture’s sick obsession with sexualizing and objectifying young girls?
And, is there any place in your class for a young woman who embraces her culture’s and/or religion’s value of virginity?
As an aside, what jumped out at me in this young woman’s statement “My family dreams of me as their brilliant, virginal, medical doctor daughter — who drives her own Mercedes, makes amazing baklava, has a perfect figure and has never kissed a man until she meets her husband” – was the Mercedes. It made me wonder about issues of wealth and class and materialism. Is having “things” a sign of success? What defines success for women, especially in relation to their cultures and faith?
Good question, Jennifer – I can go to pandagon or feministing and see all manner of post ridiculing women who pledge abstinence, like they are “Stepford Daughters.”
Is that how those women who choose to be abstinent are regarded, as second class, or drinkers of Patriarchal Kool-Aid? Is the only choice the hedonistic one? Or is there a place for such women in “feminism,” and pandagon/feministing, et al. out of line?
Yes, the data is primarily American.
Vacula, a commitment to lifelong celibacy ought always a personal choice, never a mandate from one’s culture or one’s parents.
Jennifer, while menarche is hardly the only “marker” of puberty, it is one of them — and sexual desires do generally intensify with the onset of adolescence. The thesis is not only was menstruation later a century ago, but a whole host of other secondary sex characteristics — breasts, body hair, and libido.
As far as having “things” is concerned, many immigrant families who come to this country seeking prosperity do have very specific material goals, hence the painful ostentatiousness that we WASPs associate with the “nouveau riche.” I’ve learned to let go of some of my snobbiness about it, simply noting that for so many new arrivals, certain cars and certain neighborhoods and certain handbags symbolize the success of an entire family. It validates the whole enterprise of immigration, at least in the minds of some.
Gonz, I have no problem with those who “choose” to be abstinent. But a choice is only a choice when one has been given the opportunity to select from a variety of different options. What I object to is not abstinence, but culturally-imposed abstinence that may be contrary to the very real desires of young men and women. What I want for my girls and boys, young men and women, is the freedom to choose their own particular road to fulfillment. I am utterly convinced that, to paraphrase the great pagan Symmmachus, there are “many roads” to so great a joy! I hold that belief in happy tension with an evangelical Christian faith.
“The thesis is not only was menstruation later a century ago, but a whole host of other secondary sex characteristics — breasts, body hair, and libido.” Interesting. But I wonder why, back then, it was more culturally acceptable to marry younger, even as a teenager, if some of these teenaged girls were still, physically at least, children (in the sense that they didn’t have breasts, body hair, libido, menarche, etc.)
Is it okay to challenge immigrants’ culturally held beliefs about women’s roles and sexuality but not about wealth or success? This is very touchy – I am also white, middle class, but I’m wondering if this is a double standard. But where does critique or challenge fit in, both in terms of sexuality, wealth, success, body image, etc. – I imagine there are a whole host of delicate subjects that need to be discussed in women’s studies while taking into account cultural, racial, and other differences.
Jennifer, it’s only one class — and so of course, in a feminist course, I’m going to focus more explicitly on sexuality than on materialism. I agree with you completely, but we can only slay one dragon at a time…
Hugo, thank you so much for this post.
I have long been frustrated with discussions of sex education in schools, which all seem to be predicated on the idea that we should be advocating abstinence until marriage, always and for everyone, and the only remaining question is whether we should add a bit of extra info about condoms and the like for the weak-willed folks who don’t live up to the standard. It seems clear to me that, “Don’t rush into anything,” is a valuable and healthy lesson, but I’m not convinced that the same is true for, “Hold out as long as you can.”
I have always been somewhat abashed about stating this view, lest I be accused of having no morals. But I have a world of respect for your moral outlook, so it warmed my heart to hear you question the message, “Don’t have any sex of any kind until your (delayed) marriage.” Thank you.
I LOVE this blog, Hugo!! You presented everything I have been thinking about since Thursday’s class. I’d just like to add a few thoughts regarding the subject at hand.
Here’s another contradiction in our current society: if it’s equally respectable to have sex before marriage than it is to choose to remain pure for your future spouse, then what’s the point of saving yourself at all? In other words, if every choice is equally as respectable as another, then what value does my decision to remain sexually pure have at all? Are all decisions regarding waiting for sex relative?
The statistics are daunting and, in a way, discouraging for us girls who choose to wait for sex until marriage. What should we do with those statistics? Should we give in and have sex? Or should we tough it out and wait? That is every person’s choice, and I firmly believe that that choice should be everyone’s to make.
While I do not look down on those who choose to have sex before marriage (my parents didn’t wait and many of my friends haven’t either), I would like to remind girls that IT IS POSSIBLE to wait for sex, even if that means being chaste for many years. It seems like the message I’m getting from many areas of society is that the pursuit of purity nowadays is unrealistic and outdated. It’s not. Waiting is extremely hard, especially when you’ve been with the same guy for nearly half a decade, but it’s not impossible.
Nothing makes me more determined to wait than the thought of my future wedding night. I want to loose my virginity to a man who will love me unconditionally and for the rest of my life. I want my first time to be in a private suite filled with rose petals, romantic music and some champaigne. I want to have a diamond on my wedding finger as we physically and spiritually connect for the first time. I want to wear a white nightgown with sequence and lace – and I want that white nightgown to have genuine significance. I want to wake up the next morning knowing that my man is there to stay through thick and thin.
I do not believe that everyone should be forced to wait until marriage. I do, however, hope and pray that every girl will consider having the same dream. I want all girls to know that the dream to have a beyond wonderful and significant wedding night is not impossible to accomplish, even in light of the ideal standards, which you’ve addressed, of the world today. In today’s world, this dream may take longer and thus is be harder to accomplish than it was long ago, but I believe waiting for sex until marriage despite all odds deserves as much consideration and appreciation as the decision to not wait does.
Hugo, that whole “Culturally imposed abstinece” bothers me. Couldn’t we substitute a lot of things for abstinence, that are contrary to the desires of many young men and women? Thin entering wedge, camel’s nose under the tent? “I really need to pass this test to get into the college of my life’s dream – one little crib sheet…”
I don’t know what to do about it – but it’s a dangerous thing to condone and give that tacit wink to coming from an evagelical perspective, eh?
In other words, if every choice is equally as respectable as another, then what value does my decision to remain sexually pure have at all?
Why is it important to you that your choice be “more respectable” than other people’s choices? Isn’t it enough for it to be the choice that’s right for you, regardless of what other people think or do? I mean, I think I made a good decision when I chose to go to college, but the value of that decision doesn’t hinge on setting up those who didn’t go to college as inferior somehow. If the decision is comfortable for you and consistent with your beliefs, then it has value in itself– no “purer-than-thou” competition is necessary.
As for the “wonderful and significant wedding night,” if that’s your thing, more power to you, but I’d hesitate to say it should be “every girl’s dream.” For one thing, not every newlywed couple is going to be able to afford a private suite, champagne, rose petals, a diamond ring, and so on– presumably the relationship and connection is still meaningful without the trappings of wealth. And I can’t help but think that encouraging women to think of losing their virginity as something approaching the most important moment of their lives is a bit dangerous– the reality is that it’s not always perfect and mind-blowing and transcendent, even with someone you really love. I’m not saying it can’t be special, of course, but it just seems to me that building it up that much in someone’s mind is a setup for disappointment.
Hugo, I wonder if you have a sense if American abstinence is sometimes philosophically quite different than abstinence ideas in other cultures?
In response to The Gonzman -
Thank you for your insightful response to my comment. You’re right – certainly one can have a meaningful and beautiful wedding night without all the rose petals, private suite, ect. (That didn’t occur to me as I was writing my comment – thank you for drawing my attention to that). And I don’t think that every girl should be forced to wait until marriage- I believe it should be everyone’s personal choice alone. I just want every girl to know that if they do want to wait for sex until marriage, that it is possible and is not an unrealistic goal.
I am not trying to be holier-than-thou on this. I’ve done things that I regret sexually, which is why I am very passionate on this particular topic. Many people I respect and love have not waited for sex and are fine with their decision (some, however, regret not waiting). The purpose of my comment was just to say that waiting is not as impossible as the statistics make it seem. I didn’t mean to sound holier-than-thou. I am a flawed person – and coming across as arrogant about these matters is something people are quick to point out about my personality. I apologize that the tone of my comment reflected that trait of mine.
Mermade, thanks — this is why, with absolute sincerity, I referred to your commitment as “heroic.” Particularly because you are able to love and accept those who make different choices, your own choice is all the more “feminist” and all the more admirable. Peace, my sister — you rock.
THANK YOU HUGO! Your support means more than you know!
My second comment was in response to Keri, not to the Gonzman. I thought that the writer’s name was posted at the top, not the bottom, of the comment. Sorry for the error!
No time to read the other comments, but just wanted to point out that there is SOME precedent for this expectation. Early modern European women had extremely high average ages of first marriage (late 20s), often had a whole “career” as a domestic servant or wage worker before marriage, and were generally expected to be virgins before marriage. So, in fact, did their male counterparts, who often didn’t marry till their 30s, because both husband and wife were expected to have accumulated some capital before marriage. In some parts of Europe, premarital childbearing was somewhat tolerated, but not in others.
Might be interesting to look into some social histories of, say, 17th century Holland to see what they indicate about the effects of these trends …
“Nothing makes me more determined to wait than the thought of my future wedding night. I want to loose my virginity to a man who will love me unconditionally and for the rest of my life. I want my first time to be in a private suite filled with rose petals, romantic music and some champaigne. I want to have a diamond on my wedding finger as we physically and spiritually connect for the first time. I want to wear a white nightgown with sequence and lace – and I want that white nightgown to have genuine significance. I want to wake up the next morning knowing that my man is there to stay through thick and thin.”
There’s nothing wrong with holding onto a dream and looking forward to it. I have nothing against women and men that abstain from sex until marriage. I think it’s an difficult, individual choice that can come out of a sincere and honest place. That said, I disagree with the concept that some abstinent people have of premarital sex “weakening’ the relationship, as in “the relationship would have been stronger if you waited until marriage” line of thinking that I sometimes hear. I also don’t like the building up of the wedding night that people often reach to gullible, younger kids as part of the abstinence plan. I’d rather see the focus of abstinence, not on the loss of the virginity and buildup of the wedding night, but based on forging a strong relationship outside of a sexual sphere, which is fundamentally rewarding and positive, while I’m not sure if a fixation on (the lack of) sexual activity and the wedding night is healthy. I’ve seen about the same divorce rate for women and men that’s waited until marraige as well as those that didn’t… I also don’t know of many women that enjoyed their first time. It took them a while to come to terms with their sexuality, and sometimes, it’s hard to be in a situation where both or one partner is still figuring things out. I think all these aspects need to be addressed when people choose to be abstinent, because as much as I don’t like to see men and women regret their sexual experience, and I also don’t want the to regret their abstinence either.
BTW, Hugo… xcellent post. Incidentally, have you read this post on another site? I thought I would plug it here because you might have some interest in it.
http://buggydoo.blogspot.com/2006/03/letter-to-alex-and-chris-twelve-years.html
I was always aware that the gap between menarche and marriage was larger 100 years ago, but not three times larger! The post and the comments raise many questions,
1. Why is any discussion of virginity almost always about women?
I know the answer, but why aren’t more people angry about it. If virginity is as spiritually important as some would have you believe, why are we robbing young men of that experience by not pressuring them the way we do women?
2. Why do people assume that a woman has two choices, wait till marriage or be sexually irresponsible?
What about the thousands that do not wait until marriage, but only have one or two partners before marriage in the context of a committed relationship? Surely that is not the same thing as someone who is promiscuous. Not that those who are promiscuous need condemnation either.
3. Why are people so obsessed with the moment of the loss of virginity?
I could not have written a more stereotypical account of what a young woman who is waiting would want on her wedding night than the one above. I don’t think that wanting those things are wrong, I don’t think waiting is wrong if it works for you, but the vision of this moment seems so naive and childish. You could easily replace the white nightgown and rose petals with a description of Cinderella’s castle. The truth is that for most women the first time is not magic or perfect, it may be special, it may be spiritual, but it is often painful, and you are not going to have the experience or confidence to have truly great sex until much later. Notice the lack of discussion of building the relationship, it’s all surface for this moment. I don’t think weddings or wedding nights should be viewed as just a beginning for a couple, they should also be the culmination of hopefully years of togetherness, commitment and growth. Often that togetherness is going to include sex, and that’s not immoral, it’s natural. Many people get married without really knowing their partner just for the experience of the wedding and wedding night. The excitement of a twenty four hour period is not the kind of thing to build a 50 year plus commitment on.
This is not a personal attack, I’ve had the same discussion with many young women who have the same vision of a perfect wedding night. Again, waiting for marriage is not a bad or stupid thing, it’s just not for the majority of people.
I say this as a 23 year old virgin by the way, so I do believe in waiting, but I’m focused on waiting for the right relationship, not the right day in the relationship. As wonderful as weddings are, they are just a day in a relationship, they are a celebration of the work you’ve aready done as a couple and plan to do in the future.
1. How many of you have parents who want you to be virgins when you marry?
2. How many of you have parents who want you to go to college and get a degree before you get married?
3. How many of those same parents also want you to be skilled at cooking and cleaning in order to attract a husband?
All of the above. And keep in mind, my mother at one time described herself as a feminist, and gave me plenty of instruction in that regard (my father still describes himself as a feminist). My car, however, is supposed to be a Cadillac, and my dish sugu (sauce). Yep, the old “bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan.” Suuuuuperwoman! My male relatives received similar messages, sans the virginity lecture (given by my mother of course—my father will discuss sex with me now that I’m somebody’s mother, but noooo…I couldn’t imagine him ever having that conversation with me in my teens!).
Sure wish I could have been a fly on the wall during that class!
Why is it important to you that your choice be “more respectable” than other people’s choices? Isn’t it enough for it to be the choice that’s right for you, regardless of what other people think or do? I mean, I think I made a good decision when I chose to go to college, but the value of that decision doesn’t hinge on setting up those who didn’t go to college as inferior somehow. If the decision is comfortable for you and consistent with your beliefs, then it has value in itself– no “purer-than-thou” competition is necessary.
Because such a question is rooted in moral relativism; and it is, that’s not a flip answer. “Right” and “Right for you” are two different concepts entirely, from two different viewpoints.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest most of the Good Doc’s readers lean left, so let’s see if I can reframe it with the shoe on the other foot – Left leaning people see no issue with a progresive tax which transfers wealth from the rich to the poor – it is the right thing to do -in all cases – in their eyes
Right leaning people are all for private charity – go ahead and donate privately – if it is right for you.
And I’m not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of the positions either way, just provide a means by where you can walk the proverbial mile in the other’s moccasins.
Because such a question is rooted in moral relativism; and it is, that’s not a flip answer. “Right” and “Right for you” are two different concepts entirely, from two different viewpoints.
Well, okay, even putting aside the relativism stuff– if someone thinks that abstinence is The Right Choice, in a universal, concrete sense, why on earth would he/she care if society in general considers his/her choice “more respectable” than others? Do Christians go around saying that unless society considers them superior to Muslims or Buddhists or atheists, then there’s no point in being Christian? I don’t think so– for most Christians the value of Christianity is that it’s the correct religion (either for them or in general, depending on how relativist they are), not the possibility of admiration and respect from the rest of the world. Shouldn’t decisions about sexuality be the same? Placing so much value on the popularity of one’s moral decisions, or how much better than others those decisions will allow them to feel, doesn’t make those decisions seem like particularly strong, meaningful or sincere ones.
But what you are saying there is that such Christians have no right to make it a standard for being “in the club,” and an unreasonable thing to teach one’s children. If you say “Fine for you, but it may be different for someone else(your kids)….”
this is why, with absolute sincerity, I referred to your commitment as “heroic.”
I think “heroic” is overdoing it. You either decide to fuck or you decide not to, and framing the latter as some all-but-hopeless challenge is needlessly discouraging.
I also don’t like the building up of the wedding night that people often reach to gullible, younger kids as part of the abstinence plan.
Exactly. And like the worship of The Big Wedding Day that completely ignores The Rest Of Your Married Life, it ignores the fact that after the wedding night comes the rest of your sex life.
And what happens if the private suite is just a hotel room, there’s no champagne, or it’s actually uncomfortable or even kind of painful? What is marital intimacy going to be like for someone who hangs so much of their expectation about sexuality on their wedding night?
I am much more impressed by a guy Hugo quoted, way back, who said that he was getting married soon, and he was really looking forward to making love for the first time with his wife. That, to me, sees abstinence until marriage as a realistic, positive thing, not as a fantasy.
On parental expections: I feel kind of in between Hugo’s students from immigrant families and his students from white middle-class secular families. My parents were both strongly pro-choice, and my mother talked to me freely about birth control from before I reached puberty; Our Bodies, Our Selves sat on a bookshelf at home where I could read it at any time.
But it would never have occurred to me to expect my parents to take me to Planned Parenthood at the age of sixteen, or to think it would be OK with them for me to have sex at that age. I took it for granted that the information I was getting about birth control was for later, not for now. My mother told me directly that she wanted me not to have sex while I was in high school, she gave me what I considered good reasons, and I followed them (and never regretted it).
Dad was less direct, but since he was a Greek immigrant of fairly conservative views, I assumed that he still wanted me to be a virgin when I was in college as well. Eventually he saw every single daughter live together (for a short or long period) before marrying, and accepted it (more readily than I would have expected him to when I was young).
And of course, getting that education before marrying mattered a lot to both of them.
On wedding nights and the loss of virginity: I’ve blogged before about how I lost my virginity late in my college career with someone I did love, but who broke up with me soon after. My wedding night was in a small bed and breakfast in Mendocino; it was still special. I think, actually, if there’s a value in waiting, it’s less in the specialness of the wedding night (which, as others have said, may still be awkward and painful) than in getting to lose your virginity with someone who will stick with you through the awkward and painful parts till you get to the part where sex is actually working for you. It’s less about the wedding night moment than about the whole relationship.
And, having abstained for the overwhelming majority of my premarital life, I do see abstaining till marriage as a possible thing, even though it’s not what I actually did, and even though you aren’t doomed if you didn’t either.
So I’ve finally been able to read through everything and there are a few points I feel need to be addressed.
Firstly, I feel that Mermade is now being taken out of context. She never was pointing to the wedding night as the most important aspect of the relationship, far from it. She said she looks forward to the wedding night not because of the loss of virginity, but because of who the virginity will be lost to. To the man she loves and loves her back. Far too man people take emotion out of sex these days. The connection you create with another human being sexually is one that cannot be broken. Once you go to that place, you will always be comparing whoever you are with to whoever else you’ve been with. You may not dwell on it, but the thought will most certainly cross your mind.
I am a 22 year old male virgin. I am now proud to be so. I wasnt always. In high school the surrounding male population is very persuasive in its attempts to get others to join the club. I’ve had sexual experiences, and I wish that I had been able to keep completely chaste until I found Mermade. I don’t dwell on my past, but I wish I had been able to share those moments with her and no other. I think its unfortunate that society places so much joy to men who have lost that aspect of themselves.
It strikes me as slightly odd how this has happened. Women in society as a history class is perfectly acceptable, but if you had a Men in society class, everyone would laugh it off saying that all traditional history is about men. But that’s not what Women in society is about, so why should Men in society be that way? Shouldn’t there be a class to discuss what has happened to Men? Why are we subjected to the ways of the world in a way that moves us away from Christ in such a forceful fashion? Why are men not only allowed to, but praised for losing viginity? Are there any great unsung men of history? Do men know their fathers? Mothers? There are so many questions and discussions that could happen from that! I don’t believe a class as such would happen, there would be too much uneducated opposition.
Regardless, I have chosen to stave off intercourse because I feel that the emotional bond that is produced from the joining of my flesh to anothers is such that I would not be able to let go. I want that bond to be the only bond I have. I dont want any comparisons running through my mind. On my wedding night, when I have taken the vows between my wife, myself, and my Lord, I want that to be the one and only woman for me. Please stop taking Mermade’s comments out of context.
Hugo writes:
Gonz, I have no problem with those who “choose” to be abstinent. But a choice is only a choice when one has been given the opportunity to select from a variety of different options. What I object to is not abstinence, but culturally-imposed abstinence that may be contrary to the very real desires of young men and women. What I want for my girls and boys, young men and women, is the freedom to choose their own particular road to fulfillment. I am utterly convinced that, to paraphrase the great pagan Symmmachus, there are “many roads” to so great a joy! I hold that belief in happy tension with an evangelical Christian faith.
I respond:
When Hugo stands before the throne of Christ, and if Hugo is asked whether or not he sought to obey the Lord’s commandments, will Hugo repond that he lived in “happy tension” with them? Is Hugo really a useful witness for Christianity, or does he pick and choose which teachings of the Bible he finds convenient? After he criticizes men for lusting (using Matthew 5:27-28), he lets gays off the hook for homosexuality (an lifestyle clearly condemned in the New Testament), and women off the hook for premarital sex (as if premarital sex doesn’t run afoul an Evangelical interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28). Oh, I’m certain Hugo will try differentiate between lust and “committed relationships.” The problem is that premarital sex doesn’t occur in “committed relationships”, it occurs in TEMPORARY relationships. These relationships will either die or morph into committed relationships of marriage.
Now read the following Scriptures …
\\\”Do you knot know that the unrighteous will not inherent the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covteous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.\\\” (1 Cor. 6:9-10)(NKJV)
\\\”And He [Jesus] answered and said to them, \\\’Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, and said, \\\’For THIS REASON a man shall leave his father and mother and be JOINED TO HIS WIFE, and the TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. So, then, they are no longer TWO but ONE FLESH. Therefore what God has JOIN TOGETHER, LET NOT MAN SEPERATE …
\\\”And I say to you, whoever divorce his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.\\\” (Matthew 19:4-6,9)(NKJV)
\\\”But I want you to know that that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.\\\” (1 Cor. 11:3)(NKJV)
\\\”For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.\\\” (1 Cor. 11:3-9)(NKJV)
\\\”Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the chruch is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.\\\” (Ephesians 4:12)
In contrast to Hugo, God is neither a gay right’s activist or a feminist. There are plenty of secularists who reject Christianity because of the verses I quoted. I nonetheless have more respect for their intellectual honesty in this matter than someone who waters down the teachings of my God to make it them palatable to certain focus groups. Can I, as a devoted follower of Christ be indifferent to such sacrilege? Psalms 50:16-23 comes to mind.
Is Hugo even scripturally added to the body of Christ? Does he believe on the Christ? Does he confess Jesus as his Savior? Has he repented of a sinful life and been baptised in water FOR THE REMISSION OF HIS SINS? (ACT 2:38)
Seriously read the accounts of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and tell me if the Christian God of the Bible would tolerate any “happy tension” with pagan beliefs (clue: answer is ‘no,’ but look for yourself).
This post makes me a bit sad because it demonstrates the modern tendency to attack morality when we’re caught in a bind between morality and materialism. I value chastity over a college degree in ANY (male or female) person’s list of accomplishments. While I don’t look down on those who fail to meet that goal, a woman remaining chaste in this world, today, is a far greater example of mental strength and courage than any Ph.D. or 6-figure income shows.
So when I see that list of expectations Hugo questioned his class with, I say scratch #2, not because I want women to be stupid or poor, but because it truly is the least important of the three.
Actually, I’ve found that college degree and ability to earn a living far more valuable to my marriage than #3; it’s pretty easy for either husband or wife to learn to cook and clean more or less adequately on the spot (and my husband cooks a whole lot better than I do and is happy with that). But my job, well, we really needed that when “in sickness and in health” turned out to mean “your husband will live with multiple chronic illnesses for the rest of his life.”
That said, I don’t want to diminish the importance of fidelity to your God, relative to worldly success, for either sex (as long as it’s understood that sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander here – no standard valuing virginity for women and good employment for men is getting any respect from me). In that regard, I appreciate Light of Darkness’s defense of Mermade and attempt to place her “wedding night” remarks in context. And good for Light of Darkness for wishing the same standard for himself and for Mermade.
Israel Mover, please go and read articles written *after* they discovered that the rabbi in question did not have herpes. Yes, he was a right bastard and a public health menace for not stopping while he was under investigation, but he also didn’t give the kid the disease.
And I do hope you meant to write “genital” and not “gentile.” The children were Jews before they were circumcised, and they were still Jews afterwards. No “gentile” destroying going on.
And as for you wanting something “Palestinian,” you are aware that Muslims circumcise their boys as well, yes? (No, not all Palestinians are Muslims, but I’d guess that a sizable majority of them are.)
I fully and freely admit that Mermade’s remarks make me uncomfortable because I held them myself, for a very long time. I wanted to give myself to my beloved on my wedding night fully and wholly. I didn’t want the regret of knowing that I had wasted my virginity on someone who didn’t appreciate it, on someone who would leave me right afterwards. It took six years of being in a relationship with my beloved before I was finally, subconciously conviced that he wasn’t going to leave me if I had sex with him. We had sex, and after all of that, it wasn’t a big deal. It didn’t make our relationship stronger or deeper, nor did it make it shallower or less loving. It was a perfectly enjoyable time, made easier by the fact that we were comfortable enough with each other to not try and rush anything and be willing to laugh.
Looking back, would I have done things differently? Maybe yes, maybe no. Do I have any regrets about waiting so long, or not waiting long enough? No. Do I feel that the messages that I got about being a virgin until marriage were harmful? Maybe. I lasted as long as I did because I split hairs a lot to justify actions. I certainly can’t comprehend not being able to kiss my beloved, as I was told in college was a gateway to breaking one’s abstinence. And I still wonder if some of my other psychological oddities come from absorbing an anti-sex-before-marriage view from childhood.
If one wants to remain abstinent, yay. It’s a very good thing to do, especially when one is at an age where one thinks they are invincible and condoms are things that other people use. I’m sure it can be spiritually fulfilling as well, if one wants to see it that way. Just as long as there’s no shame or guilt attached to going the other way as well.
But even as they’ve been encouraged to do what women in the past were not able to do (go to school and earn at least a bachelor’s degree, if not something higher),
Up until the 1960s, most people did not go to college. So to say that women were not “encouraged” to go to college is a mis-reading of history. During the Great Depression, for example, both men and women had to drop out of high school and even grade school to go to work.
The system we have today, with numerous state universities and community colleges, is a relatively recent development. And, of course, there have always been women’s colleges.
The GI Bill has allowed many people to go to college since World War II. Of course, since men were drafted for the armed forces and women were not, men took advantage of it more–those men who were not killed, crippled or otherwise disabled. This is one more reason to draft women, by the way, as they will gain all these benefits.
As for women being “encouraged”, this is the usual cop-out. Presumably, women are so weak willed they need someone to tell them what to do.
a woman remaining chaste in this world
So do you think a man remaining chaste is no kid of accomplishment, or doesn’t it matter to you if men remain chaste?
alexander is right that ‘encouraged’ is the wrong word. There’s no point in going to college if your family has the right to prevent you from going, or if you seek a professional degree you are barred by law from using.
Lightofdarkness–for every person who can’t stop comparing their spouse to other lovers, there’s someone who waited until marriage who can’t stop wondering what somebody else would have been like.
I came on here through Amptoon’s site and I definitely will be back! You’ve got an excellent way of putting thngs and highlighting issues most people don’t see! Excellent analyisis of the implications that our shift to drasitcally earlier menarches has meant for people.
I wouldn’t know about ‘heroic’ now. It depends a lot on why a person is celibate to my thinking. Speaking for myself, when it was something that I *ought* to do, then I could feel that conflict very clearly, but when push came to shove (way back in my late teens), I asked myself what *I* thought and the answer was *I* didn’t think that I wanted to have sex at that point in time. Something that’s still the case for me today. I don’t feel myself to be tormented and I don’t envy, resent or find myself disapproving of people who are sexually active because I don’t see it as an option denied me.
Indeed a bigger problem is people imagining that I disapprove of them! Go figure. You might imagine that my position would be one religous conservatives would like but once that I’m not ‘saving’ myself for anyone but rather doing what seems to be best for myself at this point in time and don’t think that landing a husband is the be all and end all of a ‘proper’ womanly life, they’re just as spooked.
I have deleted Israel Mover’s comment as hate speech that has no place on this blog.
I do offer a course on men and masculinity, “Mermade’s man”; I will do so again in the spring of 2007. It’s taught under Humanities 1. And, for what it’s worth, please know that I honor you and your relationship. I share Lynn’s sentiments. You two model one way, and you do it beautifully (and I still say, heroically!) But it is still a choice, one good out of many possible goods.
Bibleman, I was baptized in full-immersion. I confessed Jesus as my savior many years ago. I see nowhere in Scripture where loving gay relationships are condemned (hint, brother, do you know the koine Greek Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 6:9 or Romans 1? It doesn’t have a darn tootin thing to do with modern homosexuality).
Dude, work on your bible knowledge. Your quote from Ephesians is from the wrong chapter, and the controlling purpose of the entire chapter is likely to be 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
But in the end, my brother, I’m not interested in playing “proof-text poker”. We’ll both end up descending towards self-righteousness. I’d rather simply honor our differences as brothers in Christ. The Lord has given you a passion for His word, and I honor that even as I suggest that you have interpreted it narrowly and out of context. Peace be upon you.
I’d like this thread to not turn into a debate about abstinence, but rather a discussion of the fact that the pressures that women face today are unique and new.
FWIW, Hugo, I don’t think it’s just an ethnicity issue; class has a bigger role. I remember my mother’s main speech about sex and abstinence being “don’t get pregnant”. Sexual morality was definitely in the backseat (sorry) to the issue of screwing up my future career by having a baby.
I had to wait until this got quoted for it to stick out to me:
people often reach to gullible, younger kids as part of the abstinence plan.
I would imagine language like this makes such people as Mermade unconfortable and unsure whether or not her choice is given any regard at all. Referring to people who might choose, or be led, to abstinence as “gullible” belies a respect for their choice to be so, and clearly implies a belief that someone who has been taught abstinence is somehow lacking and incomplete in their education.
And I’m not arguing abstinence over indulgence per se, I’m pointing out that often the thinly veiled (At best) contempt towars those who remain abstienet translates as pressure to have sex.
Gonzman,
I’m sorry, but I think teen-aged girls and boys ARE gullible about sex and sexual interaction. If you think they’re sexually savvy despite their lack of life experience and don’t need to be given tools in order to handle themselves, then you must be in another universe. Example: I don’t think it’s good to tell kids, “go to college and you’ll be rewarded with the perfect career!” “College guarantees you the career that you want!” I’d rather have people focus on the benefit of the education itself, and the fact that it opens up many doors that may not open, or help you progess faster than those that don’t, etc.
The fact is that kids can be gullible, and as adults- you want to give them a realistic picture and give them the tools to adequately deal with possible results.
So, I’m not coming from a place where I’m condemning kids that stay abstinent. I’m coming from a place of talking to those that aren’t experienced. You can be an adult, and if you’ve never mountain-climbed before, then you’re going to be gullible on the subject compared to others who have years of experience.
So, at the same time you want to tell kids that abstain from the issues that they may have to face, a reasonable adult would talk to kids about the different circumstances for kids who don’t remain abstinent. Both should be given with the idea of giving tools dealing with real-life issues that come up, and building skills that foster positive experiences and interactions for the kids. It should be based on reality FOR THE KIDS, not sell them on an ideal that may or may not happen. I don’t glorify sex for those that aqren’t interested in abstinence- I talk about all the negative aspects of it, some positive aspects, and try to develop an open dialogue where the kids have tools to deal with difficulty and disappointment, not simply have them do what I want. I don’t say, “sex is great! Orgasms rock! Once you have sex, you’ll never go back! Hurrah!” Building up an unrealistic ideal of the wedding night is akin to telling kids, “sex is great and you’ll love it.” Both give an result of an ideal situation that may or may not be true. I seem to be the go-to person in my circle of friends when my friends want an adult to speak to kids about sex (and they’re not comfy doing it themselves). Many of my friends’ kids, I’ve convinced more or less to stay abstinent, at least for the time being. I’m not trying to sell these kids a dream- I’m trying to help them not be disappointed with their choices.
When you’re having people make a very committed decision, you don’t focus on the end result all the time. When someone’s trying to lose weight, you don’t tell them that they’re going to have the body of their dreams once they’re fit. You try to focus on things like their health, their increased stamina, their developing strength, and the benefits of those things rather than their appearance, even if that’s the reason they want to lose weight. That way, even if they get results that fall short of their ideal expectation, they aren’t as dissappointed because they’ve been given the tools to see all the other benefits.
It’s a similar case with abstinence. You want kids to see and focus the benefits of abstinence in their daily lives NOW and dealing with issues that come along. It’s interesting that you want to accuse people of a thinly disguised contempt, when I would actually say that the same applies to you, and more so.
Mermade and Light of Darkness,
I just want you to know that I’m not speaking of you directly. You rightfully own the ideals that keep you on your path, and you’re a strong woman for keeping to your consicence. Don’t let people tell you that what you’re doing is wrong for you. It’s your life, your body and your sexuality. I’m happy you’ve both found like-minded people, and you are supportive of each other.
So what about masturbation in all of this? Abstinence is a lot easier when you’re a committed wanker, and then you have the added benefit of learning about your sexuality in a safe environment.
^^ Great point. I’ve always talked about masturbation when speaking to both abstinent and non-abstinent teens. Just beecause you’re abstinent doesn’t mean you can’t masturbate, and just because you’re sexually active or have been doesn’t mean that masturbation isn’t a valid choice, either.
To Technocracygirl, The Gonzman and Catty –
Thank you for your insightful comments on my thoughts. I was a little scared to read what people had to say about comment, but I was happy to find that you each were very understanding and made some great points about what I wrote.
And thank you, my wonderful lightofdarkness, for clarifying a few things about what I said. I love you!!
CAtty, if kids can be gullible, they can be just as gullible or easy to lead in the other direction.
We don’t have a balance in sex education in this country, like most D@%#! things, it moves to extremes, from the “You’ll burn in Hell if you do!” camp, to the “You’re going to do it anyway, everyone else is, here’s a condom!” camp.
“CAtty, if kids can be gullible, they can be just as gullible or easy to lead in the other direction.”
Absolutely. The point is to give kids tools and facts and give them proper guidance. I’ve never told any kids what to do- I’ve listed out all the pros and cons of each choice, and most of the kids I’ve spoken to have at the least held off being sexually active for the time being. I don’t scare kids or sell them a dream that may/may not happen. I try to be upfront with the consequences of each decision and give them tools to be able to overcome objections of others that may not believe in their decision. I believe that people are gullible about things that they don’t have exerience in- and with kids, they also don’t often have the maturity yet to add to lack of experience.
I think that if I am honest, straightforward and non-judgemental, that kids can make up their own decisions. I have nothing against giving kids condoms if that’s what they’re ready for. On the other hand, I also think abstinence is a completely profound and right choice for many. I don’t have an agenda in terms of wanting to control kids’ sexuality. My agenda is that they’re properly informed and they can digest the information and make proper choices for themselves.
“Referring to people who might choose, or be led, to abstinence as “gullible” belies a respect for their choice to be so, and clearly implies a belief that someone who has been taught abstinence is somehow lacking and incomplete in their education.”
You also misread my statement. I’m saying that all kids are gullible, and as such, it’s important to give them a realistic picture and real tools to deal with their decision. Don’t twist my statement around.
I’m talking about how anstinence is, IMHO, promoted in a problematic manner to kids, not a judgement call on the decision of the kids. It’s clear if you read the whole thing- I never once say that abstinence is a bad idea and sexual activity is a great one. Gonz, you’re imposing your bias, and not the other way around.
Hugo,
There are very few sel-identified Christians that I think Christ would recognize. You are one of them. Great post.
Y’know, I’m probably coming in way too late with this question, but it’s something I’ve always found incomprehensible in general, and in American culture in particular: what is so great about chastity? no, really, what is so wonderful about not having sex? or “saving yourself” (whatever that ridiculous phrase means) until marriage? I mean – is sex perishable goods? if you have it with one person there’s less for the next?
I honestly and truly don’t get it.
is sex perishable goods? if you have it with one person there’s less for the next?
No, but sex isn’t, well, imperishable goods either. That is, it isn’t goods of any kind, but actions that bring you into relationship with another (however brief), with some mutual responsibility for each other. So chastity isn’t inherently about some irrational emphasis on purity (though it can take on a “purity” emphasis), or the importance to a marriage of bringing in properly unused genitals (as it can look to secular eyes); it also has to do with what those responsibilities of sex actually are.
Consider the world of the past, where contraception didn’t work very reliably at all. Does it make some rational sense, in that world at least, to encourage people to reserve sex for marriage, so there will be more people who feel obligated to the resulting babies?
Now consider the present world, where contraception can actually be fairly reliable, but where people disagree dramatically about the acceptability of abortion. Setting aside, for the moment, what the actual morality of abortion may be, is it rational for people to take into account known strong disagreements with prospective partners about the acceptability of abortion, and not to sleep with people with whom they know they would clash, in the event of a contraceptive failure? And if so, would you allow that, for at least some people who know they wouldn’t personally choose abortion (whether they’re politically pro-choice or not), and who take unplanned pregnancy as a seriously adverse consequence, there’s still some incentive to caution about sexual partners, even in a world of readily available contraception?
Now consider the relationship and emotional consequences of sex. Let’s take just one aspect: the value of sex being, not just minimally consenting, but fully mutual, of both partners making a “hell yes” decision to have it. Obviously that can happen outside of marriage. But also, if you take mutuality really seriously, there are at least some casual situations in which you might not have sex – ones, say, where you can’t be fully sure of the other person’s genuine consent (or, perhaps, even of the other person’s genuine sobriety). And, that probably doesn’t take you terribly far at all toward “abstain from sex until marriage.” But if you can at least imagine some situation where you’d refrain from sex with an otherwise attractive partner out of consideration for said otherwise attractive partner, then picture how someone who sees sex as involving more of an inherent serious connection than you perhaps do might extend such situations.
Chastity can look weird because it sometimes gets presented as an all or nothing deal (oops, you didn’t make it till marriage? sorry, you don’t get the prize). And it has its genuinely dark side when you get to the folks who would prefer to leave girls susceptible to cervical cancer, because getting the HPV vaccine just might give someone the idea that having sex before marriage is OK. But it does hang together if you see it as being about what sort of relationship you connect with sex – and about connecting sex with seeing each other through the things that sex brings into your lives.
“…My privileged ones have never had to equate abstinence with success; their parents have never asked them to spend more than a decade as a physically sexual being without any outlet for their God-given desires…”
I would have to agree with this comment as a person who came from a relatively low socio-economic background, however attended what was considered one of the better public (free) schools. This was nearly 20 years ago, so no doubts many things have changed. My recollections at the time were that the children of more affluent parents would be fairly open about being sexually active while just above the age of consent, or planning to have sex just before or after graduation in the hotel rooms they (or more likely their parents) had rented. We never saw any of the wealthy young females fall pregnant. Why? Free access to contraception via their parents possibly – and I would imagine in one or two cases no doubt access to private abortions. For the less affluent females: we had a few leave from pregnancy and the very clear message communicated amongst ourselves (it did not need to come from our parents or teachers) was that these girls had now ‘ruined their lives’. The male in the picture invariably slinked away, free from all consequences except perhaps a pricking conscience – the female now left to a life of poverty and welfare.
Of course, although the more affluent females were of course having sex and rather proudly too, the view on our socio-economic stata displaying similar sexual behaviour but failing to escape the consequences was as judgmental and hypocritical as only a 16 year old WASP can be. Only sluts gets pregnant.
Catty, my bias comes from personal experience as a former teacher, and as someone who has worked in my church doing youth counselling – if you are being even handed, more power to you. It’s not been my observation, even here in Southern Indiana (Bible Belt Country) that such is the norm.
Discussion of failure rates for Birth control, condom breakage, failure to prevent STD’s, discussion of pregnancy, costs, consequences, consequences for the unwed fathers, consequences to the children born to fifteen year old couples (See a pattern – no mention of Christian Morality), emotional consequences including but not limited to the feelings when dumped by a sexual user, emotional devatstation from abortions, giving children up for adoption, physical consequences of pregnancy at a too young age – is knee-jerk and reflexively dismissed as “Bible-Thumping” and “Unrealistic.” It’s accused of being fear-mongering, and “ancedotal.” Re-assure, don’t be judgemetal, don’t “frighten” – these combine to send a message of “It’s okay if you do. Other kids are doing it. They’re fine. They can handle that.
You have a whole lot of mention of condoms, availability of brith control, a constant mantra not to “judge” those who are sexually active juxtaposed with a bare token mention not to judge those who are not, and a supression of examples of the potential fallout – really. What message do you think gets out to these kids?
There’s really only two choices when it comes to developing sexual ethics; to have sex – or not. Not having sex is not given the 50% it should be getting, by any stretch of the imagination. It is a viable option, and a purely secular case may be made for it, and yet, when you try to introduce the idea, “Hey, you may not want to because you are gambling, this, this, and this are some of the consequences” it get’s labelled as Bible-Thumping.
If that’s a bias, so be it. But from where I sit, when you tell kids “Most teens will have sex by the time they graduate High School” you’re setting up for someone to tell them they are an oddball, and in the minority, if they don’t want to roll those dice. In far too many cases, I am afraid it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
An important question is being raised here: how do we create a learning environmment for our youth that really honors the fact that they aren’t all the same? The overwhelming evidence suggests that for some kids, the consequences of pre-marital sex in high school are disastrous, painful, heartrending; for others, the experience is joyous, liberating, fun, and without notable negative fallout. We’ve got to be honest about the potential for both joy and heartache, and also honor the fact that what might be the right choice for one kid may not be the right choice for another.
You’ve got an excellent way of putting thngs and highlighting issues most people don’t see!
True. The level of discourse on Hugo’s site is generally higher than most. Which is why I keep coming back here. Too many sites degenderate into name calling or “same old stuff.”
There’s a book out recently called “The Chosen”, about the history of the ivy league universities’ admissions policies. It shows a much more complex picture than “women were not encouraged to go to college.” Such as: the history of quotas to maintain WASPs over Jews, Catholics and non-whites. Up until the 1964 Civil Rights act it was still legal to put up “No Gentiles” signs, for example. A question I would raise (although this is off topic) is why aren’t Jews and Catholics then included in affirmative action?
I actually do speak about birth control failures, emotional consequences, etc. to all kids. I always tell kids that sexual activity is an adult activity and comes with adult decisions. There are consequences to be had with everything.
Also, all the fears that come with sexual activity is also present as an adult. It doesn’t go away because you’re 21. That’s also another thing I tell kids, that all the pregnancy and rejection fears are something that will be carried on as a sexually active adult, even within marriage (often more amplified as a teen in some ways because of the lack of maturity, emotionally, physically and mentally.
I also educate kids and speak about ways to reduce their risk. I always make it a point to discuss using more than 1 birth control method. I’ve also talked to the kids’ girlfriends and boyfriends at times to discuss the issue out of the request of the teen.
When I talk to kids, I always bring up abstinence as a valid choice and I always make sure to discuss it with them throughly. I focus on the fact that it’s not a minority choice- Just as I focus on consequences of sexual activity, I also talk about the benefit and consequence of waiting, not neccessarily until marriage, but waiting. I focus on giving them the confidence in their decision to weather them through peer pressure, and tools to deal with peer pressure. Kids are not statistics- they are individuals and I try to work with every one in that respect. I give each choice equal time, I differ on where I focus my energies. I also focus on peer pressure and self-esteem. Regardless of their choice, kids that have a solid sense of self and good self-esteem weather through consequences of either options far better than those that do not. I also tell kids that they can make mistakes and they can cahnge their mind, but to really think and give things deep consideration before making a switch. I encourage them to talk to me or other adults they trust.
to me, when I talk about sex to teens, I lay out facts and I also lay out as much tools as I can. I chastize some of my friends, because far too many parents, even liberal ones, don’t talk about sex with their kids, or give a proclamation and never really speak to them about it. Kids do listen to parents, and parents can have a very positive aspect in this topic.
I did not abstain until marriage, but in high school, my close friends were a mixed group. Some of us did not abstain, others did. What we were able to do was support each other. None of my abstinent friends were judgemental of me, and they were as supportive as could be. In return, and I never ridiculed their choice and also was supportive and encouraging on their choice. I never saw my choice as the better one, and neither did they. I was able to build considerable admiration and respect for those that chose to wait, whether it was waiting until marriage or waiting for the right person or waiting for a circumstance when they were independent. The difference is that I honestly don’t subscribe to either choise as the better one, but honestly would prefer kids to wait and really think about things before running into make a rushed decision out of peer pressure.
Hugo, my question is this, how do we deal with the pressure of knowing our parents sacrifice so much so that we can succeed?
My parents have always given me everything I ask for and expect nothing in return except that I excel in my academics so that I can be successful, live a good life and help them out when they get old. What fustrates me is that this seems like such a simple request that I should be able to fulfill it with ease. Yet, because the notion seems so simple, there is more pressure and if I can’t do something as simple as studying and getting good grades, I am a failure. Having an education is simply not enough. I have to be at the top of my class. Sometimes I wonder if that’s part of my parents’ paradigm or mine because I am always striving to be the best. I guess I fear letting my parents down if I settle for average and as a result, I let myself down. I just want to be happy but I can’t be unless my parents are. I love my parents immensely and am forever grateful for everything they’ve sacrificed for me, I would just like to prove that to them and give them something in return.
I think I found the answer to my question while reflecting on my relationship wtih my parents and typing this post. But at the same time I’m still confused.
Anyway, when the time comes when I can express my confusion into coherent words and sentences, I wll comment again. I just want to let you know that I enjoy reading your blogs and especially attending your Women in American Society class. I find myself making significant discoveries about myself, society and life everytime we meet. These ideas not only affect the way I think about myself and others but has changed the way I perceive and interact with people. And I certainly think it’s for the better.
Okay, Catty – point taken; and if that is your sex education class, it’s not one I’d mind my kids -well future grandkids, the kids is a moot point – taking. The thing that concerns me the most though is that you really can’t unsleep with someone. Once you take that road, it forever changes your relationship with them – heck, it impacts the rest of your life. I wasn’t abstinent my own self, but after I first had consensual sex in HS (Not counting he babysitter who molested me when I was in 5th grade) it was all different – and it impacted the later relationships I had, in ways nobody could prepare me for.
I fathered my daughter when I was 15, and she was born when I was sixteen. After her mother discovered she was pregnant, she disappeared, and I never found out about her until I was almost 21. And without giving a life story, her mother became very embittered; I was about to be married, my wife to be adamaently opposed me having any contact – her mother wanted me to consent to child support,. and my fiance was opposed to the point of cancelling the marriage if I did – my daughter an I eventualy developed a relationship, and a close one too, now. She came to live with me in her teens, and in full-bore rebellion/hormone stage; She changed her name to mine when she was 18, which put a big rift between her and her mother which has only widened – it has been a ride and a half. And I’m barely scratching the surface of the highlights.
I wasn’t ready for it. We used condoms – they failed. It happened to me. And no fifteen year old is ready for it. Her mother had a very supportive family, whose onlymistake, IMO, was locking me out of it from the day of the pregnancy test. I thank God for my girl, but that she was born created a whole mess of problems for her, her mother, me, and my first wife and they were problems that would not have been there if she wasn’t born when we were both still in high school.
And I think that somewhere we are too afraid to truly communicate to these kids just how much this choice which they can’t unchoose can cost them, and cost the people around them.
Gonz, thanks for sharing that — that’s powerful.
Connie, that’s an idea for a future post. Thanks for commenting; I hope all is well with you — and thanks for an idea I’m gonna let germinate in my head a while…
Well, a lot of us who are traditionalists in these matters really do put more thought into it than “God says so.” A lot of times it comes from ballocksing things up by thumbing your nose at those same traditions, and learning from painful experience that there is frequently a reason for it.
I never knew waiting would be so difficult until I started dating my first bf in college. We’re sophmores now and we’ve been dating for over a year and really love one another. We would like to get married but we have to wait 3-4 years before we can even consider that an option because our parents wouldn’t allow it. Must finish our educations first!
From the start we both agreed that we wanted to wait until marriage (we were both virgins), but the more we got to know eachother, the closer we became (best friends), and the harder it was to abstain. Well to make a long story short we slipped up and that first time we didn’t use any protection because that would have been “sleazy.” I found the first time to be painful and awkward. Not at all what I had expected and not like the fairy tale wedding night I had imagined. Afterwards I was afraid of being pregnant, I bought a pregnancy test and luckily it was negative.
From that time I have felt tremendous guilt about having done it. I feel dirty, and sluttish for giving in, even though he was my first and I dont’ sleep around. I feel terrible for even having the desires and I try to repress them. It has really caused me much anxiety, because once you do it once it is difficult to stop and I don’t really want to stop either. Plus if others in the Church knew the condemnation would be unbearable. Doesn’t matter if I only did it once, I wouldn’t be a pure virgin anymore–the horror! Which makes me a whore. My parents who didn’t wait before marriage themselves know how difficult it is to wait and don’t care whether I do it or not as long I’m not sleeping around and we are using proper protection. Although they did get married when they were around my age (my mom was engaged when she was my age)I’m glad they’re so understanding and that I can talk to them.
On the other hand my bf comes from a very strict Christian family. Girls wear skirts, no drinking, exc. If they knew they would be so disgusted and I would forever be a whore in their eyes. I would be so embarrassed and ashamed. I wonder if they would even want us to be break up, which breaks my heart because I love him and want to be with him.
Abstinence is hard and it has caused me a lot of anxiety. But I don’t want to marry just so I can have sex. I have taken the time to get to know him and I think the person you marry should be your best friend, not someone who gives you a chemical high of feelings that eventually fade. I want a love that deepens with time. Marriage is so much more than sex, but if you practice abstinence that’s a common reason why people get married after only dating a couple months. And I think marriage should be more than the fairly tale wedding ceremony and wedding night.
Everything is just so difficult. You are told to wait until marriage but even when you want to get married that isn’t an option so you are just left to burn, and feel guilty for having those feelings while people point fingers at you. And then you are told not to hang around eachother a lot or avoid being alone! Then how can you get to know the other person?
Cassie, please know you are not alone. What you’ve written here is what I’ve heard from many young women raised as you were, trapped in a maze of conflicting expectations and rigid judgments. I hope very much that you will begin to seek out fellow Christians who share your faith, but whose understanding of human sexuality is broader. Your commitment to God and your longing for intimacy need not be at cross-purposes; your heartfelt comment makes it clear that you’ve been raised to believe that they are.
My email is in the upper-right hand corner of this blog if you — or your boyfriend — wish to chat further.
As usual, I’ll say that guys like your boyfriend have the same issues.
While I’m in the position of aging (by Christian standards) single guy with few serious relationship prospects, may I suggest engagement? Then you’ll have a public, permanent commitment even if you can’t afford to buy a house or a $20,000 wedding or whatever. (sorry to sound so dismissive of the obstacles…I was definitely a “finish your education, blah blah” when younger, but I realized that life partners are pretty rare).
I think that you and/or your BF need to confront your parents with the double-bind they’ve placed you in. Are they for marriage and family or not?
Marriage is not an option at all for us. I don’t think either of our parents take us that seriously because “we’re too young,” and your expected to date many people in this society till you find the “right person,” (perfect person) which never happens to be the first one by the way.” Our parents say you don’t usually marry your first and probably expect us to be broken up soon and dating other people. I think that is ridculous because it’s like you must date 10 people so you gain more experience (more likely lack of trust and a broken heart) and the 11th will be the right one. Well I was really blessed the first time.
We are supposed to focus on our educations and if you get married then our parents will not be allowed to pay for our educations because we’ll both be responsible now that we were married. About that…that’s a lot of money to pay for with part-time jobs! It’s really complicated, but we really can’t afford to be married even if its just a civil ceremony. I don’t want to break up with my bf now just because we can’t get married though that sounds ridicuolous and if we break up we’re not going to ever get married. Is society ridiculous or what? Or maybe I shouldn’t be blaming society but it REALLY COMPLICATES THINGS! Marriage doesn’t really mean anything anymore, education is more important.
Cassie,
Please re-read my comment. I suggested a long ENGAGEMENT, not marriage. Set your wedding date for 2-4 years in the future or whenever you think you’ll finish your education.
As far as the dating around thing, I’m surprised…I would think that your BF’s fammily would be of the “courtship” mentality (which has it’s own double/triple bind: “You’re supposed get married, but it’s wrong to get to know someone other than as purely platonic friends”).
Think about the engagement thing…you could probably get a cheap silver ring with a cubic zirconium for the price of a couple of pizzas. Consider a pawn shop.
I like the engagement idea, but isn’t a couple years a long time for an engagement? Besides, I don’t think our parents would be happy if we were engaged either, because they don’t want us thinking about marriage (engagements seem kind of final), probably for the reasons I mentioned above. And they are:
We’re too young to understand love (although mom was engaged when she was my age go figure and I find age isn’t necessarily a factor in maturity cause some people mature faster and some people never grow up). We need to date more people to gain more dating experience (in losing trust, gaining emotional baggage, and learning how to play divorce in my opinion). Being engaged will distract you from your studies (what’s the difference if we’re dating or engaged?). And you don’t find the right person to marry if they are your first or unless you are in your mid-twenties. It makes me feel depressed and I feel like a child rather than an adult who has the ability to make their own decisions. I mean am I a young adult or a child? If we were engaged though would that give us the permission to have sex?
There really is nothing I can do in my situation though sadly. I’m just explaining my situation regarding the topic of discussion and wondering if I have any points of revelence or if I’m just a rebellious baby who doesn’t have enough self-control. I feel dirty and it makes me guilty when my engaged roommate (she’s getting married in less than a year and dated for a year before being engaged) talks about how she’s deserving the right to wear her white dress. Oops, I didn’t. Well anyways I have to get an education and we probably have to wait a couple years…yeah like we can really ever go back to being abstinent once we opened the box so to speak. That’s really difficult. Maybe I should just face the fact that I’m a slut. Maybe we’ll have to choose between God or being together. I’ll sure miss him…