You want people to chain their personal happiness and sexual expression to notions of family loyalty/respect for parents?
There is no reason for the two things to be tied together. I can be perfectly loyal to my family and respectful of my parents while at the same time expressing my sexual nature as it pleases me. It’s none of their business.
We as a culture have been waking up to this reality—that an individual’s sexuality belongs to that individual only, and freeing ourselves from oppressive social structures on sexuality—and you want to chain it back up, it seems, because of your personal fears or social awkwardness.
Unintended pregnancies have been plummeting in places where people are open and liberal with regard to their sexuality and information about sex and contraception and abortion are readily available.
This reads either like a tautology or a misunderstanding of what an adult relationship entails.
It seems like you are saying that if Person A —who suffers from either a disinterest in it a fear of sex—is uninterested in including sexuality in a relationship, then he or she should expect all potential partners with normal sexual interests to accede to that.
Sex and sexuality are alarming and frightening to you. That’s the basic issue. The rest is just rationalization.
Actually—given that you’re an adult—it sounds like someone who has an unhealthy attitude towards sexuality—like someone who has been traumatized in some kind of social (sexual or not) situation, or someone who has been traumatized by oppressive moralism.
Abstinence-only programs don’t work as effectively as comprehensive sex programs because they are predicated on the view that people’s sex drives, particularly during the teenage years, are governed by how much they know about sex, a view that is largely unsupported by all evidence. The human sex drive is in many ways a biological imperative (and note that it’s an imperative not to reproduce but to have sex) and it’s an imperative that is particularly strong during the hormonally tempestuous teenage years. This remains true regardless of whether people are taught everything or nothing about sex. The problem then becomes whether they are well-equipped to understand and deal with this irrational imperative, and an educational approach that relies heavily on ignorance (as abstinence-only education does) will be inferior to one that tells the students realistically what to expect and what the consequences are.
As it happens, multiple studies have shown that abstinence-only education delays the average age at which people have their first sexual encounter by a mere six months. Furthermore, because those people have much less information about sexual health and good practice they are then more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and contract STDs than those who have had a more thorough education.*
That would be nice in theory but it’s not how most people function. As I said, sex is a biological imperative. It’s hardwired into us (or most of us anyway). I personally would settle for people being responsible in their sexual behavior - using condoms and other birth control, choosing one’s partners with care (rather than in a reckless drunken moment) and having frank and open discussions about sex with the person you’re having it with.** Even reaching that level is a major societal challenge, and it’s a challenge made greater by those who insist that telling teenagers as little about sex as possible is the way to go.
*I refer you to the case of Ms Bristol Palin who despite receiving a quarter of a million dollars to be a spokesperson for abstinence has had multiple - and continues to have - unmarried sexual relationships (including pregnancy).
** The number of times I’ve heard Dan Savage berate some caller who is too afraid to have a conversation about sex with the person with whom they’re actually having sex is astounding. As the man says, “USE YOUR WORDS”.
The song is very catchy and satirical. Yet, I feel sorry for those fictional girls who have unhealthy views of God. Reducing sin to a mere behavior and maintaining legalistic demands on people’s moral behavior are the recipe to hypocrisy and loopholes. Apparently, the girls are unaware of repentance and forgiveness for disobeying their parents, and they are unaware of alternative ways of showing affection. Their cherry-picking scriptural verses are essentially covering up what they did. Although everyone is entitled to some privacy, the girls’ duplicity, not the fact that they engaged in sex, tarnishes their reputation.
In the first place, that last word is properly spelled “Athena.” (But you should call Her Great Pallas, monarch of Olympus, master of wisdom, patron of heroes, employer of Rhymers, and castrator of Zeus.) In the second place, though Pallas Athena Herself is and shall always remain virgin, She’s pretty meh about what mortals do with their genitals among themselves so long as it’s all voluntary. She’s too cool to fuss about the small stuff.
Loach, my good chap, you clearly haven’t met many teenage boys.
But a teenage boys would never, ever, ever, ever (I could go on) answer that question truthfully. Because admitting that sex is a goal would mean admitting that they aren’t having any. And admitting that they aren’t having any will (at least in their minds, and possibly in reality, though I’m a lot less sure about the latter) decrease the chances of them ever getting any.
This concludes Teenage Boys 101 for this week. See you on Monday.
(I am kidding somewhat. Once you start having sex regularly, it does, indeed, become just something that you do. Which is why those who are having it don’t answer “have more of it”. Or maybe that’s just because, you know, cultural mores stop us from talking about sex in certain contexts. People don’t want to cause an even bigger uproar of laughter. More research may be needed.)
This is like addressing a crowded auditorium: “If you are currently cheating on your spouse, please raise your hand. No one? Wow, we must all be faithful then. Our crowd has a 0% rate of adultery.”
I somehow didn’t consider the “relationship with God” answers mentioned in the OP’s post above. Yeah, fat chance of anyone mentioning sex in a crowd where God is watching. You have a hard enough time as it is in a room full of secular Swedes.
Men can pay for sex with a prostitute, even if that is illegal in their jurisdiction. Somehow, Holden Caulfield got arranged with a prostitute and merely talked with her. I have no idea if prostitution was illegal in his jurisdiction at that time.
Like Holden, I once thought about losing my virginity to a prostitute, but the fact that most prostitutes are women and that prostitution is illegal in my jurisdiction change my mind completely. I like how Holden pays for the service without having sex at all. If I were in his situation, I would probably chicken out too.
Well, they can, but… how did that ever become the point? Oh, I’m not even going there.
You know, you’re beginning to fascinate me. Every post here talking some sense provokes the opening of a whole new can of worms and misconceptions that need to be dealt with, apparently from scratch.
Cultural mores against prostitution are still very strong and have always been stronger than taboos against extramarital sex. Furthermore, the probability of venereal disease is much higher when engaging in sex with a sex worker than with a member of the public at large. Please do not lose your virginity to a prostitute. A young lady should not need feel any obligation to have sex, and should not have any difficulty doing so if she wants.
Also, I can’t fucking believe that you’re a high school girl.
Assuming you’re over 18, why not find an older couple looking for a chance to show you the ropes? (no, I’m not volunteering). You could watch and learn, and they could involve you up to your comfort level.
She said previously that she’s in her early 20s, and emigrated to the US as a child (prior to kindergarten). So she may be from a more sheltered culture, even though she lives in the US now.
As for the prostitution question, I think most men look at like George Costanza said about parking, “Why should I pay for it when if I apply myself, I can get it for free?”
While the characters in the song may be fictional, its theme is based on actual reports of young people doing exactly what it describes, engaging in alternative behavior in order to remain, technically, virgins. The extent of this kind of behavior may be over-reported, but as others have noted above, young people who pledge abstinence do not show a lower rate of sexually transmitted diseases because they rarely keep that pledge.
Sex is a social interaction between two (or sometimes more) people, humans are very social animals, and the sex drive is quite strong. The only practical way to keep young people chaste would be hormone therapy, but that would almost certain be problematic for developing bodies.
I know you are partially kidding but despite the fact that a lot of their short term goals involve sex most teenage boys would recognize that their “highest” goal would be something like “Become a doctor” or “Play in the NBA.”
Of course they probably want to play in the NBA or become a doctor to get laid. It’s a vicious circle.
Huh, guess that’s what I get for reading between the lines. From mentioning high school health class to referring to Catcher in the Rye, pretty much an exclusively high school book, I though for sure the OP was still a student.