Monday, December 25, 2006

Pre-Marital Sex in America

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

Figures like this need to be realistically dealt with. If they are inaccurate, as Concerned Women of America assert, then they have to show with real scientific data why this research is wrong and not just say so because they don't like the conclusions. I suspect it's fairly accurate for the most part, if not a bit inflated, but I'd have to see their methodology and sample. I've read other studies looking at just Evangelical Christians which puts the figure at over 80%, still pretty high. And if this is a longitudinal study with a good cross section sample of men and women dating back to those born in the early 40's, then we can discard of this notion that American was generally fine and morally chaste before the 60's. These figures become more interesting when you take into account the fact that many people in the 50's and 60's were getting married between ages 18-21, something not very common today, especially for those under 20. If 95% (or whatever high figure we use) of the people who were getting married at 18 or 19 back then weren't waiting until marriage, then teen pre-marital sex was also a frequent occurrence then as it is now. So while sex wasn't thrown all over advertisements and TV then as it is now, and also people then considered topics of sex much more taboo than today, I suppose this would mean that many people were just quietly very hypocritical then whereas today they just come out and flaunt their values now and don't feel bad about it. I'm actually not sure which one is worse.

In any event, I don't think this means we throw out standards and/or just say they are unrealistic. Not at all. We should continue preaching the same Biblical standards that are true today and always have been true. But perhaps data like this helps us become more understanding and realistic of human desires and frailty, especially in the areas of sexuality. The common approach I heard way too often as a younger Christian when dealing with sex came down basically and only to "It's bad, don't do it" which wasn't terribly helpful and tends to make people feel worse than they already did. I personally believe more openness and frankness on sexual issues is needed and is indeed good--though not the type advocated by society which just flaunts a sinful sexual ethic at every turn. Surely we can counter with something better than that and many could also do better than just silence or embarrassed faces when the subject comes up. If 95% of people are not waiting (a figure which would encompass most Christians it would appear), surely there needs to be a new and better approach in the Christian community to address the issue and help those in need. The good news is, I think we might be on the right track. There's been some decent popular literature on the subject in the past few years that would not have been available in decades past. Hopefully it will be built upon to better address and deal with the issue in the future.

22 comments:

Christopher I said...

This whole discussion hinges on one's definition of "sex".

If we define it as any form of sexual expression between people - and the range of such expressions is almost infinite - then we can say that the overwhelming majority of all people, regardless of culture or society, practise "sex" before marriage.

For all the self-righteous prudes out there, there is no more apposite an axiom, contained somewhere in the Bible, but I forget where, that says in so many words "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

Bill Barnwell said...

Hi Christopher. I think the figure the researchers were using was based off incidence of intercourse. Not sure how many of the 5%, or whatever the real figure is, are/were only "technical virgins."

Andy said...

Anyone who has had premarital sex (95% of us) can be honest and testify that premarital sex may have consequences. I think that a better way to approach sex with young people (particularly Christians) would be to be open, and explain that there are consequences to actions, rather than trying to force them to do what we think is right by making them feel guilty (doesn't work, and the consequences can be very harmful).
Sunday school teachers, pastors, and particularly parents should always be open to discussing sex, and what future consequences premarital sex might have with young people.
There's another thing we could try; maybe we could all just mind our business when it comes to sex. I haven't read anywhere in the bible yet that Christians need to be the bedroom police!

henry said...

Of greater interest here is the responses which I imagine are generational. Christopher goes to name calling: "all the self-righteous prudes" and ends with the old indignant maxim regarding "first stone". And Pastor Bill evidently accepts this reply as viable and constructive. Right. Andy says we all just need to "mind our own business". Nice except that too much premarital sex results in abortions for convenience, fatherless children, social decay and other blows to society which are not fully understood or appreciated. Of course you won't stop or control premarital sex, but it is not a good thing for launching families and for keeping marriages intact. It would be nice if unchristian behavior did not affect the community, but it does and rarely for any good.

Andy said...

Do you have any recommendations Henry? You criticize, but your criticism is not particularly constructive and you do not offer any advice on how to deal with the issue of premarital sex.

henry said...

to andy,

i said that premarital sex will continue. there is no solution to the problem particularly when society accepts it. there is hardly any social stigma left on any level. perhaps pedophilia but in time that may even fall into the tsk, tsk category. i am not one who believes that all problems have solutions. i continue to believe that christianity is an individual walk with Christ, not some sort of communal venture. i am not aware of any time in history where christianity has "saved" a culture from its sins. Christ saves individuals. and i might add, it is not me using language such as "self-righteous prudes". we are in a time when anyone who takes a stand on an issue gets flayed with titles e.g. racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe et al. i tend to think that fewer and fewer pastors tend to address issues of personal piety and purity/morality. cheers.

Bill Barnwell said...

I'm not sure where I said anything about self-righteous prudes, Henry. I do think though that there is much lacking in theological sexual education and our practical approach to sexuality in the church.

Bill Barnwell said...

Also Henry, you are very wrong to just make Christianity just an individual thing. It is very much a community experience. To say otherwise contradicts massive portions of the New Testament, not to mention the Old.

henry said...

Pastor,

I did not say that you used the term "self-righteous prudes". That was said by one of your commenters.

On your last comment stating that I am wrong; when it comes to purity, that is an individual issue. Churches, the communal part, has long since given up on church discipline and calling sin sin. Most preachers cherry pick the sins they abhor and preach against. The main one now is homosexuality. They have had to give up on abortion, divorce et al. The scriptures say that we will stand before the Lord as individuals, NOT as a church.

Bill Barnwell said...

Hi again Henry. There is both an individual and corporate entity involved. I think the Bride of Christ, as a collective entity, bears some responsibility for our actions or lack therof. Certainly Paul and others addressed the Church in various areas as a corporate entity, not just an Americanized individual thing. This was also the case with Christ as well in his epistolatory addresses to the 7 churches of Asia. I do understand your frustrations though. Thanks for being a part of the discussion.

Henry said...

Hi Pastor,

You get it wrong when you say you understand my frustration. I am not frustrated at all. I have been a believer, a Christian, a child of the King for longer than you have been alive. Now that does not convey to me any special blessing or wisdom, but it gives me more observation time of the culture and churches. In this case a number of Baptist ones.

I personally think the state of American christianity and churches is pretty dismal which might explain why house churches are growing so rapidly and why many other churches are demographically skewed to white haired folks.

But I am not frustrated. The Lord lives and His will is not thwarted by anything we do, say or write. Thankfully. Cheers.

Bill Barnwell said...

Well, Henry, if you were raised in the 40's or 50's, then according to this research pre-marital sex was just as, or nearly as prevelant then as it is now. Only then people were quieter about it. This isn't to say that I am happy about these figures or that I believe differently than you do on these things. But it's probably not true that everybody was sexually chaste until recent decades. Where things have indeed gotten objectively worse is how the popular culture has sexualized basically everything and now people are encouraged to be proud of their shortcommings, whereas when you grew up people at least didn't throw it all out there.

And there might be other reasons many churches are skewed towards white-haired folks, not the least of which being that they want to reach people in 2007 yet employ 1955 tactics.

Anonymous said...

Look- the first generation they were talking about were the people born in the early 40s- basically the Baby Boom generation. Talk to some Depression era people- while the social bonds were beginning to slip somewhat even then, it was probably pretty rare for most young people, certainly women, to have pre-marital sex. The problem is that people get married too late, and the reason for that is college, specifically female education. Do we really expect most people to refrain from sex until they are professionally established in their mid to late 20s? Firstly- most people shouldn't be going to college. For how many professions is a college education really necessary? Just a few in the sciences, computers, etc. Most jobs are based on common sense or could be learned with on-the-job training. Yet, we consider it a requirement to send our 18 year olds to expensive whorehouses for 4 years and wonder why they're screwing each other's brains out. Secondly, the problem is feminism. What do you people think is going to happen when you send a girl to college? She's not only going to give in to the myriad temptations surrounding her, but she's going to use her education to live the feminist ideal of a career woman. Of course the pre-marital sex rate is 95%! Duh! Christians should be encouraging early marriage and large families. Instead, they worship the golden calf of the secular humanist ideal.

Bill Barnwell said...

Yes, I'm sure if females stop getting an education and stop getting jobs, it will take care of most the problem of pre-marital sex. Thanks for that contribution.

These types of sentiments are exactly why some of the more extreme forms of fundamentalism must be exposed and opposed within the Evangelical church. And no, the only two options are not your brand of fundamentalism and secular humanism.

Anonymous said...

haha, you dismiss what is self-evident. When marriage is delayed until later in life, fornication will result. And what is the main cause of late-marriage? A college "education" (aka indoctrination in fornication). Who makes up the majority of college students? Women do, and the gap is getting larger. Even if these highly paid career women eventually decide to get married, it will be very difficault to find a partner in the shrinking pool of professional, college educated men whom these white collar gals consider their equals. Hence- rampant fornication, shrinking birth rate, etc. Feminism= the death of our people. But "Pastor" Barnwell flows along with the current.

Bill Barnwell said...

Anon, you act like it's an impossibility to wait until marriage if you wait until your mid to late 20's or even later. I know of several people who didn't get married until much later and abstained. If somebody is walking strongly in the Spirit, then nothing is impossible for them. I'd say the temptations were much more pressing when I was 15 or 16 than when I was 23 or whatever. Your view is that women should basically be uneducated baby machines and have no business doing anything outside the home. Even going by your framework, what if they don't find a partner right out of high school? Should they just sit around at their parents' house reading books about how to be a good wife and housekeeper all day? You can pat yourself on the back for your position, but it is not Biblical or smart. You think you're being a true culture warrior and really going against the grain when in reality what you suggest just might not be what God wants from us. Not to mention the fact that even most of the conservative fundamentalists out there would not hold to your position.

Bill Barnwell said...

Also, anon, the research I originally referred to suggests that people were generally not waiting until marriage even when folks were getting married much younger. But your biggest concern is not purity, it's making sure women are put in their proper place and don't threaten your concept of manhood.

Anonymous said...

Hey, you wanted to know the answer- I gave it to you. No, it's not impossible for people to wait until their late 20s to lose their virginity in marriage- Catholic clergy vow a lifetime of chastity and most follow it- but it's unreasonable to ask that of the majority of people. Yes, teenagers have a high sex drive- but it's easier for parents to control the actions of teenagers than independent 20-somethings. And no one is advocating keeping women uneducated. My daughters are going to be more brilliant than any government-school drone. It's just that sending a girl to college is antithetical to the goal of forming Christian families in a Christian society. Your problem is that you want people to behave like good little Christians without your having to challenge any of the American norms and pre-suppositions that are the direct cause of the current crisis- one of which is feminism and the equality (in roles) of men and women. News flash Bill- men and women are different.

Bill Barnwell said...

Anon, we can continue this little back and forth indefinitely if you'd like, but at the root of your foaming at the mouth here is what I believe is your misinterpretation and application of a number of Scriptures. I would say until you've really studied the other position--and by that I don't mean carictures that fundamentalists preachers and academics paint--but the very best stuff out there. Only then can you fairly weigh the evidence. For the record, I basically held to your position for a number of years. No, my friend, it wasn't "feminism," "political correctness" or any other boogeyman that changed my position, it was the Scriptures themselves. The same ones you are so convinced point to your own position. So if the Bible is truly your bottom line, I would suggest that you perhaps do a bit more study. If you've done that already, or do that, and then come to the same conclusion, then fine, but at this point there's little else to say.

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts based on experience.
While it's true that some people were fornicators and adulterers before the 60s, the situation has become much worse since the 60s.There are many reasons. In 1965 Congress passed the ESEA, an act that allowed the Federal Government to infringe on local schools and put Values Clarification and Sex Education into the curriculum. A large protest took place in Anaheim, Calif. in the late 60s when some parents and others discovered the outrageous sex-ed. materials being used in their schools, but that was futile. The schools continue to corrupt students. Now we have an epidemic of teachers seducing students. Until the 60s girls who became pregnant were expelled from school. Or they were quietly sent to homes for unwed mothers to await the birth of their illegitimate child. Now schools either advise students about Planned Parenthood and venereal diseases or they make accomodations for the students' bastards. Only "trashy" girls slept around until the New Morality took over. Schoolboys used to play a ball game called Smear the Queer but no children knew what queers did. They only knew it was something awful. Now, no child would dare speak the words "smear the queer" on school property but they will be taught in that school that being a queer is fine, that homosexuals are born that way and they have no choice in the matter.
Unnatural as it may have been, TV actors who played husband and wife did not lie in the same bed. I still remember the first time I sat in a movie and watched simulated coitus. It was the late 60s and I was horribly uncomfortable sitting there beside my husband. Now simulated coitus is on daytime television, not even cable. For those who fancy themselves intellectuals, scientific sorts, one can, this month, turn on a travel program about a South American tribe to watch adult men and women filmed completely naked. The men wear a sort of phallic sheath of exagerated length but they wear no other covering. No attempt is made to blur the rest of their nakedness. Sin that used to be a source of shame is now a source of pride. Now "It's all good" as they say.

J&D said...

米蘭情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,充氣娃娃,AV女優.按摩棒,跳蛋,潤滑液,角色扮演,情趣內衣,自慰器,穿戴蝴蝶
免費視訊聊天,辣妹視訊,視訊交友網,美女視訊,視訊交友,視訊交友90739,成人聊天室,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,情色視訊,情人視訊網,視訊美女
一葉情貼圖片區,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,ut聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,影音視訊聊天室,

辣妹視訊,美女視訊,視訊交友網,視訊聊天室,視訊交友,視訊美女,免費視訊,免費視訊聊天,視訊交友90739,免費視訊聊天室,成人聊天室,視訊聊天,視訊交友aooyy
哈啦聊天室,辣妺視訊,A片,色情A片,視訊,080視訊聊天室,視訊美女34c,視訊情人高雄網,視訊交友高雄網,0204貼圖區,sex520免費影片,情色貼圖,視訊ukiss,視訊ggoo,視訊美女ggoo
080苗栗人聊天室,080中部人聊天室ut,ut影音視訊聊天室13077,視訊做愛,kk777視訊俱樂部,上班族聊天室,聊天室找一夜
A片下載,成人影片下載,免費A片下載,日本A片,情色A片,免費A片,成人影城,成人電影
影音視訊聊天室,辣妹視訊

goodeda1122 said...

情趣,情趣,視訊交友,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲