We discovered a video response to our Abstinence Episode on YouTube. Hal Chaffee is a firm believer in abstinence, and he makes some points.
Feel free to discuss in the comments section, and many thanks to Hal for letting us share his work.
Subscribe to Midwest Teen Sex Show
MTSS Blog
)
Loading ...
I think it’s my first message on this blog, that I’ve been folowing for a while now.
I’d like first to congrat Hal for the “self control” he has performed, being abstinent unitl marriage. But I don’t agree on the poin “we value sex”.
I value sex too, and I’ve been waiting a lot of time before having my first relation. I was totally in love. But I DO think that you need to practice, before getting good feelings. I mean, evoeryone acts on a different way when having sex. Someone likes things that otherone doesn’t like. Finding a person that matches your “sex behaviour” is really important. I would never take the risk of marrying someone I never slept with.
I definitely need to practice my English, but I hope you understood what I meant
(I love this show)
Hal supports our statement that more people will want to do you if you aren’t doing it.
Sex is like buying a car. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first would you?
Hal,
You state your beliefs in a very calm and reasonable manner but I simply cannot disagree with you more.
First, your choice to be abstinent until marriage is exactly that, a choice. You seem an informed and reasonable person, and you and your wife made a decision. But that choice is not an informed one for teens who are being taught abstinence only sex education.
Abstinence education does not promote choice, it sets up abstinence as the only ‘correct’ choice and promotes ignorance regarding sexual development. I work as a teen librarian and I’ve talked to young adult patrons who barely understand their own biology because of the intentional vagueness and misinformation given in abstinence education. Choices should be informed.
You talk about wanting purity from your wife. Do you really believe that if she was with another partner she would have been sullied or less worthy of your love and respect? Purity is a very loaded word. Is a rape victim or abuse survivor “impure”? That’s going to an extreme, I know. But what about someone who was simply socially pressured into sexuality, are they forever “tainted” by those choices?
Which gets to the deeper question, that sexuality is somehow dirty or fallen by nature. I just don’t accept that at all Hal. The love between you and your wife is no greater or more pure because of your abstinence than the love between my girlfriend and I because we are intimate. Sex is a wonderful part of love, it can express feelings without the cumbersome nature of words. If anything, I’m sorry you had to wait so long to discover that.
The father of an ex-girlfriend of mine once said “If my children are fully grown adults who are skittish about sex or feel that their bodies are shameful or that sex is a dirty thing, then I have failed as a father”. He wanted his daughter to be happy, healthy and comfortable in her own skin. Shame and impurity have no place there Hal.
I’m very happy that you and your wife were able to find each other and wish you long and joyful lives together.
I think that holds far more true if you are a woman.
i’m down with hal expressing himself, and i do agree that some of the portrayals of abstinent teens (the downs syndrome parody in particular) in the MTSS episode are offensive. still, let’s not pretend that the “abstinence message” is being persecuted. the president wants to throw $204 million at it next year. so hal – you do what you gotta do – but anyone who thinks they have the right to force their values and beliefs on young people everywhere…well, i wish them all the worst/best MTSS can dish out.
Hal,
you stated your point in a clear and concise manner, but…
did you even go through puberty, hal? or was your sexual development
spontaneous? the teenage libido is a powerful drive, since biologically we are ready to procreate during and after puberty.
that drive we cannot combat unless, hal, you may have been the king of masturbation as a teen, but i seriously doubt that you did nothing
sexual until you were married. btw, heavy petting and groping still counts as sex, even if you didnt “get off”
so please remember, celibacy until marriage is a wonderful notion and belief, but its a pipe dream in modern times with the media overlords forcing sex down our throats like horrid medicine. we simply cannot deny what we are. sex is a primal force, and Beastiae sumus ut non beastiae simus. so hal, its not okay to assume that todays youth will not try to be free from sex, but its nearly impossible to do so.
Hal sounds a bit prejudice against those that don’t wait. Look. Most of the women I know wait to sleep with men they truly care about and feel chemistry with. Just because sex isn’t within the sacred bonds of marriage doesn’t make it any less sacred, thank you very much. (To be honest, I’ve always viewed the idea of marriage as superfluous.. especially with its ties to church and law that, to me, demeans the value of two people’s connection to each other.)
Speaking of being offended, I think the tone of Hal’s voice when he compares his pure wife to the women that “sleep around” was bordering on the offensive.
I will say, however, that Hal has a point about the episode. I thought more attention would be paid to the other side of the coin; men (like Hal) and women (his wife) who attach different values to their sexual interactions. It also seemed like you (the show at large) characterized those that abstained in a light that your typical teenager would scorn. Hardly the frank, double-edged sword I was used to seeing Nikol wield.
Yours,
Rebecca L.
ps. I would like to point out that I, personally, have nothing against those who abstain.. or those who don’t. It’s a personal choice. Hopefully it’s not a stupid choice, but that is up to the individual.
I want to reply to this is in a meaningful open-minded conversation, but my brain just isn’t forming the right words right now. This jist of what I want to say is, there is two ways to abstinence. The wrong way “GOD FORBIDS YOU TO HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE!” and the proper giving all the facts way. BUT ALSO teach how to protect yourself if you do find yourself in such a position (no pun intended).
I think this show has done a good job of getting the message across. Keep up the good work ladies!
Animals don’t practice abstinence. So why should humans? Sex is not “special”. That “specialness” is a social construction. It’s completely illogical. When I find out that someone is abstinent, they go down a few pegs in my level of respect for them.
Thanks, Hal, for you comments. However, what about those people, (myself included) who don’t believe in the “sanctity” of marriage? Marriage tends to be a religious institution, and one I don’t subscribe to.
In a way, I understand your want to secure “purity”, but as another poster said, what makes a person who has had sex previously “impure”?
Then, there’s the whole kerfuffle involving say, someone, who has waited until marriage before engaging in sex and eventually getting a divorce due to circumstances outside their control, or indeed, being a widow or widower. Are these people “impure”? I understand your want to have that, but it is a preference, and not a rule.
Let’s say, Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid, that you die in a year. (I’m not wishing ill toward you, this is just an example). Would you wish your wife to live sexless and loveless for the rest of her life, considering her lack of “purity” at that point?
I understand and appreciate your view, but realize that complete information is probably neither harmful, nor will it cause the “heartache and pain” that you state they will. If one were to censor the idea of sex at that age, (and believe me, I’m not one to dive in suddenly. I waited for over a year to have sex with my first girlfriend, much to her chagrin, even though we were both virgins, until I felt we were ready), I think it would cause more heartache and pain than lack of information by omission.
Finally, I want to address the fact that you seemed to jump the gray gap entirely by stating you appreciate the fact that your wife waited for marriage, instead of “sleeping around with lots of guys”. Where does the person who had sex once or twice fit in? No offense, man, but you sound very defensive, and I’d bet dollars to donuts that you’re a church-going man. No worries or offense intended on that, but realize that no matter what you believe, there’s someone who doesn’t believe that with the same fervor.
Thanks for all your wonderful comments!
Who can deny that sex is safest in a life-long committed relationship?
Sexual desire is natural and God given. Human begins are designed to have sex. But, on the same token, human beings were also given the profound ability to exercise dominion over their strong bodily urges (unlike animals, sir). It is not okay to have sex simply because your body desires to have sex. This idea has led to our problems of rape and sexual abuse.
The idea that teenagers can’t control themselves for a few years until they are married is absurd. The reason they don’t control themselves is #1 because they don’t want to, and #2 because we live in a sex-saturated culture that exploits teenagers’ sexuality to make a buck.
But I’m not saying that teenagers must practice abstinence. It’s their choice what they do. I simply promote the safest way to have sex. I also provide myself as an example that it can be done.
- Hal
Yeah Hal, and I’m going to say that the only reason they made that episode is because teenage girls are ALREADY having sex, and they sent emails asking for the episode.
Hal, I hate to think that you would call me a bad person because I sewed a few wild oats when I was younger. I WANTED to be a bit promiscuous. I was proud of my tight, young, smooth body that all the other guys were attracted to. And I was attracted to them as well. I had a great time getting to know myself sexually with the people that I decided to share that part of myself with.
Ain’t nothin’ wrong with some pre-marital bangin’, Hal. You know, once upon a time, there was no such thing as marriage, and people weren’t monogymous… Maybe it’s engrained (more so than abstinence) within the human mind to want to go out and have some sex. It’s important in development, and it’s FUN! And besides, what if you and your wife are no longer sexually interested in each other in the future because you didn’t bother to take the time to find out what really satisfies you?
There is so much excitement, and pleasure, and fun, and emotion, and sometimes even humor that comes with sex and I feel you deprive yourself of a wonderful chance to really get to know yourself when you practice abstinence because you feel you have to.
So, now that I’m the ripe old age of 25, I have settled down. I have an amazing boyfriend (I introduce him as my other/better half), and we have AMAZING sex. One of the reasons that there is so much passion and attraction between us (going on 3 years later…) is because we share similar sexual tastes. We had both had the opportunity to get to know our likes and dislikes, and to develop sexually. We were TRULY ready for each other when we found one another.
Hal, I wish you the best of luck, but abstinence is NOT for everybody. This episode was made so those who go out and choose sex have some base information. They know to always
1. USE A CONDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Have sex with someone you like and trust
3. Talk with your partner about likes and dislikes
4. And HAVE FUN!
People are always going to get hurt, Hal, but I feel like keeping people in the dark on non-abstinence sex-ed is MORE harmful than bad break-ups, or akward back-seat sex.
Oh, and Hal,… You’re a hottie! I would have tried really hard to get you to give it up… ;-P
Looking at the comments here, it seems that most people are taking completely different sides to this, whereas my personal opinion is somewhere in between. At 22 I’m still a virgin because I haven’t found someone I’m willing to share it with, but I’m not planning on waiting until my wedding night either. Yes I believe that sex should be something special, whilst still realising that it is a primal force backed up by the modern media. In many ways it is because of this pressure that abstaining can be a good thing. If I’m not going to be any good my first time, I’d rather it be with someone who I know understands it’s first time, and isn’t going to mock me for it.
At the end of the day, I also believe it should be the choice of the individual, and not something that should be dictated by society/religion/governments/anyone else, and I that was also the message I got from the podcast. The characters depicted in the podcast seemed tome to be so satirical that no one watching would actually take them seriously.
Hal,
This comment
“It is not okay to have sex simply because your body desires to have sex. This idea has led to our problems of rape and sexual abuse.”
is simply factually inaccurate and more than a little offensive.
Rape and sexual abuse are actions derived not from sexual openness. Sexual abuse is not simply a matter of sexual desire, it’s an outgrowth of deep mental illness. Someone who sexualizes children is not acting out of simple lust.
Rapists do not act out of simple biology. It’s cliche but true all the same, rape is a crime of power. Rapists want to demean their victims, control them and subject them to their will. This isn’t a desire for sexual release, it’s a need to debase another.
An open approach to sexuality does not lead to an increase in sexual abuse or rape. Some of the most repressive religious regimes on earth, where ‘purity’ is enforced by will of law, see enormous amounts of sexual crime. It just goes unreported.
I said your comments could be seen as offensive, because in essence you are saying that sexual desire leaves the door open to rape and abuse. This teeters far to close to the “loose girls are asking for it” argument for me. An argument that has prevented millions of victims from stepping forward, an argument that shames the victim of an assault and damages their sexual identity, their person hood, often irreparably. I speak on this topic from a very personal place Hal, and would advise you to get informed about the facts when it comes to sexual assault and abuse, for the sake of any young people in your life.
On the purity, does having sex makes someone less pure ?
Not having sex leading to purity implies that sex is unpure, or dirty. I think sex between two people who love eachother is one of the most beautifull things that exists.
The no sex before marriage thing is so you can give yourself to only one person, the person that you will stay with forever, mr/mrs right.
The problem with that is that you dont know who mr/mrs right is, you can only assume he/she is it, and hope he/she doesnt turn his/her back on you after you’ve decided. Marriage doesnt change that, it only gives you a bit more security (or so you think).
If you think a legal document is going to change the odds of him/her leaving you, you are wrong, If you think a vow before god will change the odds of him/her leaving you, you are wrong. (The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%) The only thing that will keep your partner by your side is love.
Naturally, before you have sex with someone you should really take days, weeks, months, or maybe years before you decide you are up for it. (please note YOU should decide whether YOU want it, dont let others make that decision for you)
My personal experiance with this;
)
When I met my girlfriend, I was a virgin, she wasnt.
I had deep down always regretted the fact that she had sex with others before me.
There was real love between me and her though, so we had sex within the first month of knowing eachother.
That was 2 years ago, now we are still together, still madly in love. (and still having sex
I would like nothing more than to spend my entire life with her, though I do think that like many relationships, ours could also fall apart. I hope it never comes to that, and I believe it will never come to that, but still, 41% of americans believe in it so much that they are willing to spend alot of money, time, and effort, in uniting themselves in what later would be called a sad waist of time.
Saving yourself for your partner (and have him/her do it too) untill marriage must be a beatifull thing, and I would like that my first time would be with my wife too. Though I think, it wouldnt be realistic to try, and I would be denying myself fun.
TL:DR version
My stance on no sex before marriage can be summed up in one sentence:
Not “no sex before marriage”, but “no sex before love”.
We’ve been talking about our Abstinence Episode for a while because we wanted to revisit it. I am so glad this conversation is happening.
I am personally rather tired of sex being treated as if it is not a natural part of human behavior.
Just so everyone knows upfront, I will always keep identities of emailers private, but I need to share something with you that I feel is related to this topic in an all too real way.
I have gotten more than one email from girls who are already sexually active, yet they will not get a pelvic exam because it is “icky.” What, pray tell, is so icky about it? (Shut it, Scott. I know how you feel about vaginas!) Through this idea of “purity” I feel that we are misleading kids into thinking that parts of their bodies are impure by default, especially if they have already sullied that body part with that horrible, gross act of sex.
Hal, you are very fortunate to have the life that you do. You are showing plenty of people that it is possible to stick to a conviction. Just don’t undermine the conviction of others to have safe, educated sex and not see each part of their bodies as just as lovely as the rest.
Not to get all Whitney Houston (early Whitney, not crack is whack Whitney) but I think everyone here can agree that the one conviction that matters the most is loving yourself and your body, no matter if you choose to have sex or not.
I am really proud of how calmly and intelligently Hal got his point across. I don’t agree, but it’s better than many reactions I’ve seen to this show.
Thank you, Garret, for responding in an equally responsible manner. I am so proud of how intelligent people are being here!
The problem with this argument is simple. It’s impossible to be properly informed on both sides. If you’re abstinent, you won’t understand exactly what non-marital sex brings. If you aren’t abstinent, you’ll never understand what disciplined abstinence brings. There’s no way to learn about these topics except by experimentation, and, sadly, the two are mutually exclusive by nature.
There’s really no right answer. It’s all personal preference.
On the subject of sex and purity, I always liked this quote:
“Love is pure; and when that is missing, your trying to become pure through the sublimation of sex is mere stupidity. The factor that purifies is love, not your desire to be pure. A man who loves is pure, though he may be sexual; and without love, sex is what it is now in your lives - a routine, an ugly process, a thing to be avoided, ignored, done away with, or indulged in.”
It comes off a bit harsh at the end. But I think it’s a good message. Sex is neither pure or impure on it’s own; the important thing is to love your partner.
I wish he had given a middle ground between total abstinence until marriage and promiscuity, because that’s where most of us are. I’m uncomfortable with the idea that “virgin equals pure,” because I don’t see anything impure about having sex with someone you love or care about. And even if we are talking about casual sex, well, who’s to say that’s impure, especially when you don’t know the person or the feelings behind whatever road they chose to take.
NIKOL!!! You know me so well.
I’m totally with you on this one though. All men and women should have a YEARLY full physical exam, sexually active or not!
We only get one chance to keep ourselves healthy!
Schedule an appointment with your doctors today!
I feel that his statement was a bit radical in the sense of terms he used, which makes me question his religious reference.
Maybe you should make a video on religion and sex.
I myself am a teen. We do indulge in superior thinking my fellow seniors! We have brains and we do use them. Think of yourself when you were a teenager. Were you constantly braindead? If so, mankind has drastically jumped a hurdle in the evolution process.
Hal is admirable in that he was willing to take a position in a calm and reasoned manner, and to take the risk of putting not only his name but his face behind his opinions. You sure won’t see me on YouTube!
However (you know there was something, didn’t you?), I’d like to say that I wish people would stop being quite so easily offended. I saw the episode, and I didn’t think anyone was saying that people who don’t have sex are dorks. Please (and when I say please I mean PLEASE) bear in mind this is a comedy show. While it has many educational aspects, its own disclaimer admits that it’s primarily for entertainment. There will be goofiness. There will be nerdiness. And people are just too damned eager to be offended. Berke Breathed, in the eighties (yes I’m old shut up) coined the phrase “offensensitivity” to describe what is fast becoming a neurosis (no I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist or therapist and you know what I mean so why are you changing the subject shut up) in the USA.
Is it offensive? More importantly, in my view, was it intended to offend? If there was no intent, much can be let slide. Not all, but much. If not, why would your Christian god be so willing to forgive? (No I’m not Jewish that isn’t the only option shut up.)
Have Fun.
AWESOME! I am glad to see different views here. abstinence is hard, I couldent and didnt. I’m married with a kid of my own now, and I hope she can find a middle ground between abstinence and promiscuity.
I agree that sex and religion would make a very interesting show!
I totally agree with Hal. On the finer points, of course abstinence is a choice. No one who has premarital sex should feel condemend or dirty, at least not from me. I think what Hal means by “impure” is the whole idea of lost innocents- which of course not everyone agress with. It is possible to deny that maybe Hal has a point that premarital sex can be hurtful? Think of all the hurtful and devastating things that can happen to someone who has had sex before marriage (even if it unintentional, rape etc). With STD’s, pregnancy, abortion, rape, and emotional and psychological distress that can occur from such instances- it is not pushing it to say that premarital sex may not be the best choice. It so much easier to have sex i agree, but I think the benefits outweigh the control it takes to stay abstinent. Think about this for a second: If you are going to have a substancial relationship with someone involving sex woudlnt you want to know that the person you are with (that you hopefully love) hasen’t been with a crap load of people??? I know a lot of guys who would get jelous or disgusted by the idea that THIER woman was with many other guys. Living in culture and times that we do, we are constantly surrounded by sexual images, music, movies etc. No doubt its hard to stay away from such things, but it IS NOT impossible, and Hal is a perfect example of such a thing. Just because someone dosent choose to have the self control and stay abstinent does not mean someone else can. Of course many will argue that Iam being rude saying that the issue of “self control” is irrelevent or that it dosent apply. I disagree, if people (including me) had more self control this world would be a better place.
Garrett States, “Sexual abuse is not simply a matter of sexual desire, it?s an outgrowth of deep mental illness.” First i have to ask where you got this information from. I have to say that 3 years of studying psychology have never yealded this information, as far as i know sexual abusers are not mentally ill, true they are twisted and perverted but not mentally ill. I do thank you though for your respectful manor of raising such quesitons.
Lastly, Its much easier to name call and tear people down than it is to actually listen to thier arguement and discuss it in a respectable fashion. Thank you to those of you who respectfully commented on this site and for being able to have your own opinions while disagreeing with Hal. I hope that those reading this would know that i respect all of your ideas and opinons even if i wholeheartedly disagre- i know that i live in a world where not everyone has the same opinion.
Dude, is your wife grim or what?
Seriously though, you suggest that you don’t want to worry about your wife comparing you to other guys. This suggests to me that you have quite a few sexual issues surrounding shame and fear. I would suggest that if you didn’t have such a repressive attitude towards sex, you wouldn’t have these hang ups.
Sex is a natural part of life. Like eating, it should be done in moderation according to your appetite. Starving yourself of sex is a sign of disease, just like anorexia.
There’s nothing respectable about abstinence. I DON’T respect your choice. It’s made from fear. Stop being afraid and get laid.
I had been sexually active before I met and married my wife. She was a virgin when we married.
I don’t feel defiled or dirty or impure or anything like that. But I know the reason she waited was because she wanted to share her body with only one person for the rest of time. Even though I know she loves me unconditionally; I have to admit that there are days that I wish I could have given that to her.
People who subscribe to any belief system, such as Hal’s (and mine) Christianity , see life through that particular “lens”. Just the same, people without a particular belief system see life through a different lens. But it’s still a lens. A lens is simply a tool that lets us see things in focus.
I’m not preaching abstinence. And I’m not trying to convert anyone to bible thumping church goers. I just think everyone needs to make sure that their lenses aren’t smudged. If you don’t want to get pregnant, or deal with abortion or STD’s then do what it takes to stay safe.
This is an Honest question:
How many women out there (who are not virgins themselves) truly want a virgin man as their partner?
Rachael:
I’d cite the DSM IV, link at the bottom, in diagnosing pedophilia and sexual abuse as a mental illness. “Perverted” and “Twisted” aren’t psychological terms that I’ve ever encountered, apt though they might be in this instance. In addition to pedophilia as a mental illness, neuroscience is more and more indicating that it is a physical one as well.
Beyond pedophiles you have adults who are attracted to partners under the legal age of consent, often called preferential sexual offenders. These individuals often suffer from a wide spectrum of socialization issues, depression, anxiety and were, as the stereotype holds, often abused themselves and never received proper treatment.
Their sexual behavior is a manifestation of their much deeper problems. Sexuality in society doesn’t cause these people to behave this one. In fact, one could argue that the shame-based, sex-negative approach to sexuality in society is a factor in producing these individuals. The more open and honest our approach to sexual identity the more comfortable victims would be with coming forward and the more open treatment options would become.
DSM IV: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm
CMEC Report:
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
Hal’s got some major balls for his video response. Nikol, Guy, Brittany (marry me), and everyone involved in MidwestTeenSexShow have major balls. So do all of you readers, for commenting here.
Making choices means taking risks. Standing up for yourself, voicing your opinions - whatever they may be, is not easy. But it sure is rewarding. Look how proud Hal is. I know I’m proud of who I am, despite being in the minority of what society tells us is right and wrong.
So, wheeeee… cheers to us, and our balls.
It makes me shudder everytime I hear the word “pure” used to discribe someones sexual history or lack there of. Particularly since this term is almost always made and used to be a value of women. This term in no other way reduces someone to an object. Which always reminds me of purity balls….please view these websites for the lowdown.
this one being ‘directed’ towards the female population
http://feministing.com/archives/004966.html (copy and paste)
and this one being ‘directed’ towards the male population
http://feministing.com/archives/006375.html (copy and paste)
I think everyone should wait until they meet someone who they strongly believe and feel (at that time) is the right person to have sex with. One should not objectify their body by giving how many or how few people they have had sex with a value. The only thing that matters is how it makes you feel at the time, never forgetting too about how to practice safe sex.
So what do you do if your a lesbian…..?
I love how he left out that little tid bit.
I just want to point out, those who decry the association of purity with virginity are ignoring the fact that he’s talking about his wife he’s now married to. Obviously, she is not still a virgin.
He’s not saying there is anything unnatural about sex either. He’s not saying it’s dirty. By using the word “purity” he is simply associating the most intimate act two people can enter into with the exclusion of all (living) others.
If you don’t have a spiritual idea of marriage, if you don’t see sex as being the factor which distinguishes marriage from all other relationships, if you don’t have a spiritual idea of your own body and see yourself as merely a sum of chemicals, abstinence obviously doesn’t make sense. But that doesn’t discount the opinion of those who believe there is something spiritual within marriage and within themselves.
But clearly you can’t attribute to abstinence either the notion that sex is inherently impure (we’re not gnostics) or that widows are “defiled” (it’s “til death do you part”) or any other nonsense.
People come out hard against abstinence I think in part because it is something you can never get back. Of course those who have lost their virginity would argue against it because if they were wrong, what could they do about it?
The truth is, he makes a compelling argument entirely from his own experience which no counter-claim could conquer. He and his spouse can trust each other that they’ll keep their hands to themselves because they did until now. They have no need to practice because they have the rest of their lives to “practice” together. There is no concern about sexual compatibility because the developement of their sexual understanding and preferences happen together. These are all his experience, and we can’t say it’s not true without calling him a liar.
It seems most of the argumentation here is on account of the fact that he used the word purity. Perhaps a better word would be innocence. Either way, this is very threatening since nothing we can do can bring back the purity we’ve lost. Who can remove the stains and the guilt of our regret?
Rachel -
While you (and Hal) make some valid points, your comments about the risks associated with premarital sex reminded me of something Dan Savage likes to point out, which is that risks are a part of all areas of life, and that sex seems to be the only area for a lot of people where acknowledging certain risks becomes an excuse to characterize the whole behavior as reckless. People do a lot of things for fun or pleasure that have the potential to cause them harm (skiing, eating cake, etc.), but as long as people do those things in an informed, responsible manner, the risks are minimized and become acceptable for most people. Sex (even outside of marriage) can be extremely enjoyable, and extremely beneficial both physically and psychologically, and I think those considerations deserve to be weighed just as much as considerations about possible negative consequences deserve to be.
Hal,
you misunderstood us completely
God created man, he gave us free will, and yet he instilled in us the whole survival instinct mode. What I was saying was that during puberty I like many red blooded boys were sex crazed fiends, and not understanding why, until i put a college education under my belt and then married my gorgeous wife whom knows that i am in your terms, Hal, “less than pure” and i accepted that shes been around the block a few times too. but my point is that you cannot deny the link between sex and our survival urges and that it confuses teens along with the evil (notice how vile and live are anagrams of evil) media portraying the human body as an object to be used until it grows old and tossed aside for the next bombshell or the pop stars who flaunt their post teenage sexuality to sell cd’s. to be blunt, sex is sex, but making love to the one you love is awesome, so hal, people should be able to choose how to live, Dum vivimus vivamus!! and besides hal, sex takes practice!!
“I know a lot of guys who would get jelous or disgusted by the idea that THIER woman was with many other guys.”
I’m really not sure to start with this comment because they misogyny inherent in it is so great that I’m actually sort of speechless. I know that as a metaphor this requires some work but do we think that learner drivers are the best kind? Do we idealize a lack of knowledge in any other aspect of our lives? Knowing want you want from sex takes time, I’d rather know that the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with was sexually compatible with me and knew what they were doing which will prevent a lot of heart break and fear, something I don’t see mentioned often. Seeing as we’re using anecdotes as data here let’s talk about a the fact that the two people I know who waiting until marriage to have sex both had very unhappy sex lives as neither of them knew what they wanted or should ask for and both have since been divorced.
I’m also slightly upset by the number of comments here to the effect of “people should have sex but not be sluts” as it still shows a basic level of shame and fear over what’s happening. I say that if someone wants to have 20 sex partners a year or remain abstinent until marriage then let them do what ever they want, but teach them about their options and to respect themselves and other people and then let them decide. It isn’t sex that hurts people, it’s a lack of education. When you teach teenagers that abstinence is the only way you give them a healthy dose of shame when a lot of them don’t make it, props for those of you who have because you wanted to rather than because you were told you have to but it’s still not for everyone. One size does not fit all.
You know what really stops STDs and teen pregnancy and has been proven to time and time again? Education. Birth control.
“If you don’t have a spiritual idea of marriage, if you don’t see sex as being the factor which distinguishes marriage from all other relationships, if you don’t have a spiritual idea of your own body and see yourself as merely a sum of chemicals, abstinence obviously doesn’t make sense. But that doesn’t discount the opinion of those who believe there is something spiritual within marriage and within themselves.”
Oh really? I’m a spiritual person, I’m a Christian in fact, I have a spiritual idea of myself and my body that means that I want to celebrate it. I am unmarried and have had sex and I’m not dead, or traumatized, or pregnant or have an STD so I’m not entirely sure what you’re implying.
I want to address the purity issue that everyone is bringing up.
Purity, to me, means to be uninvolved with sexual things. My wife is no longer ‘pure’ in that sense. Neither am I. Is there anything wrong with not being pure? No. Does it mean you are less of a person if you are not pure? No. It just means you are now involved with sexual things.
Would I have married a girl who had had sex before? Sure I would, if she was the right person. I would have rather her be a virgin, but I still would have married her.
And Garrett, you are totally wrong. You are in control of your own body. There is NO excuse for rape or abuse. I don’t care what kind of “mental problems” a person might have.
Listen to what you’re saying though… Sexual things? Sexual things?
So, once we’ve indulged our sinful selves in “sexual things” we’re no longer pure?
To address an issue Hal, is to make people feel better.
“I simply promote the safest way to have sex.”
Y’know, I’ll give him that. That’s true.
Other than that, I second everything Garrett said.
Hal:
Firstly, my regards for coming forward and speaking your mind. This isn’t exactly a receptive audience, and I respect that.
That said, I totally disagree with you.
You said: “Purity, to me, means to be uninvolved with sexual things.”
Sex and purity are not related. At all. They are entirely UNrelated. There is no correlation between the two whatsoever.
I deeply dislike the word ‘purity’, for pretty much the same reason as Lady In Tweed above. If ‘purity’ must have a meaning, it should be ‘the practice of loving kindness’. Not the practice of abstaining from sex.
To repeat my quote above:
“A man [or woman] who loves is pure, though he [or she] may be sexual… trying to become pure through the sublimation of sex is mere stupidity.”
I argue that when you relate sex and purity, you’ve entirely failed to understand either subject.
“I’m a spiritual person, I’m a Christian in fact, I have a spiritual idea of myself and my body that means that I want to celebrate it. I am unmarried and have had sex and I’m not dead, or traumatized, or pregnant or have an STD so I’m not entirely sure what you’re implying.”
By calling yourself a christian; you imply that you follow the teachings of Jesus Christ not just as a good way to live. But as the the BEST way to live. As the term christian translates as “Christ Ones” (or people who follow Christ).
To announce yourself a christian and then proudly proclaim a way of life that is contrary to Jesus’ teaching (being sexually active outside of marriage) only serves to clearly illustrate that while you may be a christian by self-description; your lifestyle does not bear that out.
Your life is yours to live how you please. But by having sex outside of marriage you confirm to other christians that God’s perfect plan doesn’t apply to you and in reality you are your own god. By having sex outside of marriage and proudly proclaiming your christianity; you confirm in non-christians the hypocrisies they already despise in christians.
Are you really doing yourself or anyone else any favors?
UbiquitousChe
Purity is one of those words that we christians tend to fling about too often. I’m sorry for that.
I just ask that you keep Hal’s comments of purity in context. Hal’s context for this conversation is one of a christian perspective.
To the christian; purity is related to EVERYTHING. What we think, what we do, how we do it, how we treat God, how we treat others, and how we treat ourselves. I say that knowing that by biblical standards; I am not pure. No one is. But even though I fall way short of purity; I still aspire to it. Not out of some bizarre expectation on unattainable perfection. But because I love Jesus and I love the people around me.
When there’s real love; then there is the knowledge of when relationships are true and sex is right. From the christian point of view; the only REAL love is love that is unconditional and everlasting. Marriage is the public affirmation of that kind of love. That’s why sex only in the marriage relationship matters.
Hal is right. I know from personal experience. My wife and I were virgins at our wedding. We knew we turned each other on and waiting was no longer a reasonable option. Practicing to get it right is fun and absolutely safe when you do it only with your life partner. Our brain chemistry programs us for emotional bonding and commitment with sex. There is a spectrum of sexual contact with a prospective mate and it is foolish to jump to a step if you know you don’t want to do the following step.
Don’t hold hands with someone you would not want to put your arm around.
Don’t put an arm around someone you wouldn’t kiss.
Don’t kiss someone you wouldn’t want to fondle.
Don’t fondle someone you wouldn’t want to have sex with.
Don’t have sex with someone you wouldn’t want to have babies with.
When you’ve reached that point you might as well get married; you know you turn each other on and you want to be together for a long time. We’ve been together over 50 years, long ago found how to please each other, have probably made love over 10000 times, and it is never the same twice. Anyone who finds uninhibited monogamous love boring simply lacks imagination.
Sue,
If you were replying to me I have to first off say that I am not a guy and I am not married either. I do not have sexual issues or shame or fear of having sex. Of course sex is a natural part of life. It is just my personal belief that people should wait until marriage- but I will not press this on people because it is their choice. I am not starving myself by not having sex, I am merely waiting for the feast to begin- and when it does WATCH OUT because it will be amazing!!! You bag on me for my personal opinion yet you don?t even know me. I am not afraid to have sex, it?s not something to be afraid of only something to look forward to. Don?t worry Sue, one day I will get laid!!!
Scott,
Thank you!!!
Brad,
I am a virgin and I seriously want the first time I have sex to be with a man I love who is also a virgin! I think it would be really weird for me to be a virgin but my partner has been with other people, that way it will be awkward, funny, amazing, and pleasurable for both of us and we can learn to pleasure each other together.
Garrett,
Thanks for writing back, I find this discussion very interesting. I looked at your link as well as my DSM-IV-TR. While this is classified as a disorder, I have to point out that at one time the DSM also classified homosexuality as a disorder also- which I think most people would agree that it is of course not a disorder or a mental illness. You say, ?These individuals often suffer from a wide spectrum of socialization issues, depression, anxiety and were, as the stereotype holds, often abused themselves and never received proper treatment,? and Garrett I agree. I also know that just because someone is abused does not give them an excuse to turn around and do it to others, I agree with you that it shows much deeper problems. I think that people who have such disorders of mental illnesses if you will, often are held unaccountable. With a little self control a ?pedophile? can choose not to act on his thoughts or desires. You also stated that, ?The more open and honest our approach to sexual identity the more comfortable victims would be with coming forward and the more open treatment options would become,? and I believe that this is a very very good point. Thank you for writing back and intelligently engaging in this discussion.
Justine,
I have to apologize for whoever (even me) has used the word ?pure? about you to make you feel unworthy or devalued. I doubt it was Hal?s intention for the word to be used in such a way. When I use that word it is not meant to lower the value of someone. Please except my apology on behalf of those who have caused you pain. I think Jorge take on the topic of purity is good. Thanks?
Jorge,
Thank you for you words!!!
Devon,
I agree risks are apart of everyday life. True there is harm in overeating, over-consumption of alcohol or drugs, but the topic that this whole site addressees is that of SEX. Just because your informed and responsible does not mean that you cannot still get hurt, true the risk is minimized but the fact is that there is still RISK. No one will argue that sex outside of marriage is enjoyable, its meant to be enjoyed. Of course it is up to each person to weight the benefits of having sex to the negative affects. In the end each person has to make their own choices, and in the end they must deal/live with the consequences also. It is my conviction and belief that staying abstinent until marriage is the healthier choice!
Lady in Tweed,
I feel that I have already addressed the issue which you find fault with, and therefore will not address them again. I will however encourage you to read what the bible has to say about premarital sex, since you call yourself a Christian. I must say that I am glad that you are unhurt, but I also have to ask you to back up what you say with scripture since you proclaim yourself to be a Christian. Read Matt 15:19, Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 6:18, Galatians 5:19- these are just a few examples?Thank you.
For any of you who are interested, here is a website that addresses out sexual culture and sexual issues along with religion. http://www.syrogers.com
Hal:
You misunderstood. I’m not excusing those who engage in sexual abuse, rather I’m saying that you are incorrect in stating that our sexual desires are what cause abuse.
Say someone suffered from OCD and comulsively washed their hands or took a half-dozen showers a day. The disease has warped a healthy desire (to keep clean) into something destructive. Abusers are often claim they truly love their victims, not understanding that their dysfunction has led them to act out in deeply wrong ways.
I agree that even the most compulsive abuser has a choice, to seek help. The stigma of mental illness however is compounded with societal attitudes about sexuality to make seeking help that much harder. Politicians use pedophiles as an easy score (moral panic wins the day) come election time and pass laws that push them further and further to the fringes of society, which unlike treatment only increases the chances of re offense.
Sorry to get so divergent. Being sex-positive does not mean you condone abuse, quite the opposite. We’re trying to open up society so that people make more informed choices and aren’t acting out of fear.
So it is when you write “I don’t care what kind of mental problems” you’re coming across, to me at least, as ignorant. I’ve worked with young adults who’ve been the victims of abuse and who have, in turn, abused others. I do care very deeply about the mental problems that they face.
You speak of your faith. If Christ walked among us today you’d more likely find him keeping company with those struggling with mental problems than those who sit in judgement.
Scott:
Point taken. This topic is getting a little contentious, isn’t it?
Then again, it’s a contentious topic. I understand Hal - and several others - on this thread are coming from the Christian perspective. I’m not so ignorant on the Christian perspecive myself. The thing is, I disagree with the Christian perspective. Quite strongly, in fact.
The difference in our perspectives is more ancient even than written record. Christians - in fact, all the monotheistic religions, not to mention the Aristotelian tradition of philiosophy - believe in moral absolutes. I do not. That does not mean that I do not believe morality exists. Quite the contrary. There are many kinds of action that are moral. I simply do not believe that there is one absolute definition or point of reference for them. A moral action is moral depending only on the context and the perspective, nothing more.
These are two very, very conflicting views. So when I rebutt against yourself or Hal, I understand full well where you’re coming from. How could I not? It is where you’re coming from that I’m arguing against in the first place!
Oh SHOOT! I forgot about God… He’s probably pissed, in’t he?
“Your life is yours to live how you please. But by having sex outside of marriage you confirm to other christians that God’s perfect plan doesn’t apply to you and in reality you are your own god. By having sex outside of marriage and proudly proclaiming your christianity; you confirm in non-christians the hypocrisies they already despise in christians.
Are you really doing yourself or anyone else any favors?”
For someone whose accusing me of hypocrasy and sin you’ve just stumbled into one of the bigest ones yourself. What on earth makes you think you’ve been given the right by God to judge me or declare me unchristian? I’ve been raised to this and my parent taught me to think for myself which means that I’m aware that a great deal of the bible has been historically influenced towards male dominance and treating women as property, female chastity is a part of this. This is NOT to say that I think everyone who CHOOSES this is wrong merely that we must be aware of the historical impact of our actions. The bible has been altered over time by selective translation and todays modern christians are often guilty of picking and choosing passages for there moral absolutes without considering them in context. The bible says a lot of things that we gloss over or ignore : do you tell rich Christians that they’re hypocrits on a regular basis because I can tell you Jesus had some very specific things to say about them. I have with a great deal of thought and attention to my views on what Jesus was saying chosen a path that you don’t aprove of, that doesn’t make me unchristian that just means that I don’t automatically ascribe to the churchs dogma (something else Jesus had strong words on) and interpretation of certain facts. Is there a risk that sex will be elevated abouve your relationship with God, which is the most serious sin? Yes. But the same is true of any pleasure, eating, wearing nice clothes, buying new technology and so on. God didn’t want us to lead pleasureless lives she just doesn’t want us to get hurt, but there are many ways of being hurt by your own path that you don’t acknowledge.
“I must say that I am glad that you are unhurt, but I also have to ask you to back up what you say with scripture since you proclaim yourself to be a Christian. Read Matt 15:19, Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 6:12 & 6:18, Galatians 5:19- these are just a few examples?Thank you.”
PLease see above for my arguments of social context and the control of women, which for the record Jesus didn’t subscribe to. The early churches had female leaders and were also socialist in that they held all their goods in common, I don’t see modern churches rushing to tell us we adpot these frankly much healthier values as well. I appreciate that we have a difference in opinion over this but I am getting rather sick of being judged by other Christians when judging is itself a sin.
For more information on my views I suggest getting hold of a copy of The Church and Chinese Whispers (http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/shop/talks/) or reading up on Ikon, a church who have had a great impact on me spiritually : http://wiki.ikon.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Ikon:Community_Portal
@UbiquitousChe
It’s good to see people sharing their ideas and disagreeing without going to the “I’m right and you’re wrong so shut up!” well.
“I simply do not believe that there is one absolute definition or point of reference for them. A moral action is moral depending only on the context and the perspective, nothing more.”
So if there are no absolutes, and everything depends on context and perspective; then why be a christian and profess a faith where there are absolutes and the only perspective that matters at the end of the day is God’s?
@Scott the Homosexual
If you were God and you knew everything. And you knew everything that happened and everything that was going to happen; would anything really take you by surprise? And if nothing really takes you by surprise; do you really get all the pissed about anything? I think God looks at us like children. Some of us are strong willed. Some of us just don’t enough to do the right things. But if we’re children and God is the ultimate parent; then He continues to love us, teach us, correct us, and accept us. Unconditionally.
At least that’s the God I know through the Bible
@UbiquitousChe - It wasn’t you that claimed to be a christian. It was Lady in Tweed. Feel free to disregard my question.
“I simply do not believe that there is one absolute definition or point of reference for them. A moral action is moral depending only on the context and the perspective, nothing more.”
So you already know the argument, right?
So slavery could be argued as moral. Genocide and Ethnic cleansing could be argued as moral. Polygamy could be argued as moral. Bleeding the earth dry of all its natural resources could be argued as moral.
I’m not trying to equate abstinence with slavery. I’m just saying that not having moral absolutes is a slippery slope that justifies many incomprehensible acts in human history.
I am a great fan of “The Midwest Teen Sex Show” and while I don’t think the way in which their message is presented actually reaches what they believe to be their core audience, it is extremely entertaining, well written, and acted.
I do think however, that the themes that run through all the episodes of “TMTSS” such as parody and satire have been completely lost on Hal. I could provide point and counterpoint to Hal’s arguments, but it seems futile when he missed the point entirely and quite frankly this would be more trouble than it is worth. I would instead recommend to Hal that he look up parody and satire in a dictionary and then re-watch the episode. He might then realize that both points of view were presented (humorously yes) and that a retort was not needed.
UbiquitousChe,
You wouldn’t happen to be from ‘cross the pond, would you? When I read things in print, my mind incorporates words used with context, punctuation, grammar (or lack thereof), etc… My point being, I always have an inner monologue that voices what I’m reading (internally mind you… don’t judge).
When I read the stuff you write, you sound British (English?). Just wondering… Am I right?
“I simply promote the safest way to have sex.â€
Hah. Tell that to my aunt.
Wait– you can’t. Her husband gave her HIV, she seroconverted before she knew, and now she’s dead. Her pastor told her she hadn’t been healed because she hadn’t prayed hard enough.
Knowledge, condoms, and conversational comfort with sexual topics keep us safe. “Monogamy” (surveys show the majority of people cheat), marriage, and “purity” do not keep anyone safe.
I know that you’ll say: “That was the wrong way. It won’t be like that for me. That’s the exception, not the rule.”
Do you think she thought it would work out that way for her? She was brilliant, but humans f–k up all the time. Humans who want to believe they live in a fairy tale f–k up and try to pretend it never happened. Humans who don’t have sex get hit by a bus and die without knowing one of the best things about life.
Don’t smugly say “hey, I’m just advocating the best way. you screwballs can gamble as you please,” pretending you’ve found the solution, the safe way to live. You haven’t. No one has. People have sex (it’s practically the only constant), their “control” shed for a second, then suddenly someone, perhaps your “pure” wife or someone else who repressed their sexual curiosity, knows what their partner thinks about “sleeping around” and says nothing. Maybe they pray.
______________________________________
I think Hal misheard the slogan. *Masturbation* is the only safe sex. Hand jobs from other guys are relatively safe too, which I mention only because Hal trips my ‘dar and I’ve known plenty of gay boys who pretended closetedness was piety until they had to face the truth.
I don’t understand the immediate correlation of abstaining until marriage for sex and worry free sex. I am sorry but even with the best of intentions waiting till marriage is not going to prevent people from cheating or other things that can be highly damaging sexually. Safe sex comes from making informed decisions and responsible decisions, be that pre or post marriage.
scott,
i agree with you 100%
so heres my take on this whole panel dissection of purity, sex and the human condition
(btw scott, if you havent noticed god is mad at us all, whats why my babies cry 2 hrs before i have to wake up for work, only to fall asleep again as im leaving for work)
1. rape, sexual abuse, incest, etc.:
Psychosexual disorders, brought on by a myriad of factors, if you want a gritty portrayal of how bad the human psyche can split rent Cybil, read Lolita, shakespeare’s The Rape Of Lucrece, or why not volunteer like i did at a rape crisis hotline. enough said on that
2. Purity:
back to my first post, Hal, again i ask you and you have yet to reply, it wasnt a personal attack, but to validate a few points and clear the air, did you like 100% of all boys starting from age 13 and up, when you were entering puberty, in fact, masturbate?
if you did, by the “sexual things” statement you made, then you are not pure, but please do not lie or deny that you did masturbate, cause its healthy….
3. God:
yes he created the sanctity of marriage for that purpose, but if anyone has read anything beyond the bible, i.e. christian scholars and such, then you would know that in order to be able to get married in those times the man had to build the house and own the land. and there was instances of infidelity and pre marital sex in the bible, god made us human, but it takes people to fill the shoes (btw, im glad i wasnt a virgin on my wedding night, saved us the whole awkward virgin newlyweds night scenerio) and scott, please dont forget that all consuming biblical verse that seems to absolve us, yet makes us repent those lonely nights with that special movie… We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord.
so remember that you cannot separate love and sex, sex is good, it cures depression, headaches, gets rid of those nasty pounds, and in hals outdate view should only be done in the sanctity of marriage, i still disagree hal, but i honor your opinion and invite you to the 21st century, can i ask you all a serious question? please answer in your posts and replies…
During the 60’s and 70’s and the free love generation, how different would this whole comment forum be if were were back in the eras of the wars, bell bottoms, discos, woodstock, etc., would we all be arguing this point like this?
Regarding the difficulties (emotional, social, etc.) of premarital sex that Hal mentions, and others mention in the comments (”It is possible to deny that maybe Hal has a point that premarital sex can be hurtful?”), I’d like to point out that post-marital sex can be hurtful, too. And the consequences at that point can be even worse. Like, say, 50 years of bitterness and sexual frustration. Coming from a fundamentalist community, I’ve had the displeasure of seeing it up close and personal. What a disaster. Hal is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Run far away, and don’t waste your time on people who think you’re less “pure” if you’ve had sex.
Amusingly, there are verbal ticks in the video that I recognize from my childhood: turns of phrase I haven’t heard in awhile that are stock in trade on the revival circuit. Makes my skin crawl.
This is a great podcast, both for education and entertainment, but I don’t usually post. But Saint Augustine (you know him, right, Hal?) had something interesting to say about this subject.
“Multi quidem facilius se abstinent ut non utantur, quam temperent ut bene utantur.”
It’s cool; I don’t speak Latin either. It translates roughly to, “for many people, it is easier to abstain [from sex] than it is to exercise moderation and do it correctly.”
Emphasis on the “many people” part. I would go a step further and say “most.” Am I implying that it takes a stronger will/mind/heart/etc. to actually tread the line between a draconian concept of “purity” or the “special” nature of sex and the most basic animal urges? Eh, sure, why not?
Most people have already made any point that I would have regarding your conceptions of “purity” or otherwise.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent man, Hal, but even you would have to admit that you’re not the most open-minded individual (casual dismissal of mental illness? How compassionate and Christ-like). You obviously have extremely strong concepts of sexuality that are closely tied to conservative social custom and religious doctrine. There’s not a lot of room for moderation in either of those areas, but those of us who don’t subscribe to either often DO find a comfortable median between promiscuity and prudishness. All it takes is a little intelligence, a little patience, a little curiosity, a LOT of love, and a willingness to detach oneself from dogmatic thinking.
Eh…that last one is going to be a problem for some of you, I suspect. Good luck with that!
Scott the Homosexual:
I read “Oh SHOOT! I forgot about God… He’s probably pissed, in’t he?” at work and cracked the hell up. I got a few funny looks. Good line, good line. I’m stealing it.
As for the nationality thing: No, I’m not English. I’m fron New Zealand. Granted, they’re both piddly little islands where nothing ever happens and it rains all the time, so I guess it’s /almost/ England.
When I was a kid at school I was always taught to write English like the English, and I guess that stuck.
The other Scott:
“It’s good to see people sharing their ideas and disagreeing without going to the “I’m right and you’re wrong so shut up!†well.”
I agree with the above sentiment wholeheartedly. This is actually turning out to be a good discussion. On the other hand, we’re getting waaay off the topic, so I’ll try to keep this short and sweet.
Your claim: “I’m just saying that not having moral absolutes is a slippery slope that justifies many incomprehensible acts in human history.”
I disagree. Not having moral absolutes isn’t the same thing as not having morals. A moral absolute is like when a parent says to their child, “Do not drink alcohol!” The moral framework I ascribe to says, “Do the right thing.”
What ‘the right thing’ is will vary depending on the context and the perspective. Sometimes, doing the right thing will mean not drinking. Most of the time, doing the right thing will mean having one or two but keeping your wits about you. Sometimes, when you’re in a safe environment with people you know well and you can trust, it’s okay to get a trashed so long as you don’t do it too often.
It’s not always easy, but if you’re sincere and do your best to determine the right thing for the given situation you can’t go too wrong.
Your other point, about slavery. You’re technically correct. From the point of view of certain societies - most of them now ancient and buried - slavery is (or was) moral. In their context and from their perspective, it is (or was) moral to own human beings. The Greeks did it. The Romans did it. The ancient Egyptians definitely did it. That’s how it was - and in some places today, that’s how it is.
Where we part ways is when you assume that, just because slavery is validly moral for such societies, that we need to give up our perspective to accomodate theirs. We don’t need to abandon our disgust and our outrage at such practices. I think that we can make a pretty strong argument against slavery. And simply accepting that from their point of view slavery is moral doesn’t mean we can’t take action against them. It just means that we can’t take action against them ‘because they’re evil’. If we feel that action truly is called for, we can still take action ‘because we think they’re wrong and action is called for’.
Does this leave room for abuse? Yes, it does. But so do moral absolutes. The KKK believed in moral absolutes. The Crusaders believed in moral absolutes. The Spanish Inquisition believed in moral absolutes - read a translation of the Malleus Malificarum sometime. Moral absolutes are just as open to abuse as simple contextual morals. In fact, I argue that they are /more/ open to abuse, since the contextual morality approach has careful reflection and consideration built in at the start. Absolute morals are the point where fanaticism begins. I find them dangerous and silly and unneccesary to the fucntioning of a moral society. We are better off without them.
You don’t need a book of rules to do the right thing.
I so agree with Hal! Purity is vitally important, especially in women! After all, if a woman has had more than one partner, not only is she probably comparing her current lover to ones she’s had in the past, she is very likely able to differentiate between a good lover and a bad one. As far as I can see, that could only lead to unhappiness and discontent. I think the current societies that enforce purity, especially when they focus that enforcement on women, are so much better off! Sure, female circumcision is dangerous, painful and traumatic but the women who have had this done are much better able to remain pure and that does raise their value to society as a whole and men in particular. Sex outside of marriage has so many drawbacks that I think the societies that mandate only married sex and enforce it by doing things like stoning people to death qualify as the only civilized countries on the planet today. Everyone knows that when two virgins get married the sex is always the best anyone is able to achieve. It makes complete sense to me that if you love someone enough, even if it’s a guy who finds oral sex immoral, you will eventually be able to achieve complete union in the marriage bed. I applaud Hal for taking his stand on this issue. He was very articulate and reasonable. As a matter of fact, I believe he might have a future as a public speaker. I do think that he’d do well to learn to speak Arabic, however. His thoughts on purity, and especially female purity, will find a much wider audience in countries like Saudi Arabia or Algeria.
Hal -
You make a valid point but so does everyone else. When I got married I had only been with one man, him. He however had had previous sexual partners and would constantly throw out the phrase, “How would you know if it could be better, you’ve never been with anyone else.” And he was right. I got married at 21 and for the whole of my marriage I was made to feel like “less” because I didn’t know more then he did.
Turns out we were not sexually compatible, great friends but horrid mates and married. And I was devistated. I had waited until I was with the man I thought I would be with forever, and found myself with 2 kids, divorced and no concept of what good sex was. And while I have no plans to tell my daughters to run out and bang every boy they meet I, as their mother, feel it’s very important for them to realize that sexuality is part of who they are, and something they need to explore so they know what they are comfortable with and what they are not.
Sex is great, and can be better with a loving caring partner, but I think that you might want to re-evaluate your comments about “The idea that teenagers can’t control themselves for a few years until they are married is absurd. The reason they don’t control themselves is #1 because they don’t want to, and #2 because we live in a sex-saturated culture that exploits teenagers’ sexuality to make a buck.” Control comes with self awareness and confidence, and to have either of those you need to know what you like, dis-like, want, and need threw your own personal exploration, frank conversation with people you trust, and just living life.
Polly: You’re a Goddess and I love you. That was excellent!
Lady in Tweed,
I seriously hope that you dont feel like i was judging you. I wholehartedly acknowledge that each person has the right to decide for themselves what is true. It dosent really affect me whether or not you believe sex outside or marriage is okay or not. I am not judging you, rather I am merely posing questions. True within the church there are many sins that christians overlook daily, and yes judgement is one of them. If you really knew me you would know that because Iam proabably one of the worst sinners, i would not have the audacity to judge others (not to say that i never have, but an much less likely to do). Those who are Christins (i believe) should be able to sharpen one another (as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another), and if by posing the question that your idea of sex before marriage is wrong then why not? At the end of the day all Iam doing is asking you to rethink your decesion, and at the end of the day you decide they are truth- how can i bash you for that. True i may still disagree, but as a brother/sister in christ isnt it okay to question each others doctrines…
I mean no ill will, take me for my word, and again I encorage you to take it back to the bible and to God!
Thanks
Just a quick opinion; The ‘loser’ not having sex isn’t so much a negative mockery of people who haven’t/don’t have sex, but jut to make people laugh at themselves becaue they know they’re not a loser like that, and mocking what the ‘cool kids’ would view them as. Does that make sense without contradicting myself?
okay,
so is hal or anyone going to comment on my hard work on this topic? fine i will stop sugar coating the things ive said.
1. hal your sexual beliefs are puritanical and highly outdated, so much so that even the quakers, mormons and Amish say “Calm down my son, live a little”
2. to the nice men and ladies debating the purity and sexual equity, please further support your points by reading ” The Feminine Mystique, Meriam at 35, Memoirs of a Geisha (personal favorite), Fanny Hill, etc. my point is to broaden the resource spectrum because i do not believe hal has lived an outgoing life.
3. to reiterate my entire part of this debate: Humans are animals,
2 steps removed, we have only 3 basic needs, society and achievement was based on fulfilling those needs in a quick and timely manner, One of those needs is to procreate (to hal: that means to breed) it is our most primal and basic, alongside eating and surviving. It should never be looked down on as immoral, unless its used in a harmful and illegal manner. Hal and everyone,
Did you know that 9 out of 10 scientists have said that if your parents didnt have any kids, you probably will not either?
4. sex crimes - are not entirely about sex!! rape is about control and power. did you know that a whopping 10% of sex crimes are of women vs men, women children?
so ill finish with this, seeings how no one is paying attention to my side of the fence…please answer my questions in the last post, hal and everyone (btw polly, funny)
Hey guys,
First of all, I love the show. Effing brilliant. Second, I believe people have the right to do whatever they want. Abstinence is a fine belief. So is safe sex. But I want to give out another point. It can be REALLY hard not to have sex. Growing up gay, my affections for others had be kept inside so people wouldn’t act odd towards me. Straight kids have chances to express their sexuality just by talking about a hot girl or how “cute that boy is”. I couldn’t do that. When I came out at the much too young age of 12, everything exploded. Because my sexuality was out there, I was talking about sex all the time. And it annoyed people. And finally when I had the chance to actually have sex, I wanted more. And more. And more. Sometimes I still spill out every once and a while. And the truth is, I’m only 15. So it’s hard. If you’re abstinent, more power to you. On the other hand, sex is fun and hard to avoid. And I don’t “beg” for sex. I don’t pay any attention to sex in the media. And yet it happens to me. So if it happens to me, it happens to other teens like me. Abstinence I can say, or at least in gay kids, is pretty abnormal. I have sex. And I’m fine. I have a fun time with life, I go to the best art high school in the nation and I just got a part in a local Broadway play. I’m normal. Sex is normal. Amen.
Jeff
Tacoma, WA
Wow. This convo is wonderful. Truly truly brilliant. “Get ‘em thinking and theres no limit on what they can achieve.” Thank you all. Right or wrong, this is the most compelling discussion I’ve ever encountered, (and I once went on stage to show why God probably doesn’t exist, against a group who firmly believed that he (I’d say, she/it, but this wasn’t that kind of group).
This is brilliant.
“Those who are Christins (i believe) should be able to sharpen one another (as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another), and if by posing the question that your idea of sex before marriage is wrong then why not?”
Rachel, I firmly believe that Christians should be able to sharpen each other in fact I believe that good honest debate is missing from a lot of churches and this leads to all sorts of problems. I certainly wasn’t saying that you shouldn’t pose the question rather I was reacting to a previous commenter who had said that my beliefs made me unchristian and directing my anger wrongly at you. I reacted this way because so many people who practice abstinance take it upon themselves to inform me that my decission is wrong and are not willing to debate or accept other points of view as you are so I apologize for jumping to conclusions.
As for taking it back to the bible I encourage you to look into some of the context issues that I have raised as I believe that in my own way I am working directly from the bible!
Che- I am not a Goddess, blasphemer! I am a weaker vessel and my husband’s helpmate.
Hal- Your brave choice to speak out about this has really inspired me. It makes me wonder why famous people who decided to remain pure until they were married haven’t been more vocal about it. President Bush could share with us how, as a male cheerleader with a drinking problem in college, he was able to remain a virgin. I’m sure he wouldn’t be shoving abstinence-only sex education down the throats of the American children unless it worked for him. If he’s too busy to make an official statement, maybe his daughters could enlighten us about what it’s like to be such high-profile virgins. The one that’s getting married this year could tell us how she’s looking forward to finally getting deflowered.
I think it’s worth reiterating something that has already come up. Abstinence until marriage is *not* a virtue. I don’t admire someone who “makes it” just because it’s hard and takes a lot of self-control. There are plenty of things you could think of that would be hard to do, but that doesn’t make them admirable.
First, let’s talk about the emotional side of abstinence. Why is it important to you (the proverbial you) that your spouse be a virgin? A reasonable-sounding answer is that it is nice to not have the emotional baggage that comes with sex. But then why draw the line at sex? Wouldn’t it be nice to present your future spouse with the treat of being the only person you’ve ever kissed? Or the only person you’ve ever fallen in love with? (what self-control that would take!) Do you worry about your spouse comparing you to other kissers? I hope not. Can you point out to me what makes sex more “special” than kissing without requiring that I agree with your religion? Why should I be more disappointed with my spouse for having sex with others before we met than for kissing others before we met? To keep things on topic, let’s assume that neither the sex nor the kissing produced children.
Next, consider the health education side of abstinence. Abstinence education is a disaster. It produces more teen pregnancies than other forms of sex education, it cultivates psychological problems, it outright lies to kids about biology, and it is a thinly veiled way to give government money to Christian organizations. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to present the argument because Violet Blue did so beautifully at Google a few days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chmANWyUfrs
Jeff
Your story sounds a lot like mine (came out at 12, and came, and came and…well, you get the idea!).
“No sex until marriage” hides a not-so-subtle homophobia; since those of us who are queer can’t get married (at least most places), can’t we ever have sex? Actually, I firmly believe that we should do things the way the ancient Greeks (among others) did and insist that the *only* sex you can have before marriage should be gay sex…a habit many Greek men continued even after they were married.
In many societies, even today, “abstinence” means not having sex with someone of the *opposite* sex; gay sex, for better or for worse, isn’t seen as “real” sex as much as it’s seen as a normal thing males do with each other to experiment, play, or relieve yourself before you find a wife…although a suspiciously high number of guys, like those ancient Greeks I mentioned above, continue the practice even after marriage. I guess they liked that kind of “abstinence” so much, it was hard to stop!
So I’m all for that kind of “abstinence”. Hell, I’ll even give lessons!
hey,i think hal seems like a nice enough guy but i do think he misses an important point: the choices are not A) go to bed with anything that moves or B)stay celibate until marriage. There are a wide range of choices along the continuum between these two points..
love the show!
Cheryl - I’m not getting the conflation of abstinence and guaranteed safety either. One of the reasons why the pregnancy and disease rates in the country are skyrocketing is students are being taught only “Don’t have sex” and not all the other information they need about avoiding pregnancy, protection from STDs, not to mention basic safety information (i.e. the dangers of intercourse in the water and so on). Not to mention that there is no way to gauge sexual compatibility without having sex, and many a marriage falls apart because people discover that they aren’t compatible in bed and it poisons the rest of their lives. Marriage is hard enough to maintain without adding that extra pressure to it.
Though I admit, as soon as Hal tossed the word “pure” out there, I pretty much discounted the rest of his words. The heart of his argument is that sex is dirty and wrong unless it has been sanctified by a religious organization and anyone who has sex without getting that permission first is dirty, wrong or “fallen from grace.” All of which is less about the actual spiritual purity of human beings and far more about social controls, and historically - though I’m not accusing Hal himself of this - those controls have been exerted almost entirely on women. The word “pure” operates as a dogwhistle for those of us who are sick and tired of women still being treated as if this was 100 years ago and we were the property of our fathers to be bartered off for resources, rather than independent human beings who for the first time in millenia can choose not to get married and not suffer poverty and isolation for it.
Hal - there’s something I’ve been wanting to ask an abstinence proponent for a long time, and since I have the opportunity, I’ll pose it to you. I will admit you aren’t exactly the target of these questions, being that you’re one guy with no authority or influence really:
For thousands of years men (frequently older men in some sort of authority position, very frequently white men of some Judeo-Christian variety) have been telling everyone not to have sex outside of marriage. Jewish culture, as far as I know does recognize that a healthy sex life is important for a successful marriage, which seems to be a step up from the Christian doctrine, inherited from when the church was a small organism in need of followers, which boils down to “Sex is just to make babies for Jesus.” But the message is the same: Don’t have sex!
We’ve been threatened with burning in hellfire for all eternity.
It hasn’t stopped us.
We’ve feared the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy.
It hasn’t stopped us.
There’s even a disease out there now that is still terminal and for which we still have no cure.
It hasn’t stopped us.
After all this, why do those of you who still just keep repeating “Don’t have sex” think it’s going to magically work this time?
Anton,
May I ask you a question? when did our conversation turn into christian bashing conspiracy theories about the money funneling into which churches pockets? no one here has even remotely touched base on what you have brought up, nor do we plan too, further more if you havent noticed, about 90% of people here are infact christian. also to put it bluntly, violet blues arguement is full of more holes than your thinly veiled christian bash comment. Look, the reason those programs fail, is the same reason MTV died years ago, it is run by older people who have had no touch in the reality of todays youth. so to coin an old phrase, Put up, or Shut Up, Anton, and try to keep the religious bashing down, sorry we cant all not have any beliefs to tether us to this mortal coil
I very much agree that sec take practise and that no one should be told they are doing wrong by have pre-marital sex. Theres nothing wrong with exploration so why should people be bound to only have sex with one person. Not that im saying im a fan of three sums, but that i think people if they are in a long commited relationship they should be able to have sex without being told they are evil or are condemed to hell!
Folks,
Great exchange, all of it. I love ideas.
Here’s a shameless plug: if you think their website and the people who are doing all of this work are great (I do), then send them some $$$ (I did :-). Can’t afford it? Sure. Buy a Starbucks latte lately? Skip it and send them the four bucks. Really splurge and send them ten. If ten percent of everyone who loves the work they do sent them ten dollars….eeyow. So, do it. They need it and deserve it.
Go get ‘em, gang.
Any man [or woman for that matter] who hasn’t had wild sex with a virtual stranger in field [or subway station or airplane or playground jungle gym, etc.] just hasn’t lived and WILL without a doubt blow gasket when the realize just what they missed out on.
BTW — what a cool site this is; I’m so glad I found you.
XOXO ….
I have a confession to make: I couldn’t watch the whole video. I started to tune out very early into it, but when Hal mentioned the purity thing and his wife not having to worry about the other women he might have been with, I got bored…
Sorry, but it was my first week in a new job last week, which wore me out, and I don’t feel like hearing about other people’s insecurities right now.
If someone still seriously worries about that after the person married them, they probably should’ve stayed unmarried, abstinent or not.
My mother used to say to me- make sure everything fits before getting married.
It’s good to see you posting an opposing viewpoint. Regardless of who’s “right” or “wrong”, it is very important to show teens all the information and let us make our own decisions.
Thanks.
John Mclendon the Married Philosopher of Humanities Animalistic Beastial progression towards self realization,
Perhaps I didn’t communicate my points very well, but it seems to me that you are too eager to be offended. Most of what I wrote showed up in some form in Garrett’s first post (comment #4) and has come up frequently in this thread. My post was not an attempt to “bash” Christianity or put forth conspiracy theories, and I don’t think I did. Please reconsider the content of my first post with the clarifications below.
My first point was an attempt to address the “purity” issue without explicitly using the word. The analogy with kissing was intended to make you think about what makes sex impure. It seems to me that you’ll eventually have to fall back on religion (whatever your religion may be), but if you can present some other argument, I’m interested in hearing it.
My second point was that abstinence-only education is a failure (i.e. it is non-education). It seems like you agree with this, but you believe it can be made to work. Maybe you’re probably right, but it doesn’t work yet despite all the money that gets spent on it. On top of being a failure, I think everybody agrees that it is religiously motivated and implemented by religious organizations (it just so happens that they are almost entirely Christian); there is nothing conspiratorial about it. In the United States, public money is not to be used for religious education.
If you feel that Violet Blue’s facts and figures are wrong, please say which ones. If you disagree with me, please say what you disagree with. If I’m wrong, I’d like to be corrected (really), but you have to convince me.
Sorry for the additional post. “Maybe you’re probably right” was meant to say that you’re *probably* right that sex education can be made to work (I hope it is made to work), and *maybe* you’re right that abstinence-only sex education can be made to work (but I very much doubt it).
okay, anton,
im not offended by what you said, you just seemed to skip the finer points of our countries illustrious heritage, and btw, there are 3 muslim non profit sex education programs in America. the programs can be made to work if the rationale is tweeked, and you seem to just now notice that this country spends its money religiously, and keeping my personal out of this, im saying the money should go where its put, religious or not. i agreed with your kissing analogy, and if you’ve read what ive been posting youd see me and you are quite similar in our beliefs on this topic. what i found wrong about the entire violet blue video was that there was no input as to the feelings and concerns about the youth they are playing sexual chess with. I mean i have a cousin whos about to enter high school. what im getting at, anton, is there should be no changes without proper representation. that means a government funded panel of high school kids discussing their feelings on our debate, sex, life, etc. and from that build the sex ed classes and stop making the sex class a cold clinical, emotionless machine. Does anyone remember their sex ed class? *shudders*. so for the sake of this arguement, someone please answer the questions i asked.
after re reading your rebuttal of my post, im deciding to either reply with the same amount of skepticism, or be my usual laid back self. well my minds made up.
1. you purity analogy, and your assumption that this has to always “fall back” on religion is very funny, so funny i shown it to my old sociology prof. (whos a devote atheist, and has on her desk Karl Marx’s famous words “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses.”) she asked me to tell you this and here it is:
before the advent of religion merging into society and government, sex was just as big as an issue before religious beliefs, as it dominates our exsistance.
2. as i was hinting at at my first post and i dont know, if you skipped a few american history classes or not, im not here to say, but every shred of paper, every document that makes up our very country has the notions and ideals of that this is a religious country, it was founded by people seeking to worship in their own way, the government was founded to protect that right, money for centuries has been going to refurbishing and upkeeing the countries oldest churches, and i still will not say what i believe in, as to my point, that the Majority of americans voted 4 years ago to keep the churches tax free exemption, we have harsher penalties for people who burn down churches and other houses of worship than we do for burning a house down. every candidate except for Ron Paul *shudder* (im sorry, but hes a twit whom someone got drunk one night and told him enough lies to make him think he can run this country) is backed monetarily by a religious group, in one form or another. so your missing the 12 cents the government spends on its religious funded programs it takes from your taxes?
3. and as for violet rose, she didnt speak to any teenagers, nor did she have any to back up her assertions, so her point is invalid, until she does what i said in the first post and forms a group of teens to write, talk about or vocalize their feelings on the topic at hand.
Thank God my husband and I had lots of sex and various kinds of relationships with lots of different people before we found each other.
How else could we have know that we were perfect together?
Thank you God, for giving me those experiences.
First off, thanks to Nikol and the gang for facilitating discussions like these. We’ve come a long way from the sex “education” I grew up with (which were taught by the football coach and inexplicably merged with Drivers Ed).
I’m still not really clear on what it means to “value” sex before you actually know what it is, and I’ve met plenty of virgins who were by no means “pure,” but I can certainly agree with one thing Hal said. The emotional and psychological consequences of sex do go well beyond pregnancy and STDs, but while we’re doing a good job of frightening teens with tales of mutant anal warts and flesh-eating bacteria, we’re dong a pitiful job of addressing the issues of shame and self-loathing that are bound up with adolescent sexuality - including that of abstinent teens. Hal, I’m sure it’s unintentional, but commentary like yours only makes this worse. How do you think it might affect a depressed 15 year-old non-virgin to be told that she’s impure and less desirable? Are you aware that you’ve helped inform victims of sexual abuse that they’re soiled for life? I think they’d have every right to take offense.
Personally, I consider the experiences my partner and I had before we met, and the fantastic sex we had before we married, to be a blessing. In fact, I don’t think we would have truly appreciated and valued our connection nearly as much if we hadn’t been through others. Do I worry that I’m being compared to past lovers? Not more than I worry at work about whether the last employee did his job as well! It’s a rookie insecurity that you outgrow quickly enough. Would it be more of a turn-on to think of myself as the “first” to pop someone’s proverbial cherry? Hell no! Most people find it quite sexy when someone knows what gives them pleasure and knows what the hell they’re doing. That’s why so many people who married Chastity have affairs with Raunchy.
Back to those negative consequences of sex: they’re unavoidable, even when you’re married. Intimacy, vulnerability, desire, rejection, regret, babies - there’s always the risk that you’ll actually feel something, and it often hurts like hell. Marriage and to-the-altar abstinence do not protect against them, despite the perks. But that’s part of life. No one’s any wiser for the emotions they’ve tried to avoid having.
Now, just because I don’t believe that abstinence and monogamy are right for everyone doesn’t mean that they’re WRONG for everyone either. I look at them more as a cute and unusual fetish, like foot worship. Perfectly harmless and satisfying if everyone involved is on the same page, but certainly not a moral imperative or a signifier of anyone’s worth as a person.
And if anyone wants to bring religion into it, let’s break open Leviticus and see how many rules even the staunchest fundie is already breaking!
p.s.: As you may have gleaned, in the US my marriage would not be recognized because my partner and I have similar body parts. So following the Hal Code, we’d either have to be abstinent for our entire lives or subject a nice pure virgin girl to a life of miserable marriage with someone who hates her body even more than she does. Is that morally acceptable?
John Mclendon the Married Philosopher of Humanities Animalistic Beastial progression towards self realization,
I thank you for your to-the-point reply, and I apologize to everybody for the length of this post. We agree that sex education needs to be reformed. I’d be interested in discussing some things to further my understanding (see point 1); other things are interesting, but don’t really belong in this thread (see point 2); and there are some things on which you’re plainly wrong (see point 3).
1. Perhaps you can track the origins of modern organized religion to some extent, but I think both you and your old sociology professor know that religion is older than modern society or government. People have had superstitions and taboos for as long as they have been capable of doing so. That aside, I agree that the taboo of sex is ubiquitous. It may even be that we *instinctively* feel that sex is taboo (though I think it is largely a matter of upbringing). But stating that we have a certain instinct is only the beginning of an answer. Our instincts are often wrong (as in closer inspection of physics, chemistry, and mathematics) or at least misguided (having a sweet tooth made sense at some point, but is now a liability). What is there, actually, that makes sex more “special” than other types of affection? Is there some rational reason one might decide to abstain from sex until marriage but not decide to abstain from kissing? The answer may be yes, but the only thing I can actually think of is religion. I welcome you to put forth something else.
2. I admit that I am less familiar with American history than I’d like to be, but I don’t think any educated person would agree with you that “every document that makes up our very country has the notions and ideals of that this is a religious country.” The US constitution mentions religion only once, and that it to separate it from the government. As far as I know, the constitution has not been nullified. You are quite right that one function of the government is to protect the right to worship in your own way. An important aspect of that is that the government is not to support any particular religion. My claim is that abstinence-only education is religiously motivated, so it is inappropriate to spend government money on it. If you want, you can argue that there are non-religious rational reasons to support abstinence-only education (this falls under point 1). If you want to argue that the government should spend money on religious education, that belongs in a different thread.
3. What exactly is it that you’re disagreeing with? I keep getting the lurking feeling that you only read the title of Violet Blue’s talk (”abstinence does not make the heart grow fonder”, a pun on the common phrase) instead of viewing the content, which is about the failure of abstinence-only sex education. I presume you don’t need to “back up” statistics about teen pregnancies and government spending with teen interviews. As she says in her talk, you can look at her notes for the talk with all the citations for all the figures and sources linked in:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dc4fbxc7_39mvwws9cb
It’s hard to imagine what you could possibly mean when you say that she didn’t back up her assertions.
Violet Blue wouldn’t be much of a sex educator if she didn’t spend a fair amount of time talking to teens about sex. As she says in the end of her talk (and near the bottom of the notes), in addition to her other work, she has been a volunteer at the San Francisco Sex Information (which is a free, anonymous sex help hotline) for over five years. What more could you ask for? Surely you understand that “a government funded panel of high school kids discussing their feelings on our debate, sex, life, etc.” could collect only non-anonymous (read “inaccurate”) information.
what my point was, dear anton, is that:
1. sex is primal, beyond any form of higher thought, sex is an instinctive drive to survive, the desire to procreate is instilled into us, but then it was made taboo, by the organized society, and its beliefs, superstitions, and traditions. its the reason men “pop boners” in inappropriate times. ask yourself this, anton, if all societies had taken the sexual stigmatas it holds dear away, how do you think this debate would be changed and what would we be discussing? (yes religion was old, but the primitive religion didnt have as many bylaws attached to its worship, a sacrifice here or there, some pretty words, etc)
2. the constitution made only a reference to a divide in church and state, no where was it written that it should actually happen (im dropping this point, because i agree, anton, that this belongs on another thread)
3. Mrs. Rose made some good points, ill concede that, but what i wanted was alot more to her discussion, in my opinion it seemed more like a soliloquy or dirge to teenage sexuality than anything else, but thats my opinion. as i stated before, sex ed does need to be revamped and redone, but it doesnt need anyone over 25 telling teens what they are feeling, or am i just out on a limb?
i was calling out her facts and sources, just the fact that there wasnt a couple of teens standing in the background waiting to offere their statements, i know she studied teens and such, but you realize that figures can be tweeked to fit your points, etc. not that im calling her a liar, but she needs more, in my opinion
*I wasnt calling out her facts*
1.
—
Wow.
Just…. Wow.
I’m not touching that one. I’ll let Anton handle it.
No pressure Anton. <3
2.
—
Has been dropped, so fair enough.
3.
—
Er… It didn’t sound to me like Violet Blue (not Violet Rose) was telling teens how they are feeling. It sounded to me like Ms. Blue was relating to an audience how her experiences with teens in her capacity as a sex educator has led her to believe those teens are feeling. This does not strike me as unreasonable. Besides, I’m 23 myself. I was a teen not so very long ago. From recent memory, she makes a pretty accurate case for how it was - and in some cases, still is a little bit.
In summary: I’d say yes, you’re out on a limb with this one.
And on a completely tangental side note: Violet Blue can teach me how to remove a chastity belt any time she likes. Sorry Scott the Homosexual, I like vaginas.
first off, You guys mostly seem to think that he has some religious agenda. Hal never once mentioned anything about his religion in there.
Secondly, Hal and his wife seems to have a very childish and immature concepts of human relationships. statements like:
“She doesn’t have to worry about all the other women I’ve been with.”
her purity is attractive
And this guy thinks he’s in love.
Your basic premise is flawed. Teens don’t HAVE to have sex to be fulfilled or feel good about them selves. Not EVERYONE is having sex in Hi school. It appears you don’t put much faith in Teenagers today. Garrett, If you know so much about teens you would know how capable they truly are. If this was a issue about drugs would you tell teens to go ahead and do drugs cause you are going to any way? Why? Because you know they have the ability to make good choices. Charles, that is what separates us from animals. Garrett apparently you don’t have that same trust in teens when it comes to sex. Too bad. There are a lot more reasons to NOT have sex than have been mentioned. What about the statistic that 80% of Hi school relationships break up 2 weeks after having sex? So much for “strengthening” the relationship. Can you think of 5 good reasons a teen 14 - 18 should have sex? Give me Five GOOD reasons and I will change my tune. If you want to help teens maybe you should start thinking of them as people who are valuable, smart and capable. Because they are. Simon stop using the “force their values” argument. You negate it when you force your values in saying that. You are being hypocritical. John Mclendon you underestimate teenagers. Go spend some time with them and see how capable they are. I am offended that you de-value American teens so low that they have to swallow what media is “forcing down [teens] throats”.
Zeek:
It totally depends on the situation. I was seventeen the first time I had sex. We were five months into a relationship that lasted for 18. Consider:
1. We really did love each other.
2. We were well educated in terms of contraception and the use of condoms, and we were responsible in their use.
3. We each had a right to use our bodies as we saw fit.
4. It was really, really, /really/ good, and because we were responsible there were no negative consequences.
5. We both learned a lot about sex and relationships, we dispelled a lot of myths and misunderstandings that each of us held about the opposite gender, and that knowledge has only served to aid each of us in our subsequent lives and relationships.
Understandably, there are probably other situations in which a teenager probably should say no to sex, such as when they’re not ready, when they’re being pressured, or when they don’t have direct access to a condom.
But nonetheless, at the time I was seventeen, and she had just turned eighteen. And I just gave you five good reasons why we started having sex. It was one of those good choices teens are capable of making.
I accept that teens are people who are valuable, smart and capable. They have a right to enjoy what their bodies have to offer. There are risks and dangers involved, of course - but these can be offset by a responsible attitude towards sex coupled with strong and informative sex education.
They also have every right to pursue abstinence - should they choose to do so. But by the same measure, they also have every right not to pursue abstinence.
Oh, and on a side note: I certainly hope you were trying to use a teenager’s ability to say no to harmful drugs to illustrate a teenager’s ability to say no to sex. Because if you trying to equate harmful drugs and sex, I would not be a happy camper. No sir.
zeek,
I am 26, i had my first child 3 days after graduation, after getting a job and into college i married her. I was once a teen myself.
so Zeek since i devalue and underestimate the modern american teen underestimate teenagers. Go spend some time with them and see how capable they are. I am offended that you de-value American teens so low that they have to swallow what media is “forcing down [teens] throatsâ€.
here is my handy guide to my deductive reasoning for you seek, to show you where i come from (and yes im still in college, due in most part that my wifes last pregnancy left her pretty sick for a couple of months and im making up what i missed)
1. Mtv, vh1, bet. zeek please read the stats on how many american teens watch these networks (http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/06/post-many-teens-have-already-heard.html)
that site will show you something new and amazing and help you to see my point
2. trendy clothes shops that directly serve teenage cliques (i.e the gap and hot topics)
3. Movies
4. Magazines
5. just generally hanging out with them in a study group
6. puberty and the fact that many parents still place taboos on the sex issue, so teens turn to what is readily accessible.
7. the internet
8. other teens who may or may not have “done it”
so zeek, tell me, did you at least take the blinders off before zeroing in on my part of the debate, i havent devalued any teen, im just saying that if teens were as mature and had the full ability to deal and rationalize sex like adults, they would be adults. but they are not and are prone to doing things, to learn stuff. so please, read everything i write fully, you would have known i am in college and that im surrounded by 17-18 yr olds every day.
*married my wife*
Interesting discussion here, but the idea of abstinence as self-discipline has always been absurd to me. I have a libido - one that was in overdrive during high school - but I still didn’t want to have sex with another person, and never found it difficult to avoid. Abstinence is the easiest path to take for isolation-prone introverts; not acting out socially is my default, and I’ve never made a social or romantic overture without consciously deciding to do it. It’s somewhat disorienting to read post after post that assumes the opposite, that abstinence is maintained only through relentless vigilance against your instincts.
I’m sixteen years old and I’ve been having sex with my boyfriend for about three months.
Here’s the thing: Hal seems to think that having sex before marriage makes you somehow less pure than abstention might. But I don’t feel impure. I don’t feel like I’m doing anything wrong at all.
Neither am I the stereotypical hormone-driven teen who will no doubt end up laden with STDs and bouncing Baby barefoot in a trailer. I’m in my second semester of college, and so is my boyfriend, who is also sixteen. We’ve been together for a year and a half. I know what I’m doing. I probably know more about the history, types, and effectiveness of birth control than you do. My parents gave me a dumbed-down version of the birds and the bees when I was three years old, and explained in more detail as I grew older so that I never feared sex as some of the other kids I knew did, and so that I was informed. Later on, I informed myself through sites like Scarleteen and research on my own, once I decided to have sex. I never considered my virginity as something so desperately important that I should keep my legs tightly crossed until I had that ring. I don’t even know if I’m ever going to get married. Why should I wait?
To me, sex with–let’s call him Chris–is so many things at once. I enjoy being so close to him, and being able to talk to him about essentially everything. But sex is also fun. Everyone seems to think it’s so serious, but I’ve certainly laughed during sex. My reaction to my so-called deflowering was something along the lines of, “Oh. Is that all?” It wasn’t a big deal. And the sex got much better after that.
I never saw my virginity as something precious; nor, conversely, did I see it as something to get rid of. That was the right time. I have no regrets.
So, Hal, what I mostly object to is your idea that a woman should be pure before marriage. It’s archaic and based on the idea that women should be subjugated to her husband, bound to his wishes, while he may philander all he likes. (If we want to get technical, it’s also based on the unfounded idea that virgins are tighter, which is also not true, as the vaginal canal is basically collapsible and doesn’t permanently “stretch” more than a millimeter or two over a woman’s lifetime.) If I ever marry, I should hope that I would be pure. I want to be pure of unfair hopes and expectations, of ignorance and inexperience. I want to be pure of judgment and cruel associations, of the sort of mindset that would find my spouse lacking. I believe that if you plan to spend the rest of your life with someone, you ought to accept them entirely, as they are, with no exceptions. My spouse might have been a porn star in another life, or spent their college years doing as many drunk sorority girls as possible. But in the end, he (or she, as I’m bisexual) picked me. And that sort of viewpoint is a better foundation for a marriage than any degree of purity.
Hal, though you make a lot of very good points that I respect, I was really turned off by your comment about ppl who practice abstinence are the ones who “value sex.” So…ppl who DON’T practice abstinence are a bunch of immoral, promiscuous sluts? I know this might not have been what you meant, but to me, it kinda sounds like you were suggesting that.
Why is it that we have to fall under these two categories?
You’re abstinent, which means you’re narrow minded, a social outcast, uneducated about sex/relationships, and scary religious.
If you have premarital sex or had one or more partner, you’re immoral, promiscuous, low on self control/resepct, slut/tramp/whore, and have zero value on love, relationships, and people.
Yes, unfortunately, a lot of ppl do fall under these two categories. At the same time, just like you and me, A LOT of ppl DO NOT. So don’t go around thinking ppl who have sex before marriage are immoral or impure. Is that not just as bad when ppl looked down upon you for being abstinent?
Also in defense of the Midwestteensexshow, in the episode of Abstinence, where they promote ‘practicing’, I HIGHLY doubt what they really meant was to sleep around as much as possible just for the sake of practice. Of course, they could’ve maybe delievered it differently, but considering a responsible MOTHER runs this show, I think the last thing she was telling 13 yr old boy and girls to do was to have sex ASAP! I think what they’re trying to get at was having a healthy sexual experience is a good thing and shouldn’t be looked down upon as long as you’re safe mentally and phsycially.
Not to mention, MWTSS, though makes a lot of valid points, I think its also mostly suppose to be a satire. Its mostly for comedy and I think it even says so somehwere on this site, so remember to not take it seriously all the time and just have fun with it.
Purdy
http://rhetoricsanspareil.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/pure-sex/
I agree, no one wants to turn a whore into a house wife.
Rex-You are so right! When a girl (I’m saying girl because we’re talking about mostly teenagers here) gives in to a guy who says anything he can think of to get a her to sleep with him, she must be a whore. So, he told you he’d always love you, so he said you were special, so he said if you really loved him you’d do it, none of that matters. If you gave in to him, you’re a whore and don’t deserve to be married. If only we could bring back the scarlet letter so that these of these fallen women could be identified and shunned, life would be so much easier!
rex,
your audacity simply amazes me, you assume that all the female teenagers who give in to the moment of passion are paid to do so, oh but not by any choice of theirs alone, but because the guy slipped them a couple of hundreds beneath the sheets? men like you (or is it boy, i could never quite define people like you, since your maturity level seems to be about middle school level) are the reason that women
for the past 150 or so years have fought to gain rights and such from men like you (more power to the women) so when you say you cant marry a whore, does that mean that every man must remain single because obviously a large percent of women have in fact gone all the way with a boy, man, etc. so are they unworthy of love? or in your eyes objects of a putrid, degrading lust that can get tossed away when their use is no longer needed? my god, you must be one lonely guy then, since you cant date the “whores” either so what do you do for female companionship, consult the gentlemans magazines and cry about what a complete and total waste you have been? I should pity you, but my wife who is reading this and must be a whore says that you should burn for that comment. I agree.
I want to say thanks to Anonymous for a well-written response. When I was a teen, I too saw my virginity as something to get rid of, but knew I was not ready for sex. I was abstinent into my twenties–and wish I’d waited–but I also wish I had been able to see my sexuality and my body as positively as Anonymous does at sixteen.
Abstinence is a complicated issue; while I value abstinence and regret when and how I chose to break mine, I’m still conflicted. I’d happily exchange my teenage abstinence for being comfortable with myself, even in retrospect.
So, congrats, Anonymous, for the maturity and sense of self!
there was a post that asked the question; do females really want to marry a guy whom has never had sex?
The answer is yes, I know many many females that feel this way. I am not a virgin and neither is my fiance but there have been so many times that we have talked about wishing we had saved ourselves for each other. I know that actually finding a man who has not had sex is very difficult. But I also do not think that being a virgin automatically means you don’t know anything about your sexuality. I was a virgin until I was 20 years old ,granted that was not long ago, I knew my body and I was not ashamed of it. I knew I was made as a sexual being and that I would eventually have sex. Yes for most of that time I did think I would not have sex until I was married and I still feel that I should have waited. When I realize that the body I am giving my fiance has been with another man I wish I could take it back and only give it to him! I am not saying that it is the only way to go but I fully agree that it is the best when shared with only one person. I know many people disagree with that and that is ok if we all agreed all the time life would be boring. Anyway I think if you marry someone who is a virgin and so are you you have the rest of your lives to figure out what each other likes. I know I sound like a hypocrite but I know that my fiance and I would both like to have been the first for each other I wish that I had been able to give him all of me. Sorry if I seem to be rambling but I just thought that there should be someone that said these things.
lol hey hey people with eye patches are bad ass you made them sound like a pansy!!!
PIRATES YARGGGG!!!!!
Chiming in a bit late here, but I feel the need to address the ‘purity’ thing. When religious people equate abstinence with purity, and the whole ‘waiting until marriage’ thing, I can’t help but think of the women who, through no fault of their own, lose that supposed ‘purity’ at the hands of a predator. In some places in the world, these women are often stoned to death. In other places, their victimization continues after the fact, because they suddenly have lost all value in the eyes of their people. The ones who don’t kill themselves often end up as prostitutes; since they have no value anymore, it’s the only thing many of them can do to survive in their world. In these same cultures, if a man has sex before marriage, he gets a pat on the back. And we’re not even going to get into some culture’s traditions of female circumcision… that’s for another forum, at another time. We’re talking about abstinence now.
I wish to congratulate the people who are posting their pro-abstinence feelings. Good for you! You made a choice and you stuck to it! My problem here is that, as much as you claim otherwise, I read (and see, in Hal’s case) a sort of smug superiority with regards to how you compare your philosophies regarding sex to others. I am all in favor of people having sex before marriage, if that’s what they want, provided they’re smart about it. I’m all in favor of a girl wanting to wait until she’s married… I sure won’t go there, but that’s me!
And I am truly offended by any suggestion that premarital sex leads to rape and sexual abuse. As it was said before, these things are about power, and have almost nothing whatsoever to do with sex. This is a very hot-button topic for me; I was sexually abused for much of my childhood, and on top of that, I regularly practice BDSM with wholly consenting partners.
Now THERE’S something to cover in a later episode, Nikol! Well… perhaps not. S&M is more of a Master’s Seminar, in that respect!
My main problem with Hal’s argument is the idea of waiting until MARRIAGE. Not everyone out there wants to get married, i dont know if i do. That seems to be the only milestone he recognizes for permissible sexual behavior. If you dont plan on getting married, or if you are gay and cannot even get married, it seems like he doesnt think you should be having sex. His arguments are extremely heteronormative and dont include people who arent looking to get married. People should engage in sexual behavior when they want to, we should all be able to create our own milestones. We dont have to conform to Hal’s ideas about what we should want in life.
I like that women are either pure or sleep around a lot. I’ve known a couple people who have only had sex in committed long term relationships. And by a couple, I mean just about everyone I know.
Admitingly johnny come lately here. but as it wasn’t really addressed:
Rachel: “It is [Is it] possible to deny that maybe Hal has a point that premarital sex can be hurtful? Think of all the hurtful and devastating things that can happen to someone who has had sex before marriage (even if it unintentional, rape etc). With STD’s, pregnancy, abortion, rape, and emotional and psychological distress that can occur from such instances- it is not pushing it to say that premarital sex may not be the best choice.”
All those hurtful things, yeah they can and do happen after marriage too.
You can be raped by a spouse, happens all the time.
pregnancy, abortion? hell yes you can have un desired unplanned socially, financially, educationally ruinous pregnancies even if your married, I don’t have the number on hand but the last planned parent hood stats said that something like 45% of abortion were from women who had already had a child.
emotional and psychological [and lets not forget physical] distress. again happens all the time, spousal abuse isn’t something new.
Also:
“I think what Hal means by “impure†is the whole idea of lost innocents- which of course not everyone agress with.”
while this HAS been mentioned before
1. ‘innocence’ is just as bad as ‘purity’
2. what is ‘innocence’ but ignorance
Brian, better late than never. As for a video on BDSM, I’m all for it! (I have a masters in history, does that count?)
amen. well said.
First of all, I highly disagree with all of you who seem to believe that it is absolutely impossible to resist sex and if you do it’s because nobody wants to have sex with you.
It’s possible.
Second, I am not obsessed with people’s purity
BUT
Think about some of things people have said.
One person said that her husband seemed to belittle her because she knew less than he did about sex (so how would she know it could be better).
Well, if he hadn’t had so much sexual experience, they wouldn’t have that problem. Also, if a man has the nerve to be so awful to a woman, he doesn’t deserve to be with that woman who waited for the right man only to have that which could have been amazing taken away from her.
Do you know what that “thing” is? The possibility of a positive sexual experience the FIRST time.
Now, I will say this…
I was intending on saving myself for marriage. Ok, it didn’t work. My current boyfriend is the wonderful wonderful boy/man (I’m almost 19 and so is he… sure where we stand on the adult scale) in caring and attentive. He was also a virgin when we had sex for the first time. Yeah, the first time is awkward, but it was awkward for BOTH of us. We reveled in the awkwardness. Every time we have sex, he makes sure it is the best experience for ME. It is amazing for both of us.
And HEY that elusive female orgasm… not so elusive
Do you want to know why? He is willing to devote time and energy on me.
Now, I bet that could be possible without both of us having been virgins.
And yes people fall in love and have sex.
And YES not every time people have sex outside of marriage, is it a “hook-up”
but how OFTEN do you hear about it not seeming like a “hook-up” for the girl (or maybe the guy), but for the other partner it is
And all of this fun stuff (oh yes don’t get me wrong sex is AMAZING) comes with risks
risks of pregnancy
std’s
and heartbreak
ok so heartbreak can happen without sex
And while there is a very strong physical aspect to sex, there is an emotional aspect too.
As much as people want to deny it, it is NOT possible to have sex with absolutely NO emotional component.
So, I can see the validity of Hal’s argument.
I do not understand WHY this argument has come under such strong and INCREDIBLY negative scrutiny.
He has VALID points.
And to abstain until marriage (or even just until it is the right time) and to know the other person waited too…
how could that not be wonderful?
To know that the other person is giving himself to you
and for him to know that you are giving yourself to him
Is that not a WONDERFUL gift?
So, to all you nay-sayers… why do you hold such a negative view on this?
Now think… I said all that without saying PURITY.
I have slept with a lot of men, and I’ve found that there is great variability in how attracted I am to them, how skilled they are, and how we fit together physically.
In regards to the first, I’ve found that how attracted I am is completely unknowable until I hook up with them. Usually the guys I find really cute don’t turn me on at all, and many a so-so looking guy has been absolutely thrilling.
Secondly, there is huge variability in both skill and attentiveness. Skill can be developed, but some are naturally more adept than others. And if you don’t have skill, you can develop it with attentiveness, and some men just aren’t very attentive. Both of these are unknowable without sleeping with someone.
And the last is pretty much insurmountable. I have a very short vagina and so some penises are much too long for me. They have to be below 6.5 or else I can’t consistently enjoy sex with them. Additionally, the shape of the penis is important; I’ve never had successful sex with cone dick.
Now you might think this is something I could ask a guy before sleeping with him, but if I were to remain a virgin until marriage I would have NO IDEA about this particular aspect of my physiology. It’s different for everyone.
If I had waited for sex until marriage, it would be extremely unlikely that I’d enjoy sex.