Thou shalt Not Have Sex Until Marriage.... or Will They??

[ashbeeigh]

Health Buzz: Virginity Pledges and Other Health News

Posted December 29, 2008

Many of Those Who Take Virginity Pledges Have Premarital Sex

Teenagers who promise to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have sex before that as those who don't take virginity pledges, according to a new study published in the January issue of Pediatrics . Previous research found that those who take virginity pledges are more likely to wait to have sex than those who don't take such pledges. But this study used a different statistical method from earlier studies, which allowed researchers to compare pledge takers with non-pledge takers who were likely to delay having sex; it also didn't cover teens who weren't likely to take virginity pledges, HealthDay reports. (Praise the lord for good statistics)

The study included information from 934 high school students who had taken virginity pledges or had never had sex. "Virginity pledgers and similar nonpledgers don't differ in the rates of vaginal, oral, or anal sex or any other sexual behavior," study author Janet E. Rosenbaum, a postdoctoral fellow at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told HealthDay. "Strikingly, pledgers are less likely than similar nonpledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control."

Is abstinence-only education best for preventing teen pregnancy? U.S. News explored the debate over educating teens about sex last year. Earlier this month, our writer Lindsay Lyon explained how parents can help kids dodge pregnancy and STDs.


—January W. Payne

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/12/29/health-buzz-virginity-pledges-and-other-health-news.html



It would be interesting to read the actual article. I watched Laura Berman, psychotherapist, on the Today Show talk about this and the statistics that they used for this study. It sounds like they compared different variables, like age, high school type, family size, etc. against pledge signing. Interesting stuff.

[MiamiHeat]

Of course. They are kids. Only a few amount people have the discipline required at that age.

We are human. We developed an evolutionary trait that makes us WANT to have sex. It's a pleasurable experience.

Blame religion for demonizing such a beautiful thing.

[2centsworth]

Of course. They are kids. Only a few amount people have the discipline required at that age.

We are human. We developed an evolutionary trait that makes us WANT to have sex. It's a pleasurable experience.

Blame religion for demonizing such a beautiful thing.

you're a straight up bigot.

[ashbeeigh]

Blame religion for demonizing such a beautiful thing.

Oh Geez. Let's not turn this into a religious debate thread too. You have one already. /rant

[MiamiHeat]

Who's the real bigot?

The Church who criticizes those who have sex out of marriage or the people who criticize the Church for criticizing anyone in the first place?

ashbeeigh:

Ok sorry :P


Ontopic :

Yeah. Teenagers are horny. No surprise here.

[ashbeeigh]

Of course. They are kids. Only a few amount people have the discipline required at that age.

We are human. We developed an evolutionary trait that makes us WANT to have sex. It's a pleasurable experience.

Blame religion for demonizing such a beautiful thing.

This is the video:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/28419004#28419004

There wasn't a damn thing said about religion.

[2centsworth]

in biblical context:

Proverbs 5:18-20 (King James Version)


18Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
19Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
20And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

[MiamiHeat]

ashbeeigh :

I already said sorry in a post up there and you posted another response about it to me.

Do you want me to respond ? Where do you think the stigma of sex before marriage comes from?

[2centsworth]

Who's the real bigot?

The Church who criticizes those who have sex out of marriage or the people who criticize the Church for criticizing anyone in the first place?

ashbeeigh:

Ok sorry :P


Ontopic :

Yeah. Teenagers are horny. No surprise here.

you hate the church, we get it.

[ashbeeigh]

ashbeeigh :

I already said sorry in a post up there and you posted another response about it to me.

Do you want me to respond ? Where do you think the stigma of sex before marriage comes from?

It's cool. As long as you can contain yourself. :p:

watch the video, i think it's pretty dead on. Peer pressure, peer pressure, peer pressure.

For me, in high school, my friends were more interested in getting into UT or MIT then getting laid. So, I was more busy with extracurriculars then worrying about sex. And if I was, it would be a lot like i am now. I have to trust the person that I have sex with. In high school I would of had to have been "in love" with that person. Like "oh my god head over heels in love." But I'm a chick, so you know.

[ashbeeigh]

Study: Teenage 'virginity pledges' are ineffective
Youths who promise abstinence are also less likely to use protection

By Rob Stein

updated 7:20 a.m. CT, Mon., Dec. 29, 2008
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

The study is the latest in a series that have raised questions about programs that focus on encouraging abstinence until marriage, including those that specifically ask students to publicly declare their intention to remain virgins. The new analysis, however, goes beyond earlier analyses by focusing on teens who had similar values about sex and other issues before they took a virginity pledge.

"Previous studies would compare a mixture of apples and oranges," Rosenbaum said. "I tried to pull out the apples and compare only the apples to other apples."

The findings are reigniting the debate about the effectiveness of abstinence-focused sexual education just as Congress and the new Obama administration are about to reconsider the more than $176 million in annual funding for such programs.

"This study again raises the issue of why the federal government is continuing to invest in abstinence-only programs," said Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "What have we gained if we only encourage young people to delay sex until they are older, but then when they do become sexually active — and most do well before marriage — they don't protect themselves or their partners?"

'Get real about sex education'
James Wagoner of the advocacy group Advocates for Youth agreed: "The Democratic Congress needs to get its head out of the sand and get real about sex education in America."

Proponents of such programs, however, dismissed the study as flawed and argued that programs that focus on abstinence go much further than simply asking youths to make a one-time promise to remain virgins.

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Rosenbaum analyzed data collected by the federal government's National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which gathered detailed information from a representative sample of about 11,000 students in grades seven through 12 in 1995, 1996 and 2001.

Although researchers have analyzed data from that survey before to examine abstinence education programs, the new study is the first to use a more stringent method to account for other factors that could influence the teens' behavior, such as their attitudes about sex before they took the pledge.

100 variables
Rosenbaum focused on about 3,400 students who had not had sex or taken a virginity pledge in 1995. She compared 289 students who were 17 years old on average in 1996, when they took a virginity pledge, with 645 who did not take a pledge but were otherwise similar. She based that judgment on about 100 variables, including their attitudes and their parents' attitudes about sex and their perception of their friends' attitudes about sex and birth control.

"This study came about because somebody who decides to take a virginity pledge tends to be different from the average American teenager. The pledgers tend to be more religious. They tend to be more conservative. They tend to be less positive about sex. There are some striking differences," Rosenbaum said. "So comparing pledgers to all non-pledgers doesn't make a lot of sense[/B]." I lied..there's some religion involved.

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

"It seems that pledgers aren't really internalizing the pledge," Rosenbaum said. "Participating in a program doesn't appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program."

'Negative views about condoms'
While there was no difference in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the two groups, the percentage of students who reported condom use was about 10 points lower for those who had taken the pledge, and they were about 6 percentage points less likely to use any form of contraception. For example, about 24 percent of those who had taken a pledge said they always used a condom, compared with about 34 percent of those who had not.

Rosenbaum attributed the difference to what youths learn about condoms in abstinence-focused programs.

[B]"There's been a lot of work that has found that teenagers who take part in abstinence-only education have more negative views about condoms," she said. "They tend not to give accurate information about condoms and birth control."

But Huber disputed that charge.

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the risk."

[I. Hustle]

"Virginity pledgers and similar nonpledgers don't differ in the rates of vaginal, oral, or anal sex or any other sexual behavior,"

?

[MiamiHeat]

Lol!

[Extra Stout]

So basically this study tells us that teens who are likely to delay having sex behave the same as those who are likely to delay having sex and also make a pledge to that effect. The pledge itself is less important than the reasons some teens delay having sex.

If one does not pay attention, one comes away with the message that any attempts to inculcate values into teens that might cause them to delay having sex are futile.

[tlongII]

I will officially pledge right now to not have sex with teenagers!

[I. Hustle]

So basically this study tells us that teens who are likely to delay having sex behave the same as those who are likely to delay having sex and also make a pledge to that effect. The pledge itself is less important than the reasons some teens delay having sex.

If one does not pay attention, one comes away with the message that any attempts to inculcate values into teens that might cause them to delay having sex are futile.

NO. It is saying that whether they take the pledge or not teens are having anal sex.

[2centsworth]

Teens are powerless over their hormones. That's like saying Tim Duncan will probably get a double double.

[RandomGuy]

So basically this study tells us that teens who are likely to delay having sex behave the same as those who are likely to delay having sex and also make a pledge to that effect. The pledge itself is less important than the reasons some teens delay having sex.

If one does not pay attention, one comes away with the message that any attempts to inculcate values into teens that might cause them to delay having sex are futile.

Actually the study tells us, in the words of the author:


"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."

It says that those who are more likely to make the pledge are less likely to have accurate information about birth control.

If the purpose of abstinence-only education is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, it would seem to not only be uneffective, but actually counter-productive.

The tendency to try and impart values somehow stifles the flow of accurate information.

[Winehole23]

The tendency to try and impart values somehow stifles the flow of accurate information.It certainly can. But it needn't. The problem is parents withholding info from their kids about condoms and BC, not the value systems that abjure them.

If there's a scriptural basis for denying kids info about human health, I'd like to see it. There's no necessary contradiction between the two IMO.

[ALVAREZ6]

People are stupid.

[Richard Cranium]

People are stupid.

You've just proved your own point.

[ALVAREZ6]

Indeed.

[baseline bum]

If the purpose of abstinence-only education is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, it would seem to not only be uneffective, but actually counter-productive.

It's abundantly clear that is not the purpose of abstinence education.

[Trainwreck2100]

I've never taken a virginity pledge

[ploto]

So basically this study tells us that teens who are likely to delay having sex behave the same as those who are likely to delay having sex and also make a pledge to that effect. The pledge itself is less important than the reasons some teens delay having sex.

If one does not pay attention, one comes away with the message that any attempts to inculcate values into teens that might cause them to delay having sex are futile.

I am glad to see that someone else saw what this study actually compared. They specifically compared groups of kids with similar values and views toward sex and whether the pledge itself made a difference. They purposefully did not include at all in this study any teenager who would not have any inclination whatsoever to remaining a virigin. This study does not say what many are trying to say it does. I took no pledge but I remained a virgin until marriage- so I am one of those who would skew the numbers into saying the pledge does not really matter.


It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program.

I would agree. And before anyone jumps onto the "I must have bad views on sex" it is actually quite the opposite.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I've never taken a virginity pledge

anally no

[marini martini]

anally no


:lmao:lmao:lmao



:toast

[S_A_Longhorn]

watch the video, i think it's pretty dead on. Peer pressure, peer pressure, peer pressure.


Then get some new fuckin' "peers".

ANd put me down as another person blaming the church and religion.

[I. Hustle]

retarded

[RandomGuy]

It's abundantly clear that is not the purpose of abstinence education.

I concur.

It is simply another "say one thing, but mean another" way of introducing theology into public schools by evangelicals.

[ploto]

You do realize that there are people who abstain who have no religious basis for their decision.

[ashbeeigh]

You do realize that there are people who abstain who have no religious basis for their decision.

For once I agree with you.

[Extra Stout]

I think without the cultural support system behind a person to reinforce the values behind sexual abstinence, abstinence-only education does more harm than good.

[RandomGuy]

You do realize that there are people who abstain who have no religious basis for their decision.

Sure I do.

But they are in a vanishingly small minority.

I would be willing to bet a semi-important organ/appendage that the majority of those who took the pledge would self-identify themselves as "good Christians".

[RandomGuy]

I think without the cultural support system behind a person to reinforce the values behind sexual abstinence, abstinence-only education does more harm than good.

I think without the cultural support system behind a person to reinforce the value of accurate information and access to that information, abstinence-only education does more harm than good.

[Phenomanul]

I concur.

It is simply another "say one thing, but mean another" way of introducing theology into public schools by evangelicals.

Would abstinence be a more or less effective method for controlling the spread of STDs?

Obviously more effective...

Clearly, there are some areligious reasons for choosing to remain abstinent until marriage.

Faulty programs do not negate the truth of the underlying concept.

[baseline bum]

Would abstinence be a more or less effective method for controlling the spread of STDs?

Obviously more effective...

Clearly, there are some areligious reasons for choosing to remain abstinent until marriage.

Faulty programs do not negate the truth of the underlying concept.

That's like saying being a vegetarian is an effective way for controlling cholesterol and heart disease. Neither works, because humans have instincts that make them want sex and dead animals on their plates. The abstinence movement is akin to PETA calling meat-eaters evil.

[Phenomanul]

That's like saying being a vegetarian is an effective way for controlling cholesterol and heart disease. Neither works, because humans have instincts that make them want sex and dead animals on their plates. The abstinence movement is akin to PETA calling meat-eaters evil.

While clever, the analogy doesn't really hold water.

You are confusing Abstinence with Celibacy (and Celibacy clearly isn't for everyone).

According to the Bible (since you claim to have read it) sex is a gift from GOD. Sex is not a curse. Those who practice abstinence understand that their chastity will one day be a gift to their spouse. Patience is a virtue.

So whether or not you buy the 'religious' overtones, that is obviously much better than getting a case of herpes, gonhorrea, or syphylis from your loved one because they failed to show restraint.

To each their own.

[Phenomanul]

Besides, many teens just aren't prepared to carry around the emotional luggage that comes from sexually active lifestyles.

[baseline bum]

While clever, the analogy doesn't really hold water.

You are confusing Abstinence with Celibacy (and Celibacy clearly isn't for everyone).

According to the Bible (since you claim to have read it) sex is a gift from GOD. Sex is not a curse. Those who practice abstinence understand that their chastity will one day be a gift to their spouse. Patience is a virtue.

So whether or not you believe it, that is much better than getting a case of herpes, gonhorrea, or syphylis from your loved one.

I don't see where you think I confuse abstinence and celibacy. How does the analogy fail? There is an incredibly strong instinct to have sex in your teenage years, because that trait has been selected for the species' survival. Besides, those who practice abstinence are going to give a pretty lousy gift to their spouse when they have no idea how to please each other on their honeymoon.


Besides, many teens just aren't prepared to carry around the emotional luggage that comes from sexually active lifestyles.

This is true, because this culture has demonized sex to the point a woman is considered a slut or a whore for doing what she was programmed by her genes to do. Also, our society badly fails in delivering the message about condom use and how well it works in protecting one from STDs. All the condoms don't work myths do is make people expose themselves much further to STDs and unwanted pregnancies by going in bareback. There is nothing anyone can do to stop people from having sex after puberty, and marriage at 16 is a recipe for a miserable life in most cases.

[ashbeeigh]

Besides, many teens just aren't prepared to carry around the emotional luggage that comes from sexually active lifestyles.

I think this is the main different between the female/male view on a lot of things...including this.

For me, as a teenager, and even now. There's a lot of emotion involved in relationships. If there is no emotion involved I'm not even going to pursue it.

And this doesn't even just go for teenagers and sex, this goes for adults as well....


Guys can be in and out very quickly with no emotional involvement.

Whereas...

from:
Some website (http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/the_great_no_orgasm_from_intercourse_conundrum)


The majority of women -- according to most studies, at least 70% -- do not and will not reach orgasm....

[Phenomanul]

I don't see where you think I confuse abstinence and celibacy. How does the analogy fail? There is an incredibly strong instinct to have sex in your teenage years, because that trait has been selected for the species' survival.

In that abstinence is a transitionary period prior to marriage. Celibacy is more of a permanent decision. I would not consider a vegetarian's choice to refrain from eating meat as transitionary.

My point, however, stands. What better way to prevent the contraction of an STD than by deffering sexual intercourse (abstinence) for a later time?

Self-restraint is a virtue, why are most here trying to villify the attribute? Imagine if everyone could simply justify their actions by suggesting they were simply acting on their hormonal impulses? For that matter imagine how many 9, 10, 11 and 12 year olds would become pregnant if we as a society simply brushed off the act of sex as a biological directive (regardless of birth control since you seem to be arguing your point from a biological perspective).

Look, I understand the effects that hormones have on our youth. Clearly, however, most would agree that children cannot shoulder the responsibility of parenthood at such young ages, even if they are physically capable of conceiving (though that could be said for many adults as well). It doesn't follow that just because someone is capable of having sex that they should go ahead and do so. Direction is required as to when sex is 'OK'.

The onset of the physical capability to perform sexually doesn't necessarily suggest that it is OK for pubescent children/teens to have sex with each other at that point. They must learn the consequences of this act. This is especially poignant for humans because unlike most animals the act of sex transcends beyond the physical realm - sex unleashes a spiritual and an emotional connection between the two partners. Sex is more than just an act of 'physical pleasure' even though most are oblivious to that fact.

A mature marriage provides the necessary confines for all those connections to be explored at their fullest extent while providing the necessary setting for parenthood to succeed responsibly.


Besides, those who practice abstinence are going to give a pretty lousy gift to their spouse when they have no idea how to please each other on their honeymoon.

They will have a lifetime to learn how to please each other... Why hasten the process, what's the rush? Besides communication is key in that process, not some arbitrary measure of 'experience.' Furthermore, having all the experience in the world won't necessarily guarantee that the experienced partner will please the other. One still has to learn the personal idiosyncrasies of their partners if they truly desire to please them - and this isn't some 'in-and-out' job (pun intended).

I would consider the once-in-a-lifetime uniqueness of a sexual encounter between two abstinent marriage partners, as cause enough for heightened sexual excitement. It certainly beats the Hollywood-esque first-timer scenarios that many of us are familiar with: losing your virginity in back seat of a car, or losing 'it' at some random party, or while drunk, or worse still from having been raped or abused etc... The union of two 'virgins' would be considered a sexual fantasy in most cultures...



This is true, because this culture has demonized sex to the point a woman is considered a slut or a whore for doing what she was programmed by her genes to do. Also, our society badly fails in delivering the message about condom use and how well it works in protecting one from STDs. All the condoms don't work myths do is make people expose themselves much further to STDs and unwanted pregnancies by going in bareback. There is nothing anyone can do to stop people from having sex after puberty, and marriage at 16 is a recipe for a miserable life in most cases.

I don't mind that condoms, or other sane forms of birth control exist. Or that proper sexual education be conducted for that matter. I do, however, mind when students are handed out condoms and told to "have at it" - as was the case in my cousin's school last year. I found that to be disrespectful, reprehensible and utterly irresponsible. Now, I realize that this particular case was the proverbial exception. Even so, our society is shifting towards recklessly empowering our youth; the more they allow biological imperatives to serve as a free-wheeling justification for their sexual impulses without adequately promoting self-restraint is a recipe for disaster.

[baseline bum]

My point, however, stands. What better way to prevent the contraction of an STD than by deffering sexual intercourse (abstinence) for a later time?


It's not right to punish teenagers and tell them they're doing wrong when they pursue something almost everyone wants. The abstinence movement reeks of "do as I say and not as I do", and teens can pretty easily see through that. I don't understand why kids are always given such little credit in their reasoning skills.



Self-restraint is a virtue, why are most here trying to villify the attribute? Imagine if everyone could simply justify their actions by suggesting they were simply acting on their hormonal impulses? For that matter imagine how many 9, 10, 11 and 12 year olds would become pregnant if we as a society simply brushed off the act of sex as a biological directive (regardless of birth control since you seem to be arguing your point from a biological perspective).


Doing what feels good and being open minded towards other people's happiness is a better virtue IMO, considering we all have a very short time on this planet. As for 9 years olds having sex, you gotta be kidding me. I'm not trying to be nasty, but that's a massive strawman. From 11 to 13-14 kids may like to french kiss or pull down their pants and flash their bf/gf, but I don't buy that a lot of kids are getting horny enough to go all the way at 12, unless they're being manipulated by older people (that's a whole other argument). It sounds like you watch too much sensationalist tv. The pregnancy angle doesn't belong in this discussion, because it is clearly and effectively addressed by teaching condom use.



Look, I understand the effects that hormones have on our youth. Clearly, however, most would agree that children cannot shoulder the responsibility of parenthood at such young ages, even if they are physically capable of conceiving (though that could be said for many adults as well). It doesn't follow that just because someone is capable of having sex that they should go ahead and do so. Direction is required as to when sex is 'OK'.


The abstinence movement would have a better leg to stand on if it didn't fill teens' heads with lies and hide information from them. Abstinence seems to try to always be the one answer. I really don't know where you're going with this point, as condom education answers the unwanted pregnancies issue far more effectively than anything else. You can't push values onto people and expect them to ignore who they are to be who you say they should be.

One thing I also never understood is why sex-ed never teaches how dangerous unprotected anal sex is, and how condom use is especially important then. It's like to hell with women and to hell with gays; I had a class on HIV in college, and it was horrifying to hear HIV-positive women and men who came up and told how they never knew receiving anal put them at a much higher risk than anything else short of sharing needles or getting a bad transfusion. But the abstinence movement considers it sexually deviant behavior, and it almost seems like they'd rather these gays and whores get the disease as some sick judgment from god. To me, our society has failed these people by being too concerned about taboos (in the best case).

As for when sex is OK, it's ok when all participants want it and no one is being conned.



The onset of the physical capability to perform sexually doesn't necessarily suggest that it is OK for pubescent children/teens to have sex with each other at that point. They must learn the consequences of this act. This is especially poignant for humans because unlike most animals the act of sex transcends beyond the physical realm - sex unleashes a spiritual and an emotional connection between the two partners. Sex is more than just an act of 'physical pleasure' even though most are oblivious to that fact.


You're making this way too complicated. Sometimes sex is just getting off. You're projecting your sexual preferences onto everyone, and that just isn't the case a lot of the time. Many times sex is purely an act of physical pleasure; there's a huge difference from having sex with someone because you think they're hot or you're really horny and having sex with someone you care about and are in a long-term relationship with. There's nothing wrong with having sex for a quick high between one or more willing partners.

For the spiritual angle, you're making a huge assumption there. Not everyone believes in ghosts, souls, crying Mary statues, and the like. As for sex always being emotional, it seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Girl is told sex is bad (while the boy is congratulated by everyone). Girl has sex because she wants to get laid. Girl feels like a slut because she thinks sex is bad.

It's no stretch of the imagination to see that sex need not be emotional for men, and that's a pretty big assumption to make that women only engage in sex to satisfy a maternal instinct. If female sex was only about that you wouldn't see women buying vibrators and dildos and the like.

Anyways, relax... it's just sex.



A mature marriage provides the necessary confines for all those connections to be explored at their fullest extent while providing the necessary setting for parenthood to succeed responsibly.


You're pigeonholing sex into an extremely narrow subset that coincides with your preferences.



They will have a lifetime to learn how to please each other... Why hasten the process, what's the rush? Besides communication is key in that process, not some arbitrary measure of 'experience.' Furthermore, having all the experience in the world won't necessarily guarantee that the experienced partner will please the other. One still has to learn the personal idiosyncrasies of their partners if they truly desire to please them - and this isn't some 'in-and-out' job (pun intended).


This just clearly isn't an idea for everyone. Your hypothetical has every couple re-inventing the wheel, and disregards three-ways, swapping, gang-bangs, and all kinds of other things people have done to get themselves and each other off since the beginning of time. There's such a huge difference between sex and a relationship.

Not to mention that sexual chemistry seems like something a lot of people would like to verify before making a commitment. If I like hitting it from the back and my wife considers that degrading, then how are either of us ever going to be satisfied? I smell a divorce, and a good sex life is way too important to write off as something that could be looked past if you really cared about the other person.



I would consider the once-in-a-lifetime uniqueness of a sexual encounter between two abstinent marriage partners, as cause enough for heightened sexual excitement. It certainly beats the Hollywood-esque first-timer scenarios that many of us are familiar with: losing your virginity in back seat of a car, or losing 'it' at some random party, or while drunk, or worse still from having been raped or abused etc... The union of two 'virgins' would be considered a sexual fantasy in most cultures...


Not really for me. Also, I don't get why you bring rape and abuse into this equation.



I don't mind that condoms, or other sane forms of birth control exist. Or that proper sexual education be conducted for that matter. I do, however, mind when students are handed out condoms and told to "have at it" - as was the case in my cousin's school last year. I found that to be disrespectful, reprehensible and utterly irresponsible. Now, I realize that this particular case was the proverbial exception. Even so, our society is shifting towards recklessly empowering our youth; the more they allow biological imperatives to serve as a free-wheeling justification for their sexual impulses without adequately promoting self-restraint is a recipe for disaster.

Sounds like hyperbole. Of course no one's asking for the teacher to get up on the desk and jack off all over himself or to tell the students to go out and fuck anything that walks.

[J.T.]

I think marriage is a financial liability for a man, so I'm never getting married anyway, but when I was a kid my mom told me that my future wife would thank me OH SO MUCH for waiting to have sex... But when the person who tells you this is in her third marriage and left your father because he wasn't enough of a bad boy for her, cheated on him, got caught, and then divorced him... Yeah, that went in one ear and out the other faster than Ginobili gets a steal and goes coast to coast for an uncontested layup.