True lust waits
Abstinence gets some decent, if a little oddball, publicity in the Times magazine with this article about growing secular abstinence programs in unlikely places.
The Ivy League’s abstinence clubs began emerging several years ago about the same time as student sex blogs, sex columns and, at Harvard and Yale, student sex magazines. Those involved, however, say that the most important catalyst was university-sponsored safe-sex education, which they saw as institutional encouragement of promiscuity. The founders of the Princeton club, the first to form in the Ivy League in 2005, wanted to offer an opposing view. Many were Catholic, but seeking credibility within the university at large, they decided not to present themselves as a religious organization and always to “shy away from arguments with religious premises,” says Kevin Joyce, a former president of the club. “Here at a university, we have to provide the intellectual basis” for abstinence, he told me. “Every position we take as a group can be confirmed by rational thought.”
Much of the piece focuses on Janie Fredell at Harvard, who belongs to the True Love Revolution, a name about as awesome as True Love Waits.
“People just don’t get it,” Fredell said. “Everyone thinks we’re trying to promote this idea of the meek little virgin female.” She said she was doing no such thing. “I care deeply for women’s rights,” she said. Fredell was studying not just religion but also gender politics – and was reading Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” alongside John Stuart Mill’s “Subjection of Women.” She had awakened to the wage gap, to forced sterilization and female genital mutilation – to the different ways that men have, she said, of controlling women. One of these was sexual. Fredell had seen it often in her own life – men pushing for sex, she said, just to “have something to say in the locker room,” women feeling pressured to have sex in order to maintain a relationship. The more she studied and learned, the more Fredell came to realize that women suffer from having premarital sex, “due to a cultural double standard,” she said, “which devalues women for their sexual pasts and glorifies men for theirs.”
Her group’s arguments are powerful with the university audience, but if her propositions are founded on secular ideologies, they will ultimately fail. Here’s to hoping there’s more to these groups than the cracked and weary discourse of the body, of oppression, of feminism. If so, kudos.
WARNING: Frank discussions of sex.












back to top49 Comments to “True lust waits”
“…but if her propositions are founded on secular ideologies, they will ultimately fail.”
In my experience in debating moral and ethical issues with a nonreligious person, areguments have to be presented from a secular point of view. While I do not discount how important faith is, if you use faith as the basis for your entire position, then it will be dismissed out of hand because the target audience simply does not believe. I have found that building a secular argument that conforms to my beliefs allows my voice to be heard by those who do not share my faith.
“Many were Catholic, but seeking credibility within the university at large, they decided not to present themselves as a religious organization and always to ’shy away from arguments with religious premises.’”
Here we have a problem. The need for credibility is one thing, but one should not shrink away if religion is brought up. Acknowledging one’s if the opposition brings it up is important, taking the opportunity to be Christian and proud. Understand that if the opposition brings up this point, they want to reduce your arguements to religious dogma and dismiss it out of hand. Someone can be credible with a secular arguement, even if the person has faith. “Shying away” can be seen as being insecure in their beliefs, and the opposition will take that opportunity to try to break someone else’s faith.
Report comment to moderator
Warning: Frank discussions of sex.
That’s the problem with the vast majority of evangelicals (and Catholics’) approach to the issue.
For instance, when the question of oral sex came up in the article, the young lady simply dismissed it as “disgusting”. And she was somehow shocked that her good friend and co-president even thought about her in a sexual way.
Would you be able to discuss obesity and dieting without mentioning or analyzing food? How then can you have a meaningful discussion about sex without educating children about it?
Report comment to moderator
Are people empirically coming to conclusions about proper social roles and behaviors which are similar to Scripture’s, but apart from (or inspite of) Scripture?
If so, I suspect some of these people will dismiss the Bible’s wisdom as being merely coincidental to what science teaches us, while others may quite possibly end up dismissing their conclusions because they agree with Scripture.
And of course, those of us who hold to the Bible as being the final rule for faith and life — belief and behavior — should just nod and say, “This is what we’ve been trying to tell you all along.”
Report comment to moderator
if her propositions are founded on secular ideologies, they will ultimately fail.
I disagree and I think Darth Truk has it right in #1. If you want to convince someone who does not have a religious point of view to modify their behavior, you absolutely MUST have a secular argument for it.
Otherwise, the person will shrug off your advice as just a product of your religious belief and not binding on anyone who doesn’t share it.
Report comment to moderator
Quoting Kevin Joyce (from Harrison’s post) ” but seeking credibility within the university at large, they decided not to present themselves as a religious organization…”
Even though most of those institutions of higher education were founded as deeply religious institutions.
Joyce continued; “Here at a university, we have to provide the intellectual basis [for abstinence].”
A truly intellectual basis would INCLUDE a thoughtful INTEGRATION of faith-based agruments as well as secular arguments. This shows how NON-inclusive secularism actually is.
In order to get people to value faithfulness above all in their sex lives and relationships, it kinda helps to think in terms of faith and virtue.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Do you object to Christian parents teaching their children about sex in a way that begins with the presupposition that God intends for sex to be reserved for the marital covenant?
Report comment to moderator
Sex is sacred. It is bonding behavior at it best, uniting body AND soul as one, to the glory of God. It was originated by God for the joyful and loving covenent of marriage, which enriches human life more than any other sacred institution.
And we have to talk about it without reference to its origin and essential sacredness???
Heads they win, tails we lose. We ALL lose.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for posting this article, I read it all the way to the end and admire Fredell for not taking the easy road.
She’s young, though, and perhaps as not as sophsticiated as Arcadia would approve, but she’s learning and growing and she has a valid point. I will admit to smiling over her naivete (sp?) in several places.
I’m curious about there being no studies demonstrating premarital sex can be damaging to a person’s life. I’ve spoken with a lot of people over the years and heard many talk about the disasters in their personal lives as a result of their poor sexual choices. I’ve never heard anyone complain that abstaining from casual sex ruined anything beyond not getting dates.
Anecdotal, yes, but enough for me.
Report comment to moderator
I am, of course, aware of the fact that any notion of sacredness with regard to sex or anything else in human life will be dismisssed out of hand by the many in the modern crop of secularists. Their minds are too closed to that whole sector of thought. I also think a good communicator should use whatever argument works best in the context of the debate, be it a faith-based or secular argument.
Just remember which side is NARROWING the debate and the minds of people.
Report comment to moderator
While I’ll agree with Joel Mark that it kinds helps to think in terms of faith and virtue, I also agree with Darth Turk as SteveG does. I think you have to convince non-Christians especially in a secular way if only to get their attention. You would be too easily dismissed to rely on a theological argument.
The truth is, waiting is best for all girls, regardless of their religion. One would think that true feminists would embrace this 100%. It allows for education, allows for a child to grow into adulthood without all the pressures that are on kids today, it allows a girl to choose what she wants in life by giving her the time to figure that out.
Fredell wrote: “…“due to a cultural double standard,” she said, “which devalues women for their sexual pasts and glorifies men for theirs.””
This made me laugh. This was true back in the day. This will always be true. Feminists in the past 30-40 years have been in denial about this! Why? Because they don’t want to face what Joel Mark said: Sex is sacred. It is bonding behavior at it best, uniting body AND soul as one, to the glory of God. It was originated by God for the joyful and loving covenent of marriage, which enriches human life more than any other sacred institution.”
Yet another example of nothing new under the sun.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark at #5: A truly intellectual basis would INCLUDE a thoughtful INTEGRATION of faith-based agruments as well as secular arguments. This shows how NON-inclusive secularism actually is.
It shows an understanding of the real world that you apparently lack.
In order to get people to value faithfulness above all in their sex lives and relationships, it kinda helps to think in terms of faith and virtue.
Here’s how that conversation goes:
Abstinence Supporter: You shouldn’t have sex until you’re married.
Undecided Girl: Why not?
AS: Because God ordained sex as an expression of love between husband and wife and for procreation.
UG: OK … but I don’t really believe in God.
AS: Sex is sacred. It’s for the glory of God, but only for the marital bed.
UG: Right … do you know where I can get some condoms?
Report comment to moderator
. . .they decided not to present themselves as a religious organization and always to “shy away from arguments with religious premises,. . .”
This is typical of conservatism; throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Report comment to moderator
Its just a guess mind you but many folks must think about true lust the same way one thinks about true lies?
Report comment to moderator
I was amused at her raising the so-called “wage gap” issue. It is a result of women taking career time-outs for family and/or making trade-offs to allow a balanced life (choices which men don’t tend to make).
If you look at tenure (less family time-outs) and work demands (hours works, travel requirements, etc.), then the “wag gap” disappears.
Report comment to moderator
from NJLAWYER: “The truth is, waiting is best for all girls, regardless of their religion.”
How about “waiting is best for both men AND women”? Why put the impetus only on women to remain virgins? Now, I’m not saying that your statement precludes men waiting, but it echoes the traditional societal expectation that of course women ought to remain chaste, while the rule for men is much more lenient.
Report comment to moderator
I thought Fredell’s reaction to Kehliher’s frank discussion of the lusts that he (and most males) deal with was both revealing, and humorous. I wonder how many women truly don’t realize how differently men and women are wired?
Report comment to moderator
The best secular argument for abstinence is that there is zero chance of a sexually transmitted disease between couples who have been previously abstinent and remain faithful.
The best secular argument for marriage between a man and a woman is that their children benefit hugely from the distinct and complementary natures of both a man and a woman.
The problem is that many secularists and liberal Christians not having a serious religious foundation fall for various relativistic romantic and naturalistic notions.
Report comment to moderator
I should add to the above that the sex between abstinent couples is of the traditionally permitted variety.
Report comment to moderator
17: The best secular argument for abstinence is that there is zero chance of a sexually transmitted disease between couples who have been previously abstinent and remain faithful.
That’s not how the hopeless mind thinks. The hopeless mind thinks, “Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”
Report comment to moderator
The difficulty here is that if you’re not a person who believes in pre-marital celibacy for religious reasons (and then only the kind of sex that Peter Leavitt approves of), there is a wide range of permutations and no one single argument against all of them.
When you’re talking to a teenager, you can use the reasons NJLawyer lays out in #10. But what if you’re talking to a 25-year-old woman who is two years into a committed and monogamous relationship, but not married? Then you need a different set of arguments. (And have a much weaker case, if you’re talking to someone who is intelligent and has her life together.)
The issues of child-rearing might come up, but what about post-marrieds? Consider a couple who are in their 50s, both of whom have had marriages that ended (whether through divorce or widowhood) and have already had their children, probably even have grandchildren? They tell you they love each other and have a decent sex life for people in their 50s, but since they’re not going to be starting a family, see no need to marry. Then you need yet another set of arguments.
Report comment to moderator
The secular argument we use for abstience in health class is similar to NJL in #10. Early pregnacy disrupts the “normal” pattern of life. School, work, marriage then children. Since Canada has a one year paid maternity leave programme, I use this as an incentive. That is, if you wait until your career has started then a planned or unplanned pregnancy will not affect your financial situation. Secondly I give the stats and odds of acquiring STIs based on the number of different partners they will have over a lifetime. And if pregnant and barefoot or an endless round of various STIs doesn’t scare them the next lesson is on birth control.
Report comment to moderator
FrankinPDo you object to Christian parents teaching their children about sex in a way that begins with the presupposition that God intends for sex to be reserved for the marital covenant?
Nope, as long as they get down to the nitty-gritty of condoms and STD’s and even homosexual variations. Or as long as somebody else does so that they do not remain ignorant of what they MUST know in order to protect themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Believe it or not, those who practice chastity are very well protected. And I’m fairly sure any 15-year-old in America, from the most protective home, knows about condoms and all those other things.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia
Is protection all that matters when it comes to sex, or is there something more valuable when having sex, such as commitment, love and sharing the experience because what may come of this maybe a lovely human being?
Report comment to moderator
Obama doesn’t want his daughters to be “punished with a baby.” Note – he didn’t say pregnancy, he said baby.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Stop_these_abortions_.html
And who would be punishing her? The government? It is interesting how he shifts this responsibility from her actions to Government policy.
Arcadia – I mostly agree with you, but homosexual variations? They are a lot more than variations. Should we also cover bestiality?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Why, in your view, MUST children know about “homosexual variations … in order to protect themselves”?
That said, I now present to you “Fun With Analogies!” Today’s episode: “Sex and Driving!”
After all, underage, unlicensed children are gonna have sex and drive anyway — I mean, c’mon, the urge is just so great as to be virtually irresistable! So we should at least teach them how to protect themselves when they eventually get around to breaking God’s and the community’s laws …
Report comment to moderator
Barack doesn’t want to punish the mother with a baby, so he thinks the government should punish the baby with a mother.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia – The abstinence movement is all about protection – mind, body and soul, not just getting a little latex barrier between fluids.
Report comment to moderator
The problem with it, KRM, is it has no protective value unless it’s adhered to 100 percent. And teenagers being what they are, the chances of that are dubious.
Tell your children to abstain, certainly. But also tell them how to protect themselves if they don’t. It may not be the perfection you wish for, but it is necessary.
Report comment to moderator
Ampipholis: And who would be punishing her? The government? It is interesting how he shifts this responsibility from her actions to Government policy.
That’s a distortion of what Obama said. He made a bad choice of words, but his point was that teenagers make mistakes, and since there available and simple ways to prevent those mistakes from destroying their futures, they should be aware of them.
Would you want a teenage girl who chooses not to be abstinent to have a baby at 16 or 17? Who benefits from that? The girl whose future is changed forever? The baby born to an immature girl who is suddenly expected to be a good mother?
Objecting to his point here is beyond shortsighted.
Report comment to moderator
food for thought:
some misakes ARE life-devastating. and they should be, or people will not consider them mistakes.
you can’t call them mistakes if they don’t have consequences.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 30
The child who is in the womb benefits by being able to see the light of day, to be born. The girl who bears the child can either raise it or give it up for adoption. It isn’t ‘JUST HER LIFE’ that’s at stake, when she became pregnant, there was someone else to consider, besides herself. Someone just as human, just as worthy, just as precious.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “That’s a distortion of what Obama said. He made a bad choice of words, but his point was that teenagers make mistakes, and since there available and simple ways to prevent those mistakes from destroying their futures, they should be aware of them.”
Let’s be clear about a poor choice iof words. The “mistake” is really a sin – it’s called fornication. Let’s call things what they really are. The resultant baby is NOT the mistake.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: He (and I) was talking about contraception, not abortion.
According to the article linked in #25, the convseration eventually turned to abortion, but he had already made his poor choice of words before it did.
The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
Klasko: OK .. then I guess you DO see a baby or an STD at that age as “punishment” for the sin?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – I think the whole problem in our approach to the issue is that we have forgotten what true sin is. Fornication is now the norm in our lives thanks to progressives and liberals, and now even Christians have begun winking at sin. We throw up our hands and say, “Well they’re going to do it anyway, so we may as well make sure there are minimal consequences.” We don’t even give them any real reasons other than “You might get an STD,” or worse, “You might suffer an unwanted pregnancy.” And in the next breath, we in effect say, “But if you do end up with an STD or an unwanted pregnancy, we can make it go away, (wink, wink).”
You know what that told me when I was a kid? That told me, “I don’t think you’re smart enough or wise enough to follow good advice, so here’s the end around for when you do make that mistake, because I expect you will.” When I went to PP at 16 and get BCPs without my parents’ knowledge or consent – this was in the 70s – when my mom found out, her response was, “Well, at least you were smart enough to get yourself some protection.” The message I got was promiscuous premarital sex was ok and adults were only telling us not to out of a sense of “that’s what we’re supposed to tell our kids, but we don’t really believe it ourselves.”
That’s why so many people don’t want to teach an abstinence only message – they don’t really believe it themselves in their heart of hearts. It’s really hard to persuade someone else about what you don’t believe. And kids can see through that hypocrisy.
I felt guilty and so I went to my pastor who told me not that my fornication was sin and how to deal with sin in my life, but that I was unwise and had made an unwise decision without any further explanation. Yeah, that really helped.
Kids are not stupid and they can handle the real truth.
I think STDs and pregnancies are consequences of having sexual relations. Is it punishment? I suppose others would say I see it that way. Was God punishing David when Bathsheba got pregnant? No. But David did have to deal with the consequences of his actions. God judged David’s sin, but not David. David was forgiven. And David did everything that he could to avoid the consequences before he had to face up to it before God.
We shouldn’t pussyfoot around it when we talk to our children about sex. And we shouldn’t leave it for the village to do either. We should tell our kids that they should save themselves for marriage. And, we should tell them WHY. And then we should not shy away from our own shortcomings in the matter. I told my children from my own experience why God made sexual relations to be enjoyed by a husband and a wife both for procreation and for the enjoyment of one another. I also told them how great a disservice they would be doing to themselves and their future spouse if they didn’t wait, and the heartbreak of not having waited. A fruit plucked too soon is bittersweet while the fruit plucked at its peak of ripeness is exquisitely sweet. And I also told them about the physical consequences. But at the time I told them these things, I did NOT tell them that there would be a bailout of the consequences, nor did I give them any reason to think that I expected them to not take good advice and abstain.
I raised them with enough consistency that they knew there would be consequences (good and bad) of all of their actions to be dealt with, and the area of sex was no different. We never bailed them out of their circumstances in the past so they had to deal with their own consequences so this is what they expected from us as parents in this area as well. They know from experience that there is forgiveness of sin, but sin has consequences, and to call it less then it is makes it out to be less than it is.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 30 -
Those above have answered. Obama misspoke, but what he said was revealing. The baby he acknowledged and you ignored is who he would punish.
Yes she should have the baby. Of course. Pregnancy and childbirth is not punishment, it is life.
Report comment to moderator
Is anyone here against giving a teen information about birth control? If so, please speak up. I think that is mostly a straw man.
Isn’t the issue really what level of responsible behavior we think is reasonable? Do we set the bar at using birth control, or abstaining? What’s wrong with our firmly stating that sex outside of marriage is wrong and irresponsible? Is it that consensual sex is thought by some to be always good?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – the girl who gets pregnant at 16 or 17 ought to be placing the baby for adoption.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko,
Wise post. Honestly, saying, “I’d like you to abstain, but don’t expect you to, and here’s how we can minimize the consequences if you don’t” is NOT in a child’s best interests! And to be willing to kill a child who is conceived to avoid facing natural consequences–consequences that are meant to be good, because sex is supposed to beget life within marriage–is definitely making a baby pay for its parents’ sin.
I really do wish we were more willing as a culture to encourage teens to let a married couple adopt their babies. Teen mothers aren’t very good mothers, usually. But that’s no reason to encourage murdering the baby, or to encourage the use of birth control (which might not even keep her from conceiving and won’t protect her from disease, from sin, or from a broken heart).
Indeed, if we believe premarital sex is SIN, we cannot say, “But if you really want to do it, here’s how to get away with it.” We might as well tell our sons not to rob convenience stores, but give them access to guns and to people we know to be career criminals. If we really believe it’s sin, and that it can damage or destroy lives, then we won’t enourage it. (And by the way, a high percentage of teen suicides are connected to the breakup of sexual relationships…so yes, there are unexplored serious consequences besides possible babies and the fact that condoms aren’t very good protection against STDs, pregnancy, or a guilty conscience and a broken heart.)
Report comment to moderator
Klasko and CherylD: So what do you do, then, when the teenager you’ve talked to about about sin and abstinence comes to you and admits that even knowing that, she succumbed to temptation and now she is pregnant?
Seriously. Who benefits from that?
Amphipolis and KRM: As I’ve explained already, Obama was not talking about abortion in that comment, he was talking about birth control … preventing the pregnancy from happening in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Then we deal with the pregnancy. We’d get through it as a family. BTW – My children were both products of public education so they got all the indoctrination about birth control and such. And bnefore the public school indoctrination, we were pro-active in letting them know that there are ways that people try to get around their sin and we even talked about it before and after what they got in school. But my husband and I made it clear that the world’s way was not God’s way, and just because other people were doing it was not a reason for them to do it. What’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
My point, Klasko, is twofold: (1) Some children may not be the angelic saintly Christian children their parents want them to be, and if they lack the information needed to prevent pregnancy, they could ruin their future potential over a momentary lapse of good judgment, and (2) Many parents are not even trying to make their children angelic saintly Christian children, but they too do not deserve to lose out on the rest of their lives due to a lack of information.
Report comment to moderator
The effects of abstinence-only education:
ORLANDO, Fla. — A recent survey that found some Florida teens believe drinking a cap of bleach will prevent HIV and a shot of Mountain Dew will stop pregnancy has prompted lawmakers to push for an overhaul of sex education in the state.
The survey showed that Florida teens also believe that smoking marijuana will prevent a person from getting pregnant.
Story.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – Who’s to say that having that child while not under the best or ideal circumstances, might not actually be a blessing in disguise? You? God is big enough and gracious enough to redeem any circumstance. I had children young myself and I do NOT feel that I have “lost out on the rest of my life.”
How do you measure future potential? By the world’s standards or by God’s standards?
Report comment to moderator
Sex education belongs in the home first. Parents need to be proactive in educating their children about sex well before the school indoctrinates them.
Report comment to moderator
KRM – 38
YOU WRITE:…. “the girl who gets pregnant at 16 or 17 ought to be placing the baby for adoption.”
I don’t agree with that KRM, many times the parents of the girl will help raise the child while their daughter finishes school. The baby is part of their family. I don’t believe that adopting a child out is the ONLY answer. It is one answer, but not the ONLY one.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
What do you do when the teenager you’ve talked to about about birth control comes to you and admits that even knowing that, she didn’t use it effectively and now she is pregnant? Birth control requires responsibility also. Teen sex is inherently irresponsible.
I have not heard anybody state that information on birth control should be withheld. Besides, I don’t know how any teen in this country could avoid it. Why else would married couples talk about when they plan to have a baby? It would be discussed as part of cultural literacy even if for no other reason. Birth control is a big part of what makes the modern world different from that which came before.
You are completely wrong about Obama, he was absolutely talking about abortion – i>if they make a mistake he would punish the innocent child, as you would. That is the issue, not birth control.
Report comment to moderator
I messed up the italics when quoting him:
if they make a mistake he would punish the innocent child
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I sit corrected. If the family dynamics are such that welcoming the child into the family and raising is a viable/reasonabe option then that should certainly be strongly considered.
My perception is that a very large percentage of such children would be better placed for adoption.
Report comment to moderator