Stating the Obvious: Premarital Sex Is The Norm
 

According to recently released research, premarital sex has been the norm for some time:

from: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19....ap/index.html

I am not at all surprised by what this research reveals. The NIH has been releasing similar statistics for years.

The study's author says:

Clearly the question is, if 90% of people are having and admit to having premarital sex, and that number has stayed steady since the 1950s, does it do any good to finance abstinence-until-marriage programs? Shouldn't we instead be arming teens with the information they need to make a good decision about choosing a method of birth control, choosing an appropriate partner, and engaging in safe sex that prevents the spread of STDs? Shouldn't we stop preaching a doctrine that does nothing more than use scare tactics?

Personally, I find the information released in this study very interesting, and I think it adds to the debate over abstinence-until-marriage education. I think we have a responsibility, in our public health education, to realize that people DO have sex before marriage, and so trying to teach abstinence-based education is trying to fight a battle with a blindfold on--one we put on ourselves.

It's that rather noisy 10% that we somehow feel that we have to appease.

That 10% makes all feel guilty because we "secretly" know that sex is a vile and dirty thing that no "good" person would do outside of the vows of marriage.

I think you have it wrong. It isn't the 10% alone that are making all the noise. There are many who have had pre-marital sex who are making noise as well.

They do this either because they are hypocrites or because they think they want to prevent others from making their "mistakes".

By they way, I think 10% sounds a little high.

I agree with Charlatan, 10% is an inflated number. I'd guess it was closer to 7%, but there's no way to be certian. We shouldn't abandon abstainance programs, but the amount of monery going into them is an obvious waste. That money could be going into planned parenthood or sex education classes outlining safety and making teens across our great land feel awkward and laugh nervously.

Considering the fact that I attended an evangelical university, I think my sample was highly skewed in the direction of at least 50% or more of couples waiting till marriage... and I was on the same bandwagon until I finally started thinking (or would that be feeling?) through things. ;)

It blows me away, actually, how many of my formerly-close friends waited till their wedding night... and I know they did wait, believe me, because they were all repressed as hell. Looking back on it, I am glad that I didn't start having sex when I was too young to handle it, but I wish it hadn't come at the price of such psychological repression. I think there are a lot better ways of teaching healthy sexual habits to young adults without resorting to brainwashing (even though the brainwashers are equally brainwashed, hence the problem). :|

No, because the information is already available yet people don't take heed of it.

Edit: I don't know why we bother with sex education at all, since it doesn't really work.

I'm not entirely sure if thats true. I mean sex education definitely had an effect on me and others that I know. Lots of people choose to ignore what is taught in sex ed but I think it does have an effect on lots of other people.

Perhaps sex ed needs to be taught in a way that is more relevant. Dont make it seem like a science class, and dont talk down to kids and try to scare them.

The problem isn't that people aren't aware of the consequences-- The problem is that people simply don't care enough about the consequences to change their actions.

A smoker will smoke no matter how much evidence you show him that smoking is detrimental to his health, a speeder will continue to speed no matter how many driver's ed classes you sit him through and people will continue to make ill choices regarding sex no matter how many sex ed classes you make them take.

You can try to educate people as much as you like. That's not going to make them make responsible choices. IMHO, all this money spent on trying to get people to remain abstinent until marriage or on sex ed is a waste of government funds which could be spent elsewhere.

Eh... Infinite, while that statement may be true for smokers, its a proven satistical fact that education about safe sex decreases the rate of STDs. Don't ask me for the stats, just look at any place where prostitution is legalized and socialized. They educate the women and the industry is very clean.

Not having sex before marriage is like buying a car without test driving it first!!

Errr....you guys have government funded abstinence programs?! :eek:

Weird, weird, weird. The mind boggles. :|

YES!! They call it SEX EDUCATION. :lol:

That pre-marital sex is the norm can only be shocking to the most blind hypocritical born agains.

Blind, I get - though I think 'sheltered' gets closer to the matter - but hypocritical?

It's been a while since I've enjoyed our TFP, but I'd like to put my "Blind Evangelical" two cents worth in here.

I wonder about the sample group the original stats were taken from...

I also am offended by the comments about "blind evangelicals" spoken of here. Just because evangelicals believe that it is best that a person not have sex until they are married, does not make us less intellegent. It makes us more devoted to our religious beliefs, even if there are those amongst us who do not uphold those beliefs regarding pre-marital sex.

Regardless of what most of society is doing, there is a great number of believers who still uphold what scripture says about "keeping the marriage bed pure". You all just don't know about them because they don't belong to TFP, and as one of the rare few evangelical Christians here I can assure you they exist.

Still miffed about the blind evangelical thing though.... I mean, I'm here, and I'm not blind. But I am offended.

It's quite a good thing we were happily humping away for eons upon eons before that institution called marriage was dreamt up.

Thanks to the retard fish and all they begat.

Four words that will cause a shit storm....

Prove the retard fish.

That storm, sir, would be a threadjack and entirely inappropriate for this time of love, gift-giving, and boosting of quarterly revenue. ;)

so they can go teach their kids whatever crap they want in church, but out here in the real world most of us realize that the millions of our tax dollars being spent on abstinence education are going straight to the same place as the coke bush blew and would be much better spent on something useful.

even if it does, it's still possible to get cervical cancer without ever having had HPV, just much less likely.

Fwiw, I took it as a label for evangelicals who don't believe in the frequency of premarital sex, not simply those who believe it immoral. If someone meant the latter, then yeah, I'm miffed as well.

Fwiw #2, I'm not an evangelical and I was surprised by these stats. It's certainly valid and not an indication of blindness to have some skepticism wherever statistics are involved.

I have no objections to teaching abstinence, but to refuse to fund education into alternative lifestyles is very naive. I may feel that cars are dangerous, but I still think everyone who rides in one should wear a seatbelt.

Premarital or not, there are a lot of good reasons for young kids to hold off on having sex, and preventing STDs and pregnancy are only two of them. That said, a lot of teenagers won't wait to have sex for the same reasons they won't use protection, or they will use drugs, or they will drive drunk, or they will fight or steal or do any number of other stupid things that kids do. They are young and don't have very good judgment. I think teaching abstinence to teenagers is a good thing to do, but they should also know about STDs and birth control. Ignorance doesn't help anyone, but at the same time, who did you ever know that first heard about condoms or anything else sex related in health class?

And here's a second evangelical Christian who agrees with Intense1.

Maybe we're a vocal 10% or 7%, but I think our 'voice' has been fading for years and years. I think the 90% gets pretty up in arms over the 10%. And as a member of that 10%, I'm certainly not militant or pushy about my beliefs. I abstained from sex until I was married. I didn't force anyone to do like I did. I think it's the right thing, and I think that because of my morals and belief system, but I didn't raise my voice to make you think that. The 10% knew and know our numbers are dwindling, but we're not shocked or surprised by it. We tend to think that the world is devolving instead of evolving, and humanity's depravity and immorality are our proof. Don't hate us because of that. Don't judge us because we are following a belief system that does not condone sexual promiscuity and recklessness. Don't judge us because we try to follow what we believe God is telling us to do.

Now, to totally mangle a paraphrase of someone elses words, "My abstinence does not bother me; does your conscience bother you?"

You might not be militant about your beliefs, but a great many that align themselves with you, are. Instead of thinking rationaly, and informing themselves, they act on pure delusion. They think if they just push hard enough with their ineffective abstinance only education, they can stop teens from having sex. Might as well try and make the earth rotate backwards.

The problems that are the result of irresponsible sex, such as widespread STD's and teen pregnancy are huge burdens for our society. Those are problems most non-evangelical people want to alleviate. Whats wrong with taking practical approaches to reducing those problems? Maybe teach kids (who we know are going to have sex, anyways), how to do it responsibly and at least make them aware of the risks. Go ahead and teach abstinance along side everything else, they arent mutually exclusive lesson plans.

Most evangelicals see the act of sex, itself, as the problem. I can see the logic in that, I really can. If no ones having sex till marriage then the other problems solve themselves. Good luck with that though really.. and as this study shows, your fellow countrymen do not see it that way.

Its funny, the voice you think is fading, I think is yelling louder than ever. Maybe its finally starting to get drowned out by a culture of people that, as indicated by this study, do not share your views on sex, never really have and are finally starting to speak up about it. Guess time will tell.

Not at all! :icare:

The world must be a very awful place for you. :(

This is a straw man. I don't think that anyone thinks that abstinence only education will keep teens from having sex, they feel that conceding that everyone is doing it so we should teach them how implies approval which may make some kids feel that there's nothing wrong with it or that they shouldn't think twice about having sex if the school says it's okay.

I'm not going to make a judgment about whether this is true or not, I already posted that I don't personally agree with this idea, but the irrational argument that you are refuting in your post is not the one being made by the people on the other side and while I think the argument could well be wrong, I don't think it's irrational.

If teaching kids about the benefits of condoms persuades some to use them, would not teaching about abstinence persuade some kids to not have sex before marriage? I don't see this as a bad thing. If we are attempting to improve society by diminishing the spread of STDs and reducing unwanted or teen pregnancies certainly a multiplicity of stratagies is appropriate.

The multiplicity of strategies certainly appears to be the most practical approach - the problem is that most evangelicals consider abstinence the only permissible option. That may be their belief, which is acceptable and even laudable IMO, but if most of us are honest, we all did things in our youth we shouldn't have done. If these same people who only preach abstinence found out their kids had had sex, would they not love them enough to hope that at least they had used protection?

Why DO evangelicals care so much about sex?

(That is, why do they care more about what unmarried people do with their genitals than the more serious problems of poverty, racism, education, and equitable health care access... all of which I'd like to believe Jesus would care a heck of a lot more about than SEX?)

... btw, I ask this as a former evangelical who was very concerned about what unmarried people did with their genitals... and still don't understand the obsession, even now (after becoming an unmarried sex-having person, though now I've conformed to being a married sex-haver). :D

Because it's easy to look down on people, but it's not easy to get rid of poverty and racism and fix the education and healthcare systems.

You can be devoted to your religious beliefs all you want. If you don't believe sex before marriage is good, by all means, don't have sex before you're married. But don't tell everyone ELSE that they have to follow YOUR religious morals. I think that's the reason for the hostility toward evangelicals. Because instead of just practicing what they preach, many of them want to force everyone else to practice it as well.

That, and lets face it, certain parts of the evangelical moevement (not all) have transormed into a political group, and less so a religion. Interested in attaining influence and power. They are going to draw the same kind of criticism and ire that any other political group may draw.

Those of you who are well meaning will still get caught in that crossfire, I would try not to take most of it personally.

As a "Former" evangelical, you shouldn't need to ask this question as I'm quite sure you know why pre-marital sex is such a big deal for many Christians. It's one of the most spoken about topics in the Bible. According to the Bible, sex is ordained for marriage-- No and's, if's or but's about it. It's not an obsession with what other people are doing so much as it's people wanting to uphold a moral code of conduct.

After all, Christians (Much like the followers of any other religion) are commanded to go out and spread the Word.

And, for the record, there are a fair number of Christian organizations which provide food and clothes to third world countries, sponsor homeless shelters, build schools and other places of learning as well as provide health care services to those in need.

Edit: Could someone tell me how they get their statistics? I've always wondered where some of these numbers come from...

Not to threadjack, but...read Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart and No Longer At Ease to get a Nigerian's perspective on how wonderful the "help" has been to their culture and what the hidden cost of that help was.

Back to the topic: I can't really add anything that hasn't already been said. However, I can't help but think: what if someone never marries? Do they never get to have sex?

Well... I AM Nigerian (Igbo, to be exact) so I've got a pretty good understanding of the history/culture ;)

...But that's off-topic.

Oh, I do know why it's such a big deal for American Protestant Evangelical Christians, yes. Now, for the rest of the world, I am really not sure if it has the same preoccupation. It is NOT one of the "most spoken about topics in the Bible," though yes, it is clear that sex is ordained for marriage (unless, of course, one's wife is sterile and then you'll have sex with her maid in order to reproduce, like many of the men in the Old Testament did... funny that no one mentions that, eh?).

As for "wanting to uphold a moral code of conduct," no. If that were true, then these Christians would be just fine upholding their own code of conduct, not enforcing it on other people. That goes beyond morals to being morally superior and bordering on arrogance. In my opinion. Which is why I am a former evangelical, frankly. :)

... sorry? What does this have to do with the discussion about premarital sex?

Fair enough, but there are very few Christian organizations who provide all of the above without some kind of agenda to, as you said, spread the Word. Which is their prerogative, of course, but there are still strings attached. Also, my point is that your average American Protestant Evangelical Christian is not out in the inner-city of America, or the poorest areas of other countries, concerning themselves with giving away their hard-earned wealth in a personal manner (not simply sending off checks to charities and missionaries) and working to equalize access to health care and education in their own local communities. No, I simply never saw that with the churches I attended. Christians love to have money in this country, and that bothers me deeply. But that's another topic.

This I don't know, but I'd have to say it's pretty common sense, overall. Sure, most of my evangelical friends waited till marriage to have sex... but that's a very small sample of the world, and I'm well aware of the bias inherent in that observation.

Strangely enough, a lot of people like to have a lot of sex. Money changes hands and love goes elsewhere, often.
Sex education might help a little, but abstinence!:eek:I think the DNA drives itself around as if it knows what it's doing, and I believe it does - Of course it's also blind until it gets eyes.

Fascinating. I'd love to discuss this with you, but another time, in another thread.


Anyways, back to the topic at hand. My daughter lives with her mother in a state that is on the abstinence-only cheerleading team. When my daughter came of age and we started discussing sex with her, I was truly alarmed to learn what she was being taught in her sex education classes.

Basically, the abstinence-only program she underwent used fear as the main teaching tool. My daughter had been told that it was a certainty she could get pregnant in the following situations: swimming in a pool with a boy with an erection, dry humping while clothed, any sexual contact whatsoever. It worked to an extent in that she was terrified that she could get pregnant because she used the pool at the local Y. We sought to dispel the bullshit she had been taught with information and truth.

The thing about teenagers is this: They tend to believe an educated person on the basis that they are educated. That is, until they find out they were lied to. Once they realize this, they will doubt everything else you've told them. The irony is there is enough scary shit in the truth, but the zealots who wish to impose a Victorian morality wouldn't dare discuss those truths because it would require them to discuss sex in an open and honest way. Openness and honesty are the enemies of zealots. Fear and misinformation are their allies.

Oh, and, my daughter is now having sex, making the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs moot. It's wasted money in an effort for zealots to attempt yet another avenue to introduce their indoctrination into schools.

I'd be happy if they could just teach reproduction/reproductive biology and such without getting into what is essentially morality- "premarital" sex, etc. The term itself is odd because most people will be intimate with, date, and love at least a few people before they find "the one". I think the word "premarital" lost most of its meaning when we stopped doing arranged marriages. Since then, it's simply an act of physical intimacy (or just good 'ol fun, depending on how nicey-nice you want to talk about it) that takes place between two people who like each other.

It bothers me a lot, also, that the common opinion is "anything that doesn't teach abstinence promotes sex"... that someone arms a child with information on the risks of sex, and how to best protect themselves if they truly must engage in it, is effectively stuffing condoms in their pockets and putting them on a non-stop train to Whore Town, USA. That's simply nonsense. Teaching anything other than abstinence is not encouraging sex, just because it's not saying "absolutely don't do it under any circumstances at all ever or your dick will fall off and burst into flames".

JJ, an ex of mine was also taught in her school that swimming with a boy too closely (not specifically with an erection, "too closely") could get you pregnant- basically the same thing being inferred, though. They were taught that "sex means reproduction, and is therefore only for married people"... which is basically why "condoms don't work". And that is a public school.

The influence of the local churches is a scary thing on the public education system. There, it was the Mormons. They're a scary thing by themselves. :)

It's funny to read these stories. In my school you could tell where people sat on the political fence. One teacher had someone from Planned Parenthood come in to talk about birth control. It was clear that she assumed that every one was fucking like mad behind the bleachers. "When you have sex, here is how to use a condom. Note how thin it is, you don't lose any sensation. Here. Doesn't it feel nice?" Compared with next week's health teacher, on the other side, with revolting photos of the consequences of STDs. "Here's what genital warts look like..." "Ewww." "Here's what third stage syphilis looks like..." "Ewww." And so on.

Of course, this is filtered through a couple decades of time, but still.