Interesting Piece about Abstinence and the Purity Movement

[astrid]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/?iref=obnetwork

 

 

 

astrid

[jillian]

Not really a commentary on the article, but I'd like to see how they did their "research"

[butterflymommy]

I'm not surprised 80% "have had sex" by age 29. What would surprise me is if young evangelicals were as promiscuous as much as the non-religious population is. I doubt they are, but the article doesn't say if the study went into that.

 

I know two women raised in very conservative Catholic households, and they did have sex before marriage-- but only with the man they would eventually marry, respectively (and are still married to many years later).

 

It would also be interesting to see when exactly the evangelicals started having sex compared to secular young adults. The difference between having sex for the first time at 18 VS 29 is huge.

[Veritaserum]

I think abstinence/purity message backfires when it doesn't also include a healthy view of sexuality. There is a difference between "sex is sinful; don't do it" and "it's normal and healthy to want sex; here are reasons to wait."

 

I was a virgin when I got married, which is not uncommon in my religion. However, I had to work through some negative attitudes and beliefs about sex in order to really enjoy it. Of the two attitudes above, I received the first. I strive to use the second attitude with my dds.

 

I absolutely loathe the aspect of the purity movement that ties self-worth with sinless behavior. We all sin. Perfection is not possible, so it's not surprising when some people mess up. It's heartbreaking to see the fallout when they do. I really hate the objectification of women that goes along with some purity supporters, too.

[amey311]

Not really a commentary on the article, but I'd like to see how they did their "research"

 

And the particulars of what respondents said, how "sex" was defined, etc. I know there are loads of people who consider themselves virgins until they have v@g!inal coitus. @n@! s3x, oral s3x, etc don't "count."

[Mergath]

I think abstinence/purity message backfires when it doesn't also include a healthy view of sexuality. There is a difference between "sex is sinful; don't do it" and "it's normal and healthy to want sex; here are reasons to wait."

 

 

:iagree: Leaving the idea of sex as some vague and murky thing, with teens only knowing that it's so bad but oh so good, definitely doesn't do anything to stop them from doing it.

 

Teens who are taught extensively about sex might not do it less, but at least they know how to do it intelligently.

[Lady Florida.]

Teens who are taught extensively about sex might not do it less, but at least they know how to do it intelligently.

 

:iagree: I think it does young people a great disservice to be given selective information about sex.

[i.love.lucy]

I think abstinence/purity message backfires when it doesn't also include a healthy view of sexuality. There is a difference between "sex is sinful; don't do it" and "it's normal and healthy to want sex; here are reasons to wait."

 

I was a virgin when I got married, which is not uncommon in my religion. However, I had to work through some negative attitudes and beliefs about sex in order to really enjoy it. Of the two attitudes above, I received the first. I strive to use the second attitude with my dds.

 

I absolutely loathe the aspect of the purity movement that ties self-worth with sinless behavior. We all sin. Perfection is not possible, so it's not surprising when some people mess up. It's heartbreaking to see the fallout when they do. I really hate the objectification of women that goes along with some purity supporters, too.

 

I'm curious where you see the attitude that sex is sinful...specifically as it relates to training purity? And als where you see the attitude that ties self worth to sinlessness. I'm asking if you have read that in certain books, or was it more an attitude among purity supporters...asking so I can AVOID those books!!! I want to discuss waiting for marriage, but in the right way.

[tofugirl101]

I think the article brought up an interesting point. In biblical times, people got married younger, so there wasn't more years of temptation?

[Veritaserum]

I'm curious where you see the attitude that sex is sinful...specifically as it relates to training purity? And als where you see the attitude that ties self worth to sinlessness. I'm asking if you have read that in certain books, or was it more an attitude among purity supporters...asking so I can AVOID those books!!! I want to discuss waiting for marriage, but in the right way.

 

I haven't read any books. The attitude is what I've observed from some church leaders/teachers, church members (older ones or sheltered ones in particular), and various news articles or TV programs.

 

I want my dds to choose waiting because they accept and believe in the reasons why that can be good/healthy. I don't want them to choose waiting out of fear or ignorance because those reasons:

 

1. Don't hold up as well against temptation.

2. Tend to promote an excessive amount of shame or guilt over normal human physical reactions.

 

I've sought to normalize human sexuality instead of making it this big, secretive thing. I stay very casual about it. I've never had The Talk and I never intend to. I answer questions. I throw in my opinions about why I believe certain behaviors are safer/more moral. I also talk about natural consequences (good and bad) and that my love is unconditional no matter what. If one of my dds were to get pregnant before marriage or want access to birth control, I want her to feel like she can tell me and not get the Wrath of Mom. Obviously, I hope never to be in that situation, but I think my approach of education and openness is more likely to foster a positive outcome. :)

Edited September 29, 2011 by Veritaserum

[MSNative]

Am I just jaded? They focused on a 20 y.o. who engaged with her boyfriend? I get that they did it before marriage, but hey, at least they are adults. Around here, we had a prostitution ring in middle school. Yep, 12 y.o. boys offering up 12 y.o. girls. Yuck.

 

First thoughts on this - I'd be real curious about their methodology. How did you identify these kids, etc. I know a lot of people who were "Christian" in high school who weren't really Christian. (um, talking about me and my friends.) Second, I'd be curious if purity programs delay activity. I have no idea. Delaying activity would be a good thing, imo

 

Philosophically, do we have to distinguish between ideals and practical info? I think Mergath said that kids who had s3x ed would at least engage in that activity intelligently. The education I am giving my kids explains the ins and outs (hee hee. Sorry, that made me laugh) but also explains the risks (stds, pregnancy, etc.) and the moral aspects. I tell them that they shouldn't engage in it til they are ready to deal with all the consequences and make it clear that I mean wait until they are married and ready to handle a baby. Does that mean they won't be able to engage in it intelligently should they choose to engage in it before they are married? Am I unclear on what "purity" education is? The only purity type curriculum I checked out included all the biology, it just added the message that this is not to be done til the participants can deal with the potential consequences. No snark intended in this post - a real question that I am trying to pose clearly.

[creativish]

Teenage years are so crazy.

Teens know everything, they're invincible, they're parents are idiots and the hormones, they are a'raging.

It's amazing to make it out of that phase alive.:eek:

 

Then its off to lovely co-ed college:svengo:

Edited September 29, 2011 by creativish

[OrganicAnn]

There was an article the divorce rate among bible belt Christians is higher than the national average and the article suggested it was related to abstinence programs that lead to getting married young.

[Nakia]

I'm not surprised. I was a 15 year old "true love waits" graduate having sex with my now husband. Even Christian teens have hormones. Let me make it clear that I am in no promoting this as the right choice.

 

I will say that my church did a beautiful purity ring ceremony. I was thinking, "Oh great, here we go with this silliness!", but it was really special. I don't even know how to describe it, but the way it was done was very classy and very...I don't know, just real. No shame, nothing fake, just true.

[Garga]

I'm not surprised. I was a 15 year old "true love waits" graduate having sex with my now husband. Even Christian teens have hormones. Let me make it clear that I am in no promoting this as the right choice.

 

I will say that my church did a beautiful purity ring ceremony. I was thinking, "Oh great, here we go with this silliness!", but it was really special. I don't even know how to describe it, but the way it was done was very classy and very...I don't know, just real. No shame, nothing fake, just true.

 

Interesting. I've always thought purity rings and ceremonies, etc, were sooooo creepy. But I've never been to one. Just the idea sounded icky to me. (I'm Christian.)

[creativish]

There was an article the divorce rate among bible belt Christians is higher than the national average and the article suggested it was related to abstinence programs that lead to getting married young.

 

What is the rate of people in the bible belt that get married vs rest of country?

Could those in non-bible belt locations skip the marriage stuff and shack up then break up and move on skipping the divorce?

 

Not to say one is better than the other, but it would make sense that the divorce rates would be higher where marriage rates are high and lower where marriage rates are low (or occur late after serial serious relationships).

[8circles]

Interesting. I've always thought purity rings and ceremonies, etc, were sooooo creepy. But I've never been to one. Just the idea sounded icky to me. (I'm Christian.)

 

:iagree:I have friends who've participate with their daughters. They skeeve me out. The ceremonies, not my friends. :D

[FO4UR]

I really hate the objectification of women that goes along with some purity supporters, too.

 

 

This is a point I'd like to bring to light. The hype over "True Love Waits" objectifies women as much as porn. The women's worth is still wrapped up in her sexuality...the packaging is just marketed differently.:glare:

 

 

Sexuality is extremely personal. Some of the purity stuff is outright manipulation ime, and even a child can sense when someone is overstepping into their personal space...anything else from that person will be outright rejected. It's no surprise that people make their own decisions about their own bodies.

 

That said, I am a "wait until marriage and stay faithful" kind of gal, and am teaching/will be teaching my dc about sex...the consequences - the reality - early and often. Most people will not touch the stove top if you tell them it's hot...most people make mostly self-preserving kinds of decisions, if they know.

 

Telling a girl that she will be "less than" if she "does it" is just wrong. Give her the information, and then back off of her personal space. .02

 

(....and the implications for victims of molestation/rape just make me boil with righteous anger!!!)

[Nakia]

Interesting. I've always thought purity rings and ceremonies, etc, were sooooo creepy. But I've never been to one. Just the idea sounded icky to me. (I'm Christian.)

 

Me too!! That's why I was totally not looking forward to it. I thought it would be incredibly weird, but the one at my church truly wasn't. I've seen some on TV that made me shudder. My church is very quirky and unique though. I LOVE it!

[Veritaserum]

Interesting. I've always thought purity rings and ceremonies, etc, were sooooo creepy. But I've never been to one. Just the idea sounded icky to me. (I'm Christian.)

 

Yeah, they creep me out, too. The public nature is weird to me. This is a very personal topic, so it feels voyeuristic or obscene in a way to declare your "sexual purity" for everyone to see. When the girls pledge to their dads is what really ups the ick factor for me....

[Veritaserum]

This is a point I'd like to bring to light. The hype over "True Love Waits" objectifies women as much as porn. The women's worth is still wrapped up in her sexuality...the packaging is just marketed differently.:glare:

 

 

Sexuality is extremely personal. Some of the purity stuff is outright manipulation ime, and even a child can sense when someone is overstepping into their personal space...anything else from that person will be outright rejected. It's no surprise that people make their own decisions about their own bodies.

 

That said, I am a "wait until marriage and stay faithful" kind of gal, and am teaching/will be teaching my dc about sex...the consequences - the reality - early and often. Most people will not touch the stove top if you tell them it's hot...most people make mostly self-preserving kinds of decisions, if they know.

 

Telling a girl that she will be "less than" if she "does it" is just wrong. Give her the information, and then back off of her personal space. .02

 

(....and the implications for victims of molestation/rape just make me boil with righteous anger!!!)

 

:iagree: Amen, sister. Double amen to the bolded. Yuck.

[PinkInTheBlue]

I have always been disgusted and furious that there ever was and still is all this epitome of worth wrapped in a woman's v1rg1n1ty. We teach our guys the consequences of not waiting, the value of waiting but also the practicality of what to do if you don't.

 

I spent my high school years in a southern baptist church just before the True Love Waits thing hit. I was married to a youth pastor when it was really big and we had no real choice but to teach and support it. It always felt like it was all emotion, fear and fluff but no serious nuts and bolts for life. After the warm and fuzzier wore off from the conferences, retreats or study classes almost every one of them went on to do what they wanted.

[OrganicAnn]

What is the rate of people in the bible belt that get married vs rest of country?

Could those in non-bible belt locations skip the marriage stuff and shack up then break up and move on skipping the divorce?

 

Not to say one is better than the other, but it would make sense that the divorce rates would be higher where marriage rates are high and lower where marriage rates are low (or occur late after serial serious relationships).

 

I'll try to find the article. They took that into consideration.

[Kirch]

There was an article the divorce rate among bible belt Christians is higher than the national average and the article suggested it was related to abstinence programs that lead to getting married young.

 

That's an interesting possibility. I think much of the Christian community is so caught up with wanting to have the comforts of the world (success by the world's standards rather than God's) that Christian young adults are in a tough spot. On the one hand, they know that they should wait for marriage, but on the other hand, the "acceptable" age for marriage even in Christian circles keeps getting pushed higher and higher. Wait until you finish college. Then wait until you have a good job. Until you can afford a down payment for a house. Until you're done doing whatever you want to do before you're tied down.

 

I read an article a while ago suggesting that we allow/encourage Christian young adults to marry earlier--but only if they go into it with the idea that divorce is not something to even consider (barring infidelity, abuse, etc.) AND only as long as we as the church are willing to come along beside them to counsel and mentor and even (as parents) help them get started financially, etc. If they marry early without accountability and support (which is perhaps what the article mentioned in the quoted post is talking about), it's no wonder that the divorce rate in that demographic is high, given how easy it is to divorce today.

 

 

ETA: I meant to include this--part of counseling/coming alongside Christian young adults who are thinking of marriage includes helping them understand that marriage is about more than romantic love and s*x. It's not based on feelings--it's working (HARD) to build a life together and learning to live and work together, even when things are hard. Feeling love is an important part of that, but marriage is more than that. We (as a culture) have bought into the "happily ever after" Disney ideal of love. That's not realistic, and if younger adults are going to marry we need to help them learn what to do when they are faced with the reality that feelings fluctuate, Prince Charming isn't always charming, and the princess isn't always sweet and happy!

Edited September 29, 2011 by Kirch

[*Lulu*]

This is a point I'd like to bring to light. The hype over "True Love Waits" objectifies women as much as porn. The women's worth is still wrapped up in her sexuality...the packaging is just marketed differently.:glare:

 

Sexuality is extremely personal. Some of the purity stuff is outright manipulation ime, and even a child can sense when someone is overstepping into their personal space...anything else from that person will be outright rejected. It's no surprise that people make their own decisions about their own bodies.

 

That said, I am a "wait until marriage and stay faithful" kind of gal, and am teaching/will be teaching my dc about sex...the consequences - the reality - early and often. Most people will not touch the stove top if you tell them it's

hot...most people make mostly self-preserving kinds of decisions, if they know.

 

Telling a girl that she will be "less than" if she "does it" is just wrong. Give her the information, and then back off of her personal space. .02

 

(....and the implications for victims of molestation/rape just make me boil with righteous anger!!!)

 

Absolutely. As a surivior of sexu@l abuse that occurred within the church, I have run into the most painful and unkind reactions to my experience from Christians whose views of sexuality are wrapped up in the purity movements' philosophy. Like many other things in the modern evangelical church, it is a Biblical principle carried to un-Biblical proportions.

 

I know of more than one teen girl who had an abortion rather than admit she was no longer pure to her family.

[FO4UR]

Absolutely. As a surivior of sexu@l abuse that occurred within the church, I have run into the most painful and unkind reactions to my experience from Christians whose views of sexuality are wrapped up in the purity movements' philosophy. Like many other things in the modern evangelical church, it is a Biblical principle carried to un-Biblical proportions.

 

 

 

 

:grouphug: I can't imagine how it would feel to even have to sit and listen to the stuff...having experienced that. Salt on a wound.

 

I agree that the way it's handled is mostly un-Biblical, at best.

[amey311]

There was an article the divorce rate among bible belt Christians is higher than the national average and the article suggested it was related to abstinence programs that lead to getting married young.

 

Anecdata: Between my freshman and sophomore years of college, one of my high school friends got married. My little brother and John's little sister were friends and I was driving her home one night and asked her about it. She said, "I think it's because John and Wife both really believe in being virgins until you're married and they just didn't want to wait any longer." I'm pretty sure my jaw dropped a little - this seemed like a pretty minor reason to marry someone, IMO.

 

John and Wife are still married, as far as I know (he's married now and his wife's name sounds like the woman he was marrying way back when).

[PeacefulChaos]

First of all, I really dislike Relevant magazine. Just had to get that off my chest. :D

I went and found the original article. It can be found in this issue, if anyone is interested:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/digital-issue/53

I found it to not be too bad for the magazine that it is in. Some of what the other article (was it CNN?) said I thought was expounding on the original article, but it wasn't. There was a lot of their own spin on it (no surprise there! lol)

[Lily_Grace]

Any time you call something a movement you risk it being a fad. The purity movement doomed itself with overbearing and strange ideas. I'm another who is disgusted with purity pledges to their daddies. Not only is it creepy, but the idea lacks taking into account changing bodies and maturing ideals. Most girls I've seen take the pledge do it around age 14 - young enough to barely have had a first boyfriend and certainly nothing serious. They don't know how love will affect them but they're making promises anyway. It would be like me promising I won't move to a retirement home in Florida before I'm 80, even though there could be compelling reasons to do it when I'm 65. Making a promise that far out without being mature enough to look at the options objectively is stupid.

[amey311]

Who are we? We’re twentysomething Christians seeking God, living intentionally and striving to impact the world around us. We try to publish ideas that break stereotypes, challenge the status-quo and spur a generation to know God and change the world.

 

Is it a sign that I'm old if I read this and think, "yeah! you are some real, cool dudes" but in a mocking tone? Maybe that's just my anti-religion bias showing.

 

I feel like I should read this and just see what "status quo" they're challenging, what stereotypes they're breaking, how they define "intentional living," etc.

[SKL]

Parents need to be parents first and foremost. When it comes to sexuality, parents shouldn't leave it to anyone else - not the church, and not the sex ed teacher at school, not Planned Parenthood, nobody. Of course it's great if you can find an outsider to back up what you tell your children, but an outsider can't be a substitute for parenting.

 

I think that part of the reason why some kids "do it" despite being in an "abstinence program" or whatever is that some of the parents heaved a sigh of relief and thought, "check that off the list." Just like some people assume drivers' ed is all their kids need to be smart, safe drivers.

[twoforjoy]

Sociologically speaking, the one big difference – and it’s monstrous – between the biblical teaching and our culture is the arranged marriages of very young people. If you get married when you’re 13, you don’t have 15 years of temptation.

 

I was really glad to see McKnight say this. I don't know why this isn't something more people are willing to acknowledge. It seems pretty simple to me: if it's really important to you that people remain virgins until they marry, encourage early marriage, at 18 or so. If it's important to you that young people be "established" and financially independent before they marry, then it is, I think, pretty unreasonable to expect them to wait to have sex, because at this point that often takes until their late 20s or even later. I don't think there's ever been or ever will be a society in which it is the norm for people to wait until their mid-20s or later to begin having sex. We are certainly not going to be the first society where that happens. It's putting a terribly unfair burden on young people to expect that.

 

I'm not surprised 80% "have had sex" by age 29. What would surprise me is if young evangelicals were as promiscuous as much as the non-religious population is. I doubt they are, but the article doesn't say if the study went into that.

 

Most people aren't that promiscuous. The average woman has four partners over the course of her entire lifetime. What's funny is how obsessed we are with female promiscuity and female purity when men have significantly more sex partners on average and are far more likely to have many partners.

 

Am I just jaded? They focused on a 20 y.o. who engaged with her boyfriend? I get that they did it before marriage, but hey, at least they are adults. Around here, we had a prostitution ring in middle school. Yep, 12 y.o. boys offering up 12 y.o. girls. Yuck.

 

That isn't the norm. The median age for girls to begin having sex is, as of the most recent survey, 17-1/2. That's actually higher than it was twenty years ago. For most of history women that age would have been married. To me, it's not too surprising that young women that age would be having sex, especially when marriage seems so far off in the future to many of them. If you're 17 and can expect to be getting married in the next couple of years, I imagine it would seem a whole lot easier to wait than if you are thinking you might not be married until you are 30. I do think we need to take seriously the ways in which delaying marriage changes things.

[twoforjoy]

I think that part of the reason why some kids "do it" despite being in an "abstinence program" or whatever is that some of the parents heaved a sigh of relief and thought, "check that off the list." Just like some people assume drivers' ed is all their kids need to be smart, safe drivers.

 

We're not talking about kids, though; we're talking about adults. Do we really think that many unmarried people in their 20s who have not been called to celibacy are going to just not have sex because their parents told them not to? I think these programs don't work because a pledge you signed at 14 or 15 is probably not going to carry you through for the next decade or more, should you not marry until your mid-to-late 20s.

 

Again, I really think that if it's very important for a parent that their child be a virgin when they marry, then they need to do what they can to encourage their child to marry young, including being okay with a child marrying before finishing their education and being financially independent and supporting them in that. It's just not fair or realistic to expect a person to remain a virgin if they don't get married until 31, for most people.

[Aggie]

Any time you call something a movement you risk it being a fad. The purity movement doomed itself with overbearing and strange ideas. I'm another who is disgusted with purity pledges to their daddies. Not only is it creepy, but the idea lacks taking into account changing bodies and maturing ideals. Most girls I've seen take the pledge do it around age 14 - young enough to barely have had a first boyfriend and certainly nothing serious. They don't know how love will affect them but they're making promises anyway. It would be like me promising I won't move to a retirement home in Florida before I'm 80, even though there could be compelling reasons to do it when I'm 65. Making a promise that far out without being mature enough to look at the options objectively is stupid.

 

I really have no opinions on the Purity Movement, but this bolded parts caught my eye. Let me see if I can put my thoughts into words here.

 

We all know teens make some pretty "stupid" mistakes. That's why they're still at home with parents...so we can help stop them from making some of those mistakes.

 

It's their *immaturity* that generally gets them into trouble, right? So the abstinence promise, I think, gives them time to mature and think things through. Because teens think they're invincible, they don't always weigh the risks. They don't always realize the seriousness of diseases nor the consequences of pregnancy.

 

You said, "They don't know how love will affect them but they're making promises anyway." Merck is counting on teens not knowing how love will affect them. Gardasil is not being marketed towards more mature young women (22-25yo) but to very young teens.

 

Your retirement home analogy doesn't work here. You can always change your mind when you're 65 or 70 and move earlier. With s3x, pregnancy, and stds, you can't change your mind after the fact.

 

I'm not at all eloquent and it's late. Just my 2cents.:001_smile:

[twoforjoy]

It's their *immaturity* that generally gets them into trouble, right? So the abstinence promise, I think, gives them time to mature and think things through. Because teens think they're invincible, they don't always weigh the risks. They don't always realize the seriousness of diseases nor the consequences of pregnancy.

 

They aren't promising to wait until they are mature to have sex, though; they are promising to wait until they are married. For many of them, that means promising at 14 that they won't have sex when they are 24. That is just not a promise that it's reasonable for somebody that age to make, because at 14 you can't imagine yourself at 24 or 26 or 28.

 

We're talking, largely, about people who have matured but are still unmarried. The reality is that many people will be entering their mid-20s unmarried. These are people who are mature and indisputably adults. Taking a pledge at 14 to abstain until marriage might make sense if you are going to be marrying at 17 or 18, but if you might not marry until 26 or even later, then you're promising something that I don't think you can have any real understanding of. At 14, I had absolutely no idea who I'd be or what my life would be like when I was 25.

[IsabelC]

I'm saddened that the only measure of success that most people seem to find relevant is whether, and by how long, the commencement of sexual activity can be delayed.

 

Surely, if anyone is interested in the outcomes of purity programs, there are other factors that should be examined. I'm not that concerned about whether my daughter starts having sex at 18 or 28: I'm more concerned about whether she's physically, mentally and emotionally healthy. Whether she can have relationships (both romantic and other relationships) that are based on mutual respect and love/regard. Whether she can be assertive about keeping herself safe and not being pressured into doing things she doesn't want to (at any age). Whether she enjoys consensual sexual activity as part of a balanced healthy life (or remains celibate, if that is her choice).

 

I don't like the level of pressure that teens are under to be 'sexy' and have sex, and I believe that many people would benefit from waiting longer, however I'm far from convinced that exerting pressure in the opposite direction is the way to fix the problem. It may encourage imprudent marriage (not to mention encouraging those other forms of activity that some teens see as loopholes but are nevertheless too x-rated to discuss on this forum).

Edited September 29, 2011 by Hotdrink

[Spy Car]

Not really a commentary on the article, but I'd like to see how they did their "research"

 

:iagree:

 

 

 

Bill (who is enjoying the new emoticon :D)

[Heather in Neverland]

I think abstinence/purity message backfires when it doesn't also include a healthy view of sexuality. There is a difference between "sex is sinful; don't do it" and "it's normal and healthy to want sex; here are reasons to wait."

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[vonfirmath]

I have always been disgusted and furious that there ever was and still is all this epitome of worth wrapped in a woman's v1rg1n1ty. We teach our guys the consequences of not waiting, the value of waiting but also the practicality of what to do if you don't.

 

The churches I grew up with taught guys to wait, as well as girls. There was no difference between the two.

 

And we were taught purity/abstinence (both at church and at home) before it was any national movement. And the consequences of actions. I remember a visual about how one doesn't just "Have sex" but there is a continuum of actions before you get to that point. And that, when the hormones are raging and you're with someone you REALLY like, is NOT the time to be deciding how close to the cliff you want to walk. But rather, its something to be thought through ahead of time. How far are you willing to go? Being alone with the person of the opposite sex? Holding hands? Kissing? Heavy petting? Etc. I don't remember exactly which items they used or what order they were in. But I still remember the object lesson of it being walking along a cliff and that, instead of deciding how close to the edge one can go without falling off, it is safer to stay farther away. But that you needed to decide WHAT that point was for you ahead of time. Later on (much later. I was 29 years old!), when my now-husband and I were dating, this saved us from a LOT of trouble. We even discussed what our boundary points were early in the relationship so that both of us were guarding against going past that point.

 

And our pledges were made to God. Not to our dad or any other person.

 

Anecdata: Between my freshman and sophomore years of college, one of my high school friends got married. My little brother and John's little sister were friends and I was driving her home one night and asked her about it. She said, "I think it's because John and Wife both really believe in being virgins until you're married and they just didn't want to wait any longer." I'm pretty sure my jaw dropped a little - this seemed like a pretty minor reason to marry someone, IMO.

 

John and Wife are still married, as far as I know (he's married now and his wife's name sounds like the woman he was marrying way back when).

 

This sounds very like what happened with my parents (though perhaps a couple of years later -- latter part of college instead early). They had gotten to the point in their relationship where they needed to either get married or break up. They could not keep going out and physically delaying indefinitely. So they got married. They have now been married about 45 years.

Edited September 29, 2011 by vonfirmath

[Mama Geek]

I don't know much about the purity movement or how it is or isn't handled. I grew up going to church and knew that marriage should come before sex. Sex is so much more than just a physical action. My dh was my first, but it was before our wedding. We both regretted not waiting until we were married. I didn't really have any understanding of the emotional and spiritual changes that came with sex. This is what I will want to teach my dd. Becoming sexually active does change who you are and how you see the world. Having sex before marriage brings baggage into a marriage that is unnecessary.

 

I grew up in a home that said you have to go to college and graduate and then you get married and have kids and have a career. Well, I got married before graduating college and that caused some tension with my family. My parent's also divorced and my outlook on marriage really was if I am not happy, I can just get out. It took me a lot of years to get past divorce being an option, but I am finally there. It is important to me that dd values an education and goes to college. It is more important to me that she learns how important marriage is, how to be a good wife and mother (I still work on these), and how to pick a good spouse.

[Ipsey]

Yeah, they creep me out, too. The public nature is weird to me. This is a very personal topic, so it feels voyeuristic or obscene in a way to declare your "sexual purity" for everyone to see. When the girls pledge to their dads is what really ups the ick factor for me....

 

Yep.

Big issue there.

Much is made of the girls' side of this. What of the boys?

Yes, boys are encouraged to wait, but there's no, "boy purity!" There's no, "how will you get the magic color on your wedding day if you're not a virgin?"

 

If girls are pledging their virginities to their father, why aren't boys pledging theirs to their mother?

 

Because girls are ruled by their fathers. . .boys too, but it just counts more for girls because one day she will be ruled by her husband. (No, not in all Christian circles, but that's part of the underlying mentality of this ritual. A woman's body is less her own that a man's is his. That's the only way for this to make sense.)

 

Gross, gross, gross.

 

Ipsey (who was a Christian virgin on her wedding night)

[SailorMom]

Well - let me just throw this out there...

the article asks why so many 18-29 yo's (Christian, and let's throw non-Christians in there as well) have TeA before marriage....

Could it be because we have been telling all of our young people how silly it is for them to get married young? I got married at 18 - I can't imagine waiting longer than that!!!

TeA confined to marraige in the Bible was absolute (except for all of those guys begatting kids through their wives handmaids and such), I'm not trying to say it wasn't. But usually girls would marry at what - 14? And guys - well - even though not Biblical, even then they didn't wait until marraige.

[angela in ohio]

What is the rate of people in the bible belt that get married vs rest of country?

Could those in non-bible belt locations skip the marriage stuff and shack up then break up and move on skipping the divorce?

 

Not to say one is better than the other, but it would make sense that the divorce rates would be higher where marriage rates are high and lower where marriage rates are low (or occur late after serial serious relationships).

 

Exactly. When the survey came out, many made this point. Shack-up "divorces" didn't count in the survey.

[8circles]

Yep.

Big issue there.

Much is made of the girls' side of this. What of the boys?

Yes, boys are encouraged to wait, but there's no, "boy purity!" There's no, "how will you get the magic color on your wedding day if you're not a virgin?"

 

If girls are pledging their virginities to their father, why aren't boys pledging theirs to their mother?

 

Because girls are ruled by their fathers. . .boys too, but it just counts more for girls because one day she will be ruled by her husband. (No, not in all Christian circles, but that's part of the underlying mentality of this ritual. A woman's body is less her own that a man's is his. That's the only way for this to make sense.)

 

Gross, gross, gross.

 

Ipsey (who was a Christian virgin on her wedding night)

 

Exactly how I feel about it as well.

[SKL]

We're not talking about kids, though; we're talking about adults. Do we really think that many unmarried people in their 20s who have not been called to celibacy are going to just not have sex because their parents told them not to? I think these programs don't work because a pledge you signed at 14 or 15 is probably not going to carry you through for the next decade or more, should you not marry until your mid-to-late 20s.

 

Well, if the parents do their job, this isn't a one-time conversation ending in a "pledge." It's a mindset, and yes, it can endure for many years. I'm 45 and I still believe that it's best to wait until marriage to have sex, and failing that, at least until the individual has reached a point of maturity where they can handle the emotional, social, and physical results in a healthy manner - which few can (in our society) before they are 20.

 

One of the reasons for this "movement" is the reaction to the attitude that "teens are animals, you can't expect them to control themselves." But yeah, physically they are animals, and if we want them to act like something more, we have to treat them as if they should and can, on an ongoing basis.

[Daisy]

The churches I grew up with taught guys to wait, as well as girls. There was no difference between the two.

 

And we were taught purity/abstinence (both at church and at home) before it was any national movement. And the consequences of actions. I remember a visual about how one doesn't just "Have sex" but there is a continuum of actions before you get to that point. And that, when the hormones are raging and you're with someone you REALLY like, is NOT the time to be deciding how close to the cliff you want to walk. But rather, its something to be thought through ahead of time. How far are you willing to go? Being alone with the person of the opposite sex? Holding hands? Kissing? Heavy petting? Etc. I don't remember exactly which items they used or what order they were in. But I still remember the object lesson of it being walking along a cliff and that, instead of deciding how close to the edge one can go without falling off, it is safer to stay farther away. But that you needed to decide WHAT that point was for you ahead of time. Later on (much later. I was 29 years old!), when my now-husband and I were dating, this saved us from a LOT of trouble. We even discussed what our boundary points were early in the relationship so that both of us were guarding against going past that point.

 

And our pledges were made to God. Not to our dad or any other person.

 

 

Exactly the same here. What everyone is describing in this thread is completely foreign to me. We were taught a very healthy view of sex from our parents and our church. We were taught (rightly so) that sex outside of marriage is sin and sex within marriage is part of a covenant and special enough to protect.

 

Women were not objectified. Victims were not vilified. Men were not let off the hook.

 

We were also treated like young adults. Our parents and youth leaders didn't assume we were all doing it and they didn't assume we'd never be tempted. They put into place standards, expectations, supervision, and a strong biblical education.

 

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations. I'm all for teaching and modeling a Biblical standard of purity, while also recognizing that gimmicks rarely work. It can't be about adhering to a rule or attending a party. It has to be a genuine heart-felt commitment to the standards found in the Word of God.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Daisy

[Veritaserum]

I agree that establishing limits ahead of time is very useful. However, I am extremely conscious of and object to the negative analogies. A physical expression of love should not be compared to a deadly cliff. I don't want my children to fear sexual intimacy as this horrible, sinful, deadly act because these attitudes can have a long-term, harmful impact on sexual intimacy in marriage.

 

I'd rather have a comparison with something positive. Like, I don't know, your favorite amusement park ride. How close are you going to get to the loading zone? :)

 

The churches I grew up with taught guys to wait, as well as girls. There was no difference between the two.

 

And we were taught purity/abstinence (both at church and at home) before it was any national movement. And the consequences of actions. I remember a visual about how one doesn't just "Have sex" but there is a continuum of actions before you get to that point. And that, when the hormones are raging and you're with someone you REALLY like, is NOT the time to be deciding how close to the cliff you want to walk. But rather, its something to be thought through ahead of time. How far are you willing to go? Being alone with the person of the opposite sex? Holding hands? Kissing? Heavy petting? Etc. I don't remember exactly which items they used or what order they were in. But I still remember the object lesson of it being walking along a cliff and that, instead of deciding how close to the edge one can go without falling off, it is safer to stay farther away. But that you needed to decide WHAT that point was for you ahead of time. Later on (much later. I was 29 years old!), when my now-husband and I were dating, this saved us from a LOT of trouble. We even discussed what our boundary points were early in the relationship so that both of us were guarding against going past that point.

 

And our pledges were made to God. Not to our dad or any other person.

 

 

 

This sounds very like what happened with my parents (though perhaps a couple of years later -- latter part of college instead early). They had gotten to the point in their relationship where they needed to either get married or break up. They could not keep going out and physically delaying indefinitely. So they got married. They have now been married about 45 years.

[DawnM]

This thread brought up a funny (ok, not at the time for the girl, but funny now) situation that happened at a conservative Christian college.

 

One of the guys was falling hard for a girl. To put it bluntly, he was also lusting after her.

 

He decided that her outfits must be the problem and decided it was his obligation to tell her that she was dressing immodestly (she wasn't by all accounts.)

 

So, he took her aside one day and told her that God had told him to tell her that her outfits made him lust after her.

 

UGH!

 

Dawn

[Heather in Neverland]

We were taught (rightly so) that sex outside of marriage is sin and sex within marriage is part of a covenant and special enough to protect. Women were not objectified. Victims were not vilified. Men were not let off the hook.

We were also treated like young adults. Our parents and youth leaders didn't assume we were all doing it and they didn't assume we'd never be tempted. They put into place standards, expectations, supervision, and a strong biblical education.

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations. I'm all for teaching and modeling a Biblical standard of purity, while also recognizing that gimmicks rarely work. It can't be about adhering to a rule or attending a party. It has to be a genuine heart-felt commitment to the standards found in the Word of God.

 

I love this.

[Daisy]

I agree that establishing limits ahead of time is very useful. However, I am extremely conscious of and object to the negative analogies. A physical expression of love should not be compared to a deadly cliff. I don't want my children to fear sexual intimacy as this horrible, sinful, deadly act because these attitudes can have a long-term, harmful impact on sexual intimacy in marriage.

 

I'd rather have a comparison with something positive. Like, I don't know, your favorite amusement park ride. How close are you going to get to the loading zone? :)

 

There are negative consequences to sex outside of marriage. I suppose if we want to use the amusement park analogy. It would be a bit like getting on the ride (sex) but never putting on your seat belt (marriage). Damage is likely to occur. That's all that was ever taught in our church. That there are spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences to sex outside of the covenant of marriage.

 

LOL. I like that analogy by the way. :-)

Edited September 29, 2011 by Daisy