Virginity – valuable or overrated?
by intern Heather B.
Recently, MSNBC‘s Today Show hosted a forum between guests Jessica Valenti, author of
The Purity Myth and founder of the leftist blog Feministing.com, and Lakita Garth, author of The Naked Truth, former CEO of her own company in CA, and virgin bride at age 36.
The 2 enthusiasts were invited to “discuss how women view sexuality and whether virginity pledges are a good idea for young women.”
Valenti and Garth agree on the obvious: young women neither wish nor deserve to be identified solely on the basis of their sexuality. The routes by which they arrive at this vague yet mutual conclusion, however, bear stark contrasts….
According to Valenti, whose first sexual encounter was during her freshman year of high school, “The purity myth is the lie that our sexuality has some bearing on who we are and how good we are.”
Her attitude is such that, rather than stigmatizing young women with labels chaining them to their sexual past, “we really should be teaching our daughters that their ability to be good people is based on their intelligence, their compassion, [and] their kindness, not what they do with their bodies.”
While everyone can agree with a resounding “amen!” that casting stones does no one any good, this empowering message is incongruent with the theme of helpless victimization portrayed in Valenti’s mentality, which deems young women “unable to live up to the ideal of purity that’s forced upon them.”
Consequently, our next generation is choosing a “hyper-sexualized alternative that’s offered to them everywhere else as the easier – and more attractive – option.”
Valenti and Garth agree girls shouldn’t be objectified, degraded or identified according to their sexual activity: Valenti – because girls can’t help it, Garth – because girls can.
So how can society veer from this downward spiral of double standards and inconsiderate labels? The question opens up a new can of worms, fanning the controversial flames of debate regarding public schools and the teaching of abstinence-only programs.
Valenti holds that abstinence-only programs are “a complete public health failure,” and the answer is not to “focus on their virginity, because that’s just another way of focusing on their sexuality.”
Garth, on the other hand, believes “abstinence programs are not about degrading people who have had sex,” rather, “they’re about putting sex in the proper priority.” She says:
If you are smart and witty and fun and intelligent, then those are the things that you need to bolster: get an education, it’s all about future orientation.
It comes down to empowerment: Are we going to dismiss poor choices, labeling young women as incapable of controlling their hormonal and social motives by handing them condoms on a silver platter, or are we going to bolster the things that truly merit recognition?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
December 13th was Katy Kruger’s wedding day. It was also the day she had her first kiss.
The 22-year-old woman, who was married at Harpeth Hills Church of Christ in Brentwood, admits to being nervous and a bit self-conscious about having her first kiss in front of 200 people.
“I wasn’t sure what to do,” said Kruger, who is model-beautiful. “I thought I would mess up.”
This is a good debate. Both women obviously had a lot of smart points.
But I’m not seeing or hearing where Valenti is saying that ‘uncontrollable hormones’ are the justification for a different viewpoint, rather, that the intense pressure (suggested or vocalized) towards mythical ‘sexual purity’ for women and girls is as inane as the quest to be the perfect parent or mother – its simply another way in which to measure her, and harshly, should she not live up to a standard of behavior that fluctuates depending on who’s measuring. And how exactly is she portraying women as victims? Also:
“Are we going to dismiss poor choices, labeling young women as incapable of controlling their hormonal and social motives by handing them condoms on a silver platter, or are we going to bolster the things that truly merit recognition?”
-Why is being sexual necessarily a poor choice? Why must her sex life be a point of recognition at all? Can you not be recognized for upstanding citizenship and be a sexually active woman?
Being abstinent until marriage can be hard, but it is possible. Shorter engagements would help.
Making fun of either side is not the answer. The answer is expecting the same high standards of all young women, and all young men.
Willpower is a lost virtue that badly needs reviving. I fully intend to protect my daughter from the dating culture and from predatory men or boys until she is old enough to make responsible decisions. (Hint: the decision to have sex outside of marriage is never a responsible decision.) That’s the best way to protect her from stds, single parenthood, abortion, a broken heart (over romance), and self-destructive behavior.
I find that the only people who seem to think that abstinence is a failure are the ones who, like Valenti, became sexually active. 14 is extremely early for sexual activity, especially back when she was 14.
Kathie Lee Gifford made a good point in the video that accompanies the article on MSNBC. She said that even though we shouldn’t assign value based strictly on sexual activity, young women and girls should know that what they do with their bodies DOES affect them for the rest of their lives. Saying sex is inconsequential is as ridiculous as saying that drinking alcohol or doing drugs are inconsequential. Or even on the positive side, that doing ANYTHING with one’s body is inconsequential. It just isn’t true.
What we do affects who we are and who we become and who we are perceived to be in all other cases, but now we want to magically excuse our sexuality from the equation? Sorry, but I’m not buying it. Sex has consequences, just like everything else…sometimes even more so.
Posted by: Kel at May 5, 2009 1:55 PM:
I find that the only people who seem to think that abstinence is a failure are the ones who, like Valenti, became sexually active.
-It’s a failure if it fails from preventing the varients that it was designed to prevent: infection, pregnancy and “self destructive behavior”. Given the low %s of teens who sucessfully lead an abstinent life during and after being taught, could be not agree that it is failing? After all, you would argue that sex-ed fails because people still get pregnant or sick. PS, I personally agree with you that 14 is early for sexual activity.
Young women and girls should know that what they do with their bodies DOES affect them for the rest of their lives. Saying sex is inconsequential is as ridiculous as saying that drinking alcohol or doing drugs are inconsequential.
-Of course. No one and no comprehensive sex ed teaching promotes the contrary. So what is the point here?
What we do affects who we are and who we become and who we are perceived to be in all other cases, but now we want to magically excuse our sexuality from the equation?
-Sexuality without negative consequences is indeed possible. No pregnancy, relationship complications or disease happens to many sexually active people. Therefore, why would a woman’s sexual history a) be anyone else’s concern and b) impact other’s perception of you?
Good article with some truth.
some more truth. NO STD’s. The dishonest line about “complete health failure”. How is staying STD free by reason of abstinence a failure????
Now for a big post. BIG. If a man and woman do not have sex before marriage, get married before having children, stay married and have no outside of marriage children we solve the following problems
High school drop outs. Greatly reduced drop outs
We have almost zero cases of welfare.
We have much lower incidence of mental health problems.
We have sharply reduced juvenile crime rates and juvenile substance abuse problems.
Sharply reduced STD’s No AIDS. None
Adults that preach that kids can’t control themselves are merely trying to justify the fact that they don’t want to control themselves as adults. They are validating their poor choices at the expense of these children.
I think it’s an astute observation that the only people saying abstinence is a failure are those that need to believe that in order to legitimize their personal failures. Why they insist on bringing the kids down with them is a sign of how desperate they are to keep their lifestyle.
“No pregnancy, relationship complications or disease”
Wow, that’s the best you can hope for? I feel sorry for you.
I am very happy with my “relationship complication” and my successful pregnancies. Sex has consequences–thank God!
From my own stance on early sexual encounters….
I started being sexual at a VERY young age. Party because I had been sexually violated at an early age and those ‘feelings’ I got from having sexual encounters made me feel ‘normal’. Second part is because I had almost no communication with my parents and I was hanging out with a differnt crowd. Those kids were all smoking ciggarettes, pot, drinking alcohol, having all kids of sex, etc. Those people made me feel wanted, pretty, rebel like, differnt, cool and like I belonged for them. I didn’t have that growing up and those qaulities were very important to me. I lost my virginity on a bathroom floor on a dare. I still remember that boy and he told everyone I was this huge whore and slut. But I felt that way after we had sex…
I continued on that distructive path for a long time. Until I ended up pregnant at 15.
Point is that parents are the best teachers, if my parents had been on my butt about every little thing I was doing than I’m pretty sure I would have been thinking twice before engaging in those acts. Also I was never involved in after school activites after the 6th grade. After 6th grade when my parents stopped urging me to be active after school due to financial reasons that is when I started getting bored and becoming destrcutive.
That is my two cents from a girl who’s been there and done that.
I now wish I would have saved myself for my husband but I cannot take back those actions. Luckily those actions of my youth have made me even more gung ho about teaching my boys from an early age about openess, communication, honesty and truth with your parents. While I cannot protect my children from all the evils of the world I can prepare them to face those evils in the future.
Danielle,
Someone’s sexual history doesn’t just impact people’s perception of someone, it impacts that person’s perception of themself. Some could argue that choosing to share one’s body indiscriminately is a consequence of a poor self-image, but it certainly wouldn’t help. Women try to use it that way, “at least men want me,” but we all know how that ends.
I am fine, and would be OVERJOYED to have people judge me on the fact that I’m a 28-year-old virgin. I do think it’s an indication of my high self-esteem, ability to delay gratification and not succumb to popular cultures impositions on what they think I should do. I think it absolutely says good things about me, and those women that have had bad histories and manage to turn their lives around, it says even BETTER things about them.
No, our sexual history isn’t a litmus test for our character and shouldn’t be, but those ashamed of their lifestyle are perhaps so for a reason. Society supports all sorts of sexual activities, so any shame women feel is not imposed, but internal. Women instinctively know, despite rationalizations, that sex is a level of intimacy that is not supposed to be shared with many people.
Of course. No one and no comprehensive sex ed teaching promotes the contrary. So what is the point here?
Oh yes it does! Spending two seconds to say, “Abstinence is the best way, the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s”, followed by hours of putting condoms on bananas is like a father telling his son, “Do not take my car out while I’m gone. But if you do, don’t change the radio station.”
The second message completely negates the first. The son knows that that father does not expect him to obey, and thinks, “Well, it’s okay if I don’t change the radio station.” Kids get the point that all the time spent teaching them how to have sex (only safer) vs. the minimal time spent telling them they should abstain means the EXPECTATION is for them to have sex, only with a thin layer of latex. The expectation is not for them to abstain- if it were, you wouldn’t devote time to teaching them a supposed right way to do a wrong thing.
Think about it- drug preventing assemblies don’t say “JUST SAY NO” followed by hours of how to use sterilized needles and inject in a way that doesn’t burst a vein. The expectation for kids is that they’ll say no, and although many kids don’t, those kids are the deviants. However, with sex, which is in countless ways more dangerous, kids are taught how to minimally protect themselves when swimming in a pool of deadly consequences- and those that wisely choose to stay out of the pool are the deviants. Explain that!
Danielle said: It’s a failure if it fails from preventing the varients that it was designed to prevent: infection, pregnancy and “self destructive behavior”. Given the low %s of teens who sucessfully lead an abstinent life during and after being taught, could be not agree that it is failing? After all, you would argue that sex-ed fails because people still get pregnant or sick.
****************************************
No, because when applied, abstinence prevents ALL STDs and ALL unplanned pregnancies and ALL unintended negative emotional consequences. If it’s not applied, it’s not called “abstinence.” Abstinence education is the teaching of those values. Not everyone will choose to follow them in our over-sexualized society, obviously…which is but one reason why so many people are ridiculously screwed up.
And sex-ed fails for various reasons. Either people choose, against better judgment, to become sexually active because it’s “the norm” or they choose to engage in risky sexual behavior because it’s “cool” or they are taught that a little pink pill will solve all of their problems and they can just go and have all the sex they want without consequence. Oh, yeah, and if the birth control fails, well, abortion is always available. None of this solves the root of the problem: lack of self-control and self-discipline.
My comment:Young women and girls should know that what they do with their bodies DOES affect them for the rest of their lives. Saying sex is inconsequential is as ridiculous as saying that drinking alcohol or doing drugs are inconsequential.
Danielle’s reply:Of course. No one and no comprehensive sex ed teaching promotes the contrary. So what is the point here?
****************************************
The point is that the author claims a person’s sexual activity should be wholly unrelated to that person’s being. It’s a ridiculous notion.
My comment: What we do affects who we are and who we become and who we are perceived to be in all other cases, but now we want to magically excuse our sexuality from the equation?
Danielle’s reply: Sexuality without negative consequences is indeed possible. No pregnancy, relationship complications or disease happens to many sexually active people. Therefore, why would a woman’s sexual history a) be anyone else’s concern and b) impact other’s perception of you?
Posted by: Danielle at May 5, 2009 2:11 PM
*************************************
Gosh, I don’t know why a woman’s sexual history would be a concern, except for that woman. I know too many people (I work with college kids) who have had sex and were not so lucky. I don’t know “many” sexually active people who haven’t experienced some sort of emotional turmoil or STD or unintended consequence of their behavior. Does it affect them later? For young women especially, it most certainly does.
And Jacqueline’s comments were spot-on, as usual. :D
BTW, if no one wants to think of anyone’s sexuality at all, then why are virgins routinely ridiculed in society and made to feel like freaks? Obviously, people who sleep around don’t want to be labeled, but they seem to have zero problem labeling those who choose to abstain.
Jacqueline, wow!
I couldn’t agree with you more!
Great way to put this issue into easy to understand words!
Think about it- drug preventing assemblies don’t say “JUST SAY NO” followed by hours of how to use sterilized needles and inject in a way that doesn’t burst a vein. The expectation for kids is that they’ll say no, and although many kids don’t, those kids are the deviants. However, with sex, which is in countless ways more dangerous, kids are taught how to minimally protect themselves when swimming in a pool of deadly consequences- and those that wisely choose to stay out of the pool are the deviants. Explain that!
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 5, 2009 3:11 PM
***************************************
YES! Great analogy.
“No pregnancy, relationship complications or disease”
Wow, that’s the best you can hope for? I feel sorry for you.
Posted by: YCW at May 5, 2009 2:57 PM
That was a pretty big leap – and I have no idea where you’re gathering that (very wrong) assumption from.
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 5, 2009 3:05 PM:
Someone’s sexual history doesn’t just impact people’s perception of someone, it impacts that person’s perception of themself.
-Agreed.
Some could argue that choosing to share one’s body indiscriminately is a consequence of a poor self-image, but it certainly wouldn’t help.
-Agreed…but where are you concluding that sexually active women are ‘sharing their bodies indiscriminately’? Do you mean to say some and not all? If that is the case, I also agree with you.
I am fine, and would be OVERJOYED to have people judge me on the fact that I’m a 28-year-old virgin.
-Why is this even a topic of discussion, outside of close, intimate conversations? As an adult, you shouldn’t be judged or praised for being a virgin anymore than a woman who is not a virgin should be.
I do think it’s an indication of my high self-esteem, ability to delay gratification and not succumb to popular cultures impositions on what they think I should do. I think it absolutely says good things about me…
-I also agree with you to a point. In comparison to my social group (and many other teen groups), I too delayed having sex, although not to the extent you did. I also contribute this to my upbringing, the infusion of self worth and body esteem infused in me by my mother, etc. I bring this fact up to point out that these kind of characteristics are evidenced in people who did or did not have sex before marriage. A healthy sex life outside of marriage does not conclude to a life of destruction.
No, our sexual history isn’t a litmus test for our character and shouldn’t be, but those ashamed of their lifestyle are perhaps so for a reason. Society supports all sorts of sexual activities, so any shame women feel is not imposed, but internal.
-To an extent. But to suggest that the external viewpoints on sex and morality and the tremendous sexual double standards allotted to men and women (at least in this country) have no bearing on self image, is naive and dismisses our accountability in the impact that judging and punishing the personal decisions of others manifests.
Women instinctively know, despite rationalizations, that sex is a level of intimacy that is not supposed to be shared with many people.
-Agreed again. The key word here is ‘many’. Its subjective, and the definition changes for every person.
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 5, 2009 3:11 PM:
Spending two seconds to say, “Abstinence is the best way, the only certain way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s”, followed by hours of putting condoms on bananas is like a father telling his son, “Do not take my car out while I’m gone. But if you do, don’t change the radio station.”
-More like, when you take the car out, wear a seatbelt. Make sure everyone in the car is wearing one, too. It’s a great milestone in your life to learn how to drive and opens up a new level of freedom for you. But it’s a big, heavy vehicle and needs to be guided carefully. You could get hurt or hurt someone else and vice versa. When you’re driving, you need to be responsible.
Think about it- drug preventing assemblies don’t say “JUST SAY NO” followed by hours of how to use sterilized needles and inject in a way that doesn’t burst a vein.
-Actually, Jacqueline, there’s a good deal of data to suggest that distributing clean needles to IV drug users greatly reduced the spread of infectious disease, including HIV.
Kids are taught how to minimally protect themselves when swimming in a pool of deadly consequences- and those that wisely choose to stay out of the pool are the deviants. Explain that!
-Wow, you walked right into that swimming pool analogy. I’ll assume that if you are a mother, you would do absolutely anything to protect your children from harm’s way. If you had young ones in the house, that included a swimming pool, you’d put a fence around it. Demand that they stay away from it without mom or dad around. But (and I’m assuming, I know), I’ll bet that you’d also breathe a sigh of relief once those kids learned how to swim. And you’d always make sure they had a lifejacket handy.
Posted by: Kel at May 5, 2009 3:27 PM:
I know too many people (I work with college kids) who have had sex and were not so lucky. I don’t know “many” sexually active people who haven’t experienced some sort of emotional turmoil or STD or unintended consequence of their behavior. Does it affect them later? For young women especially, it most certainly does.
-That’s unfortunate, Kel. I can say that I know
a bit of both, therefore I’m able to confirm that one path does not always lead to the same fate. I’ll also add the emotional turmoil is a product of life, especially romantic relationships, regardless of whether or not the couple is having sex. I cried just as many tears over boys when I was a virgin as I did after. Hurt and disappointment is simply part of the human experience. Of course parents try to minimize unpleasant experiences for their children but it is a fact of life that no one can stop. Concluding that sex will lead to heartbreak is an incomplete conclusion.
BTW, if no one wants to think of anyone’s sexuality at all, then why are virgins routinely ridiculed in society and made to feel like freaks?
-Sorry if that’s been your experience as well, maybe you know too many jerks, or you’re especially sensitive to the topic. Frankly it’s no one’s business was does or doesn’t happen in your bedroom.
Agreed…but where are you concluding that sexually active women are ‘sharing their bodies indiscriminately’? Do you mean to say some and not all? If that is the case, I also agree with you.
Well, they aren’t discrimating based on someone’s lifetime commitment to them and how sexual relations can produce children. So the fact that they will be with someone who has no intent of being in the home with them to raise the children he could be making, but causing them to be shuffled between parents on the weekends (actually, in most cases where women make babies with men not married to them, there ends up being no father AT ALL). That’s indiscriminate. Anything less than “you and only you and any children we have-FOREVER” is a poor discrimination that has the potential to hurt a woman and her kids. So those who only sleep with boyfriends, or fiances or some wishy-washy substitute for marriage are not very discriminatory.
Why is this even a topic of discussion, outside of close, intimate conversations? As an adult, you shouldn’t be judged or praised for being a virgin anymore than a woman who is not a virgin should be.
It’s the topic of THIS conversation. And I don’t expect to be praised for my choices which have benefitted me profoundly- any sublime “reward” is living a life free of the consequences of pre-marital sex. But, let’s be honest, you only find my choice to not end up infected for life or a single mother to be not praiseworthy because that impugns the opposite choice. Even those that rationalize that abstinence is not the only way, still can’t deny that it’s the BEST way, since I get all the benefits of sex in marriage without any of the consequences. How is that not the wisest choice?
I also agree with you to a point. In comparison to my social group (and many other teen groups), I too delayed having sex, although not to the extent you did. I also contribute this to my upbringing, the infusion of self worth and body esteem infused in me by my mother, etc. I bring this fact up to point out that these kind of characteristics are evidenced in people who did or did not have sex before marriage. A healthy sex life outside of marriage does not conclude to a life of destruction.
But it’s inherently unhealthy. There is a COIN FLIP chance (50%), that someone having sex outside of marriage will end up with an STD. You can’t possibly know. Likewise, it’s inherently unjust to potentially create children that will be scraped into a pan and incinerated, or denied the homelife that they deserve. A lack of a father is shown to lower the age that girls have sex, looking for the male validation they didn’t get. Fathers matter. Having a partnership allowing for mothers to have more time to mother vs. working 2 jobs- these things matter.
To an extent. But to suggest that the external viewpoints on sex and morality and the tremendous sexual double standards allotted to men and women (at least in this country) have no bearing on self image, is naive and dismisses our accountability in the impact that judging and punishing the personal decisions of others manifests.
Precisely. But the external viewpoints favor your position and mock mine. It’s the internal recognition, that society has no choice but acknowledge, that rightly affects a woman’s self-image in this area. If I let the pervasive message that “Kids simply CAN NOT be expected to not have sex” dictate my choices, my life would be dramatically different. And the assault on my choice, while objectively the smartest and safest, does not make girls feel 3 inches tall when they sleep with a guy and he never calls.
The key word here is ‘many’. Its subjective, and the definition changes for every person.
Not true. The truth is objective. The truth is that marital sex protects you from consequences that you choose to accept when having pre-marital sex. It’s not a “to each his own” here- since you can find yourself very discriminate and still end up on once-daily Valtrex the same as a girl who has one-night stands on a regular basis.
More like, when you take the car out, wear a seatbelt. Make sure everyone in the car is wearing one, too. It’s a great milestone in your life to learn how to drive and opens up a new level of freedom for you. But it’s a big, heavy vehicle and needs to be guided carefully. You could get hurt or hurt someone else and vice versa. When you’re driving, you need to be responsible.
No- you missed the point. The point was, “Don’t drive the car. It’s dangerous. You are TOO YOUNG.” Parents don’t suggest dangerous ELECTIVE activities to kids with a caveat of making it a little safer. No child is capable of consenting to sex and the lifetime consequences. They are children. You supervise and protect them, not throw them to the sharks as long as they keep their arms and legs inside the cage.
Actually, Jacqueline, there’s a good deal of data to suggest that distributing clean needles to IV drug users greatly reduced the spread of infectious disease, including HIV.
I know. It’s called “harm reduction” and it’s generally used for consenting adults, not kids that deserve to be protected for ALL harm, not have their harm reduced. If your daughter had a penchant for cutting herself, would you buy her an autoclave or try to stop it? By giving kids condoms, you are instead inviting them to harmful activity. Harm reduction is a concession that people have to harm themselves and tries to de-stigmatize things that should rightly remain stigmatized.
Wow, you walked right into that swimming pool analogy. I’ll assume that if you are a mother, you would do absolutely anything to protect your children from harm’s way. If you had young ones in the house, that included a swimming pool, you’d put a fence around it. Demand that they stay away from it without mom or dad around.
Now you are understanding me! A fence is not a condom. You are clearly explaining that they are NOT to swim without supervision, not handing them waterwings and saying that it’s expected that they jump right in, as long as they have their floaties on.
But (and I’m assuming, I know), I’ll bet that you’d also breathe a sigh of relief once those kids learned how to swim. And you’d always make sure they had a lifejacket handy.
I had a pool with a fence. I learned to swim at 3. But I had a mother that kept that fence locked even though I could swim, because it is still dangerous without adult supervision. I didn’t have a mother that sighed relieved and tossed me a lifejacket knowing that I had a better chance of survival since I could swim, because swimming (totally elective) was still DANGEROUS. The expectation, even though I could swim, was that I would not, and like a good parent, she didn’t trust in my ability to swim to substitute for keeping me safe.
You suggest no fence. Teaching kids how to do something dangerous and totally unnecessary and allowing them carte blanche freedom to drown. I suggest that fence stay up. The expectation to not swim until mom is there be clearly stated.
I waited for my mom to come out before I hopped in the pool because swimming is pleasurable NOT NECESSARY, and I could wait until there was no danger. I’m waiting till I’m married for sex, when sex will be pleasurable and there will be no danger.
That’s unfortunate, Kel. I can say that I know a bit of both, therefore I’m able to confirm that one path does not always lead to the same fate.
That’s true. Pre-marital sex does not always lead to disease or children. But in 100% cases where there is disease and children, sexual activity was the sole case. And 100% of the time, abstinence will spare you from these consequences. So statistically speaking, pre-marital sex is a bad gamble.
I’ll also add the emotional turmoil is a product of life, especially romantic relationships, regardless of whether or not the couple is having sex. I cried just as many tears over boys when I was a virgin as I did after. Hurt and disappointment is simply part of the human experience. Of course parents try to minimize unpleasant experiences for their children but it is a fact of life that no one can stop. Concluding that sex will lead to heartbreak is an incomplete conclusion.
Sex can compound it. And in those relationships where you heart was broken and you didn’t have sex, did you think, “Man, I wish I would have had physical intimacy with this person that I am no longer with!” I don’t think sex can ever make it better, but it often makes things worse. Not all the time- but back to the whole “gamble” thing, enough of the time to declare that it’s not worth it.
Quick Question:
I wonder how many people wait for marriage only to think afterwards, “Damn! I wish I had sex with all those people that I didn’t love enough to marry! How much better my life would be if I had had sex with people that didn’t love me and desire a lifetime with me!”
Likewise, I wonder how many people had sex with people they didn’t marry only to wish they had waited for the one they loved enough to commit a lifetime to. I wonder how many bring HPV or something else into the bed and infect the one they love for life from sex with someone they didn’t care enough to marry. I wonder how many have fertility issues from STD’s or emotional baggage they could have avoided. How many of those people would say that the sex was worth it?
In every case, despite clamoring for rationalizations, abstinence is clearly the best choice.
BTW, if no one wants to think of anyone’s sexuality at all, then why are virgins routinely ridiculed in society and made to feel like freaks?
-Sorry if that’s been your experience as well, maybe you know too many jerks, or you’re especially sensitive to the topic. Frankly it’s no one’s business was does or doesn’t happen in your bedroom.
Posted by: Danielle at May 5, 2009 4:20 PM
*************************************
Nope, it wasn’t my experience. I was proud of my virginity and kept it until marriage. So did my husband. I have SO much peace in knowing that he’s never “comparing” me mentally to some former partner, and I’m not comparing him. I also have peace in knowing that we’ve only been with each other, so our risk of STDs is zero.
As for being sensitive to the topic, maybe I am, because I’ve seen too many lives and relationships turned upside down by extramarital affairs, premarital sex, and unintended consequences like STDs and pregnancies.
Once you’ve crossed that “line” into sex, you rarely, if ever, go back. I’ve only known a few people who had the strength to abstain after having sex once. I had a friend tell me “it’s like a drug. You have to take higher and higher dosages just to get that same effect, and there’s no going back. First base isn’t enough anymore.”
In the end, the woman ends up feeling almost powerless against herself–she wants to be able to draw the line in the sand, but she’s already crossed the whole freaking desert, and doesn’t know how to go back. A very helpless and desperate feeling.
“I wonder how many people wait for marriage only to think afterwards, “Damn! I wish I had sex with all those people that I didn’t love enough to marry! How much better my life would be if I had had sex with people that didn’t love me and desire a lifetime with me!”
*******LOL, Jacqueline! :D I personally have no regrets about waiting for my husband.
Now Bristol Palin has begun promoting remedial and retroactive virginity. You can’t make it up.
Remedial and retroactive virginity- Isn’t that just called repentance and change?
And the assault on my choice, while objectively the smartest and safest, does not make girls feel 3 inches tall when they sleep with a guy and he never calls.
Or the only reason he calls is for a “booty call.”
That does wonders for one’s self esteem, I’m sure.
It’s not a “to each his own” here- since you can find yourself very discriminate and still end up on once-daily Valtrex the same as a girl who has one-night stands on a regular basis.
Yep. I have a “discriminate” friend in that very situation.
Harm reduction is a concession that people have to harm themselves and tries to de-stigmatize things that should rightly remain stigmatized.
I remember the outrage when a city began handing out clean needles to heroin users. It puts a band-aid on a mortal wound. They’re going to kill themselves, anyway, might as well make them “safer” while they do it. Talk about NOT helping addicts.
Pre-marital sex does not always lead to disease or children. But in 100% cases where there is disease and children, sexual activity was the sole case. And 100% of the time, abstinence will spare you from these consequences. So statistically speaking, pre-marital sex is a bad gamble.
Jacqueline, you are so right. Thank you for your clarity. It’s wonderful.
Bystander, remaining chaste until marriage after you’ve lost your virginity is a wonderful idea. There is aboslutely no need to keep exposing yourself to diseases and pain just because you made mistakes in your past.
My pastor told me once that he has never had anyone in his premarital counseling sessions that said, “I wish I would have slept with more people.” :)
Your other far right martyr and “virgin”, Ms. California has semi nude photos of her all over the internet, taken when she was 17.
Bristol Palin’s “virginity sponsor” Candies features ads that border on, or are, child porn.
Good old Christian family values. Thanks to the religious right, Leno and Letterman can fire their writers- even the most talented writer couldn’t make this stuff up…
Kel, I am actually in the middle of writing a final exam but I want to talk to you some more. What you have to say is wonderful
Your other far right martyr and “virgin”, Ms. California has semi nude photos of her all over the internet, taken when she was 17.
Bristol Palin’s “virginity sponsor” Candies features ads that border on, or are, child porn.
Good old Christian family values. Thanks to the religious right, Leno and Letterman can fire their writers- even the most talented writer couldn’t make this stuff up…
Any fool can assassinate the characters of fallible human beings. For every person you cite as a “failure of moral teaching” I can show you a person that has no morals and suffers from those choices. Yes, those that claim no values and live a life sans values can’t be called hipocrites, but the fruit of those lifestyles proves the perils of those choices. I could point out those people, but instead I focus on the substance of the debate rather than the flaws of individuals.
That being said, do you have any arguments that suggest that abstinence is a bad choice and pre-marital sex is a good choice? Or are you just going to keep finger-pointing like an 8th grader to avoid trying to defend a choice that’s obviously foolish?
Please- give me some evidence why a kid needlessly exposing herself to disease and pregnancy is a better choice than waiting for marriage. Anything! Go ahead.
P.S. I’d rather stand for something and fail and be called a hipocrite than stand for nothing. It is so much easier to be non-hipocritical when you have no standards for yourself, but is that really what you suggest? When you mock the stumbles of people, that’s what you are doing.
Bystander, you understandably have the need to tear down and attack women who have made mistakes, which is kind of the point of both books that were mentioned in this article. So far, I haven’t seen anyone but you ridiculing women who have crossed ethical lines in their pasts. Even *you* judge these women by their actions and sexuality. Gosh, I guess that proves the point that our actions really DO affect how people perceive us.
BTW, Christian girls can just as easily stumble as anyone else. It’s not like we’re Martians. We’re flesh and blood human. We just tend to more readily admit that. :) We know that if left to our own strength, we fail. Many have the pasts to prove it, and have gone on to speak into the lives of others, saying “don’t do what I did because it will bring you pain.”
Bystander,
You know, it’s a lot harder to admit a fault and change it than to continue doing something you know is wrong.
Rather than pointing fingers at those that recognize their failings and remedy them and delighting in their failings, you could admit that these are indeed failings and support their choice to change.
Instead, it seems that you prefer they fail because it validates a lifestyle of failures. If it’s scandalous when Palin and Prejean do it, why is it somehow acceptable for you to do it?
Jacqueline, you can email me at kelli@jillstanek.com. :) I’d be glad to talk to you some more, here on the boards or via email.
I know a girl that lived a lifestyle that Bystander would mock. She was a stripper, had an abortion, and lives with herpes.
She turned everything around and has since lived a virtuous life. She now has a masters in social work, recently married a fellow beleiver and lives a happy life. She still bears the consequences of her former life (because you can’t undo what’s done), but in spite of it, she created beauty from ashes. I am very impressed by her. She also shares this information like Kel says, to spare others her pain, when she could keep it to herself and not get any crap from you. To that, she deserves extra praise.
You can’t pick on Kel and I because we managed (by grace) to remain steadfast in our convictions, but I admire someone that has the courage to note their own problems and develop convictions- and manage to pull themselves from their former life. These people deserve our admiration, not scorn. While some of us were blessed to avoid these pitfalls altogether, some people had to fight tooth and nail to escape these lifestyles. If anything, they deserve our kudos, not mocking.
If you are going to pick on someone, have the courage to pick on me and my managing to maintain my moral status quo rather than regroup from amorality. Nope- you find it easier to kick people who are down.
While some of us were blessed to avoid these pitfalls altogether, some people had to fight tooth and nail to escape these lifestyles. If anything, they deserve our kudos, not mocking.
****************************************
Amen to that. But for the grace of God, it could have been me, had I made different choices. I don’t mock women who choose to be sexually active, but I do know that there IS a better way. If I could convince everyone of that and spare them their pain, I would.
When I see lives that are, as you said Jacqueline, “beauty from ashes,” they are evidence of God’s redeeming love and grace. They are proof that only He can change us and save us from our sin-sick selves.
In 1967 Arthur D. Morse wrote a rather lengthy book about the contributing factors that facilitated the Hololcaust. Particularly the ‘human factor’.
Here is the last paragraph in the book:
“The holocaust has ended. The six million lie in nameless graves. But what of the future? Is genocide now unthinkable, or are potential victims somewhere in the world going about their business, devote to their children, aspiring to a better life, unaware of a gathering threat?
Who are potential victims?
Who are the bystanders?”
—————————————————-
I think of those words whenever I read posts by
‘bystander’
yor bro ken
I read about Lakita Garth in “Girls Gone Mild” by Wendy Shalit. She’s one tough, smart lady. There’s a part in that book where she’s talking about people who have sex with people they barely know, and saying that when she hires a janitor for her office, she needs to know name, address, past job history, things like that – and if that’s what she needs to know about someone who cleans her toilet, people REALLY need to know a lot about someone they’re going to have sex with.
It’s not a “to each his own” here- since you can find yourself very discriminate and still end up on once-daily Valtrex the same as a girl who has one-night stands on a regular basis.
A girl who remains a virgin until marriage, and marries a virgin, can still end up with herpes. Yes, genital herpes. Just FYI.
HSV1 (commonly thought of as mere “cold sores”) and HSV2 (commonly thought of as genital herpes) can both be transmitted orally and genitally, to a variety of locations. As many, many people get cold sores from childhood on, usually transmitted from an innocuous kiss from a relative or whatever, those cold sores (usually HSV1, but not always) can become oral or genital herpes in a spouse. (Or even, like, eye herpes!) Both types can have asymptomatic shedding, as well, so simply abstaining from kissing or sex when you have a cold sore is not sufficient protection.
Fortunately herpes is not really the worst thing in the world. To my knowledge it doesn’t have any traumatic long-term effects, it’s more of an annoying skin condition; most people seem to report that the stigma of it is the worst part of having herpes.
Alexandra, that is clearly not what we’re talking about. Likewise, you can get other stigmatized STD’s from less-common causes, like my cousin (the paramedic) who was recently pricked by a patients needle.
Could you not agree that users of Valtrex typically got their affliction from sex?
Mentioning that people get sick other than from pre-marital sex doesn’t change the fact that people get sick all the time from pre-marital sex, and that not having pre-marital sex protects from these afflictions.
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 5, 2009 5:33 PM:
Anything less than “you and only you and any children we have-FOREVER” is a poor discrimination that has the potential to hurt a woman and her kids. So those who only sleep with boyfriends, or fiances or some wishy-washy substitute for marriage are not very discriminatory.
-Now we’re getting into semantics. You know this is not a black/white area. You can only define ‘indiscriminate’ for yourself. There are many committed relationships who don’t not believe in marriage, or cannot marry. Further, you have others who walk into a sexual relationship soberly and honestly; it may not necessarily result in marriage, but it was a meaningful enough for them.
But, let’s be honest, you only find my choice to not end up infected for life or a single mother to be not praiseworthy because that impugns the opposite choice.
-Sorry, not true. I know of others who make a similar choice and I congratulate them on their choice. It takes guts, even more so as adults, and I recognize that. PS, can you find anything positive to say about what sex can bring to a relationship? Is it all AIDS and teen moms in your mind?
There is a COIN FLIP chance (50%), that someone having sex outside of marriage will end up with an STD. You can’t possibly know.
-You do not have a 50% chance of catching an STD if you have sex with someone outside of marriage. There are methods to reducing this risk, including monogamy, birth control and abstinence, but no, the rate is not 50%.
The external viewpoints favor your position and mock mine. It’s the internal recognition, that society has no choice but acknowledge, that rightly affects a woman’s self-image in this area. If I let the pervasive message that “Kids simply CAN NOT be expected to not have sex” dictate my choices, my life would be dramatically different.
-Fair enough, you bring up a good contrast.
The truth is objective. The truth is that marital sex protects you from consequences that you choose to accept when having pre-marital sex.
-The truth is I was debating you on the term ‘many’ as being subjective, and you replied by claiming I was wrong and repeating your stance on why sex before marriage is dangerous. Not exactly a direct response. Or, maybe it didn’t require one at all.
Parents don’t suggest dangerous ELECTIVE activities to kids with a caveat of making it a little safer.
-Parents allow their children to drive cars everyday, and often times very much elective.
No child is capable of consenting to sex and the lifetime consequences. They are children.
-All children, you’re absolutely right. Although, as I’m sure you know, many older teens can not only consent to sex, but can legally consent depending on the laws in your state. It’s up to individual families to make that distinction.
By giving kids condoms, you are instead inviting them to harmful activity.
-This is obviously where we are at an impasse. Let me first say that all sex ed does not have to include direct distribution of birth control; it is possible to have comprehensive teaching that includes how to use the birth control without giving it out. That said, I do not agree that access = permission. I could know every which way how to put a condom on, and it still does not turn into access, a willing partner, or moreover, increased desire to do it. I simply know how to use the tool, when I’m ready to use it. I’ve been around condoms in one form or another since hitting puberty…and yet, did not lose my virginity until several years later. Bottom line: any data will point to DELAYED onset of sexual activity after comprehensive sex ed, which may include access to OTC birth control (condoms)…not the other way around.
I had a mother that kept that fence locked even though I could swim, because it is still dangerous without adult supervision.
-Continuing the metaphor of swimming as sex…so did I. So do kids who’s families teach sex ed. It’s about information, not permission.
The expectation, even though I could swim, was that I would not, and like a good parent, she didn’t trust in my ability to swim to substitute for keeping me safe.
-Exactly. See above.
You suggest no fence.
-No. I don’t. The conversations, the open forum for questions and concerns with mom and/or dad, the information and access to it, including what birth control methods are and how they use – all help build the fence.
I’m waiting till I’m married for sex, when sex will be pleasurable and there will be no danger.
-Well, not to denigrate your pending nuptials, but I’m sure I’m not to first to point out that neither of those adjectives about marital sex are guaranteed.
Now we’re getting into semantics. You know this is not a black/white area. You can only define ‘indiscriminate’ for yourself. There are many committed relationships who don’t not believe in marriage, or cannot marry. Further, you have others who walk into a sexual relationship soberly and honestly; it may not necessarily result in marriage, but it was a meaningful enough for them.
Actually, it is so black and white. Children of non-married couples don’t get security from the sex that created them being “meaningful.” Children deserve a real family. Marriage, blood and adoption make families. Children on non-married parents are the only thing connecting the two most important people in their lives (given that dad doesn’t take off as is the case with so much pre-marital, “meaningful” sex that makes children.)
So as “meaningful” as it was, the fact that it’s not monogamy means that your sex partner has likely had prior sex partners who likely have sex partners. That’s where STD’s come from. That’s precisely my point.
PS, can you find anything positive to say about what sex can bring to a relationship? Is it all AIDS and teen moms in your mind?
Sex brings so much positive to a marital relationship, the first being babies. But babies created by not married people who had sex for the other things out of it that they wanted, the needs of the child be damned, have negated any of the supposed benefits by creating (or potentially creating) a child in a unjust context. So any benefits that is gained from ill-gotten non-marital sex is negated by the pure selfishness in being willing to do that to your children. Maybe couples having illegit sex outside of marriage “feel” closer or more bonded, but that’s dangerous, not a positive. It’s not smart or healthy to bond with someone that is not committed to you completely. I could keep going, but no, there is nothing positive about extra-marital sex. Any positives you claim there are not positives, and even if you came up with some, none of those can not be found in marital sex, too, only without the blisters.
About it being all AIDS and teen moms- that’s not what I equate with sex. I think sex and I picture a family- a husband and wife, giving themselves to eachother rather than using eachother for gratification. Rather than non-married couples that take what they want from sex and try to prevent what they don’t (AIDS and babies), I see a married couple gratefully accepting the gift of children and not the least bit fearful of the other person giving them some affliction. That is how sex is intended, not the perverted version that people steal outside of marriage.
You do not have a 50% chance of catching an STD if you have sex with someone outside of marriage. There are methods to reducing this risk, including monogamy, birth control and abstinence, but no, the rate is not 50%.
Yes it is. HALF of sexually-active people will have an STD before age 25. Look it up.
The truth is I was debating you on the term ‘many’ as being subjective, and you replied by claiming I was wrong and repeating your stance on why sex before marriage is dangerous. Not exactly a direct response. Or, maybe it didn’t require one at all.
My bad. “Many” is more than one. Anything else is ambiguous, and always presents some wonder or justification in the person’s mind of when they crossed over to slutdom, after partner 4 or 5, 13 or 14, 36 or 37. Having a subjective and ambiguous number of how many people is too many to be physically intimate with only results in girls wondering whether or not they are discriminate and clamoring around for rationalizations to feel better about their “number.”
Parents allow their children to drive cars everyday, and often times very much elective.
The purpose of driving a car is different that the purpose of sex. I seriously doubt if parents would let kids do nothing but joyride on the freeway. I was allowed to go from home to school, and was not allowed to enter the interstate.
All children, you’re absolutely right. Although, as I’m sure you know, many older teens can not only consent to sex, but can legally consent depending on the laws in your state. It’s up to individual families to make that distinction.
Once again, this ambiguity you suggest if nothing but trouble. A 17 year old is not ready to parent and sex causes babies. That’s its intent, even with all sorts of devices and creams and hormones. I would even argue that a single person of any age is not ready to parent, since a child deserves both parents in the home. That’s why marriage is the only clear standard that makes sense, rather than this wishy washy “You can have sex at 17 in my house!”
This is obviously where we are at an impasse. Let me first say that all sex ed does not have to include direct distribution of birth control; it is possible to have comprehensive teaching that includes how to use the birth control without giving it out. That said, I do not agree that access = permission.
Teaching kids how to use birth control is not sending the message that you give permission to use it? You are giving the message that you EXPECT them to use it. I know I certainly wouldn’t spend hours teaching my child how to do something that I never intend for him to do. “I’m not giving you permission to hang yourself, but if you want to find a sturdy rafter and strong rope…”
I could know every which way how to put a condom on, and it still does not turn into access, a willing partner, or moreover, increased desire to do it. I simply know how to use the tool, when I’m ready to use it.
Teaching kids how to do something, short of providing the tools, is still sending the wrong message. You imply that it’s a “tool” that you somehow need to use at some point. Not true. Condoms are only needed if you have sex outside of marriage, to prevent all the things these kids don’t have to worry about in the first place, if they’d make the smart choice to wait.
I’ve been around condoms in one form or another since hitting puberty…and yet, did not lose my virginity until several years later. Bottom line: any data will point to DELAYED onset of sexual activity after comprehensive sex ed, which may include access to OTC birth control (condoms)…not the other way around.
Not true. Comp sex ed “fixes” what isn’t broke and results in more sexual activity among teens, since they’ve been lied to and told that latex will protect them.
Continuing the metaphor of swimming as sex…so did I. So do kids who’s families teach sex ed. It’s about information, not permission.
So if I write up a detailed sketch on how to steal from your boss and walk you through how it’s done, that’s not implied permission to steal? It’s about information, right? But why else would this information be needed if it won’t be practiced? If you don’t expect kids to have sex, why waste your time teaching them how to do it in a supposably safer way?
No. I don’t. The conversations, the open forum for questions and concerns with mom and/or dad, the information and access to it, including what birth control methods are and how they use – all help build the fence.
How is telling kids how to do something you know they are better off avoiding- how is that building a fence?
Well, not to denigrate your pending nuptials, but I’m sure I’m not to first to point out that neither of those adjectives about marital sex are guaranteed.
True, but let’s compare your way to mine for a second. Sure, my way could result in divorce or abandonment, and a man infecting me anyway. Your way accepts no commitment, assured abandonment, the acceptance of a significant risk of STDs and children screwed out of the home they deserve. At least in my scenario, the risks are minimal and I have recourse. Your way invites all the rare and worst problems I could have in my marriage. So at least I’m starting from the right place, vs. conceding to a whole lot of unnecessary problems from the beginning.
Mentioning that people get sick other than from pre-marital sex doesn’t change the fact that people get sick all the time from pre-marital sex, and that not having pre-marital sex protects from these afflictions.
But your point was that even ‘discriminate’ women who have pre-marital sex have just as much chance of ending up on Valtrex as those who have one-night stands. If a woman waits until she’s in a committed relationship with a herpes-carrying man she loves in order to have sex, it doesn’t matter if the sex she has with him is within or outside of marriage — she still has the same chance of getting herpes from him. (oh man, I initially wrote “getting herpes for him,” like a gift or something, lol. “Here, honey!”) I do agree that promiscuity increases a woman’s chances for contracting herpes, but that was not your point — your point was that women who are not promiscuous but who engage in pre-marital sex are still at just as much risk; and if that’s the point we’re making then it also does well to mention that women who are discriminate to the point of waiting until marriage are also at risk.
Could you not agree that users of Valtrex typically got their affliction from sex?
I’m not sure why we keep talking about Valtrex rather than just herpes, but no. If we were talking about people who have genital herpes who contracted it from sex then I’d say yes — kind of hard to get genital herpes if no sex is involved, pre-marital or otherwise! But I know several people who take herpes for “cold sores,” ie oral herpes; and I myself am prone to shingles, which in addition to being “grown up chicken pox” is also a form of herpes (herpes zoster).
I think that when it comes to daily Valtrex use, if our culture was consistent in its reaction to herpes, this would either be something only a few people with severe outbreaks did, or something that everyone who has ever had a cold sore did. After all, much of the goal of daily Valtrex use is to reduce the chance of transmitting the virus to someone else; but for some reason our culture only expects people to be concerned about this when the transmission can occur genitally during sex.
Jacqueline,
Thank you so much for being here and writing such amazing, clear comments!! I am so grateful that you are still a virgin at 28! Believe me, I would give ANYTHING to go back in my life and take a different path. I am THAT young girl-STD’s, broken heart, used and abused, drunk, lonely, affairs and abortion.
I am so thankful that my children will have it so different. :)
Alexandra,
You are always a fun read too, sweets!! :)
Thanks, Carla, you too! Funny story, the first time I ever had a shingles outbreak was in my junior year of high school. Stress is a big factor in shingles and at the time I was indeed doing perhaps a bit more than I should have been, responsibility-wise, which partially explains why I was relatively young to have a shingles outbreak. Anyway I had this huge and incredibly painful rash all over my back; had to miss a week of school just because I couldn’t bear to put a shirt on, much less sit in a chair. I basically spent a week laying face-down, half-naked, on my bed.
My younger sister laughed at me and said I had dorsal herpes. I was so freaking mad when I found out that she was technically correct!
But your point was that even ‘discriminate’ women who have pre-marital sex have just as much chance of ending up on Valtrex as those who have one-night stands. If a woman waits until she’s in a committed relationship with a herpes-carrying man she loves in order to have sex, it doesn’t matter if the sex she has with him is within or outside of marriage — she still has the same chance of getting herpes from him.
My point was that any standard short of marriage is arbitrary, because they all still likely involve sex with more than one person who has also had sex with more than one person. That is where STD’s come from. Marriage=one sex partner for life. Yes, you can marry someone who did not have that same value and can bring diseases and baggage into the marriage, but the point is, and it’s a no-brainer, that if people abstained from sex until marriage that there would be no STD epidemic. That man in your example wouldn’t be carrying herpes if he and others waited for marriage.
I want to clarify that the risk is higher with more sex partners. I’m not saying that the girl that only has sex with men she’s been dating exclusively for a year (one of those arbitrary standards again) has the same risk as girls that have sex on the first date. Obviously, the first girl has fewer partners and chances to be exposed. The point is, even fewer partners in an out-of-marriage context result in exposure, whereas two people having the marriage standard have no risk of exposure. So the girl that has higher arbitrary standands than the next girl unnecessarily exposes herself just the same- not to the same degree, but she is still exposed. There is no point in taking this risk at all.
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2009 1:17 AM:
Children deserve a real family…Marriage, blood and adoption make families. Children on non-married parents are the only thing connecting the two most important people in their lives.
-Great, then we agree. A real family can be defined as married, biological or adoptive. If we agree on that definition, then there are many different variances to make a health family in these ways, and excluding the 1st, may or may not include a married man and woman. I’m sure that many non-married families could challenge you on the how strong the ties that bind them are. It’s not up to you to decide how truly committed a couple is to their relationship. It’s the same as somone challenging your love to your fiance because you haven’t had sex – which is ludicrous, arrogant, condescending and offensive. Relationships are built on more than sex, even when marriage is not desired or possible. The rest of our debate on this is more of the same…the pros and cons of sex before marriage and it’s consequences. My overall point is that there is more than one way to love and live, it may include abstinence, it may not, it may include a marriage, it may not. You and I will have to agree to disagree on the depth of non-traditional relationships.
Any positives you claim there are not positives, and even if you came up with some, none of those can not be found in marital sex, too, only without the blisters.
-Nice to see you’re so open to discussion.
You do not have a 50% chance of catching an STD if you have sex with someone outside of marriage…Yes it is. HALF of sexually-active people will have an STD before age 25. Look it up.
-Sorry. I don’t want to go off the rails on a data piss-match, but I’m re-challenging you here.
AT BEST, the CDC can provide you rates and trends of infection, but individually by disease, race, age, gender, ethnicity and region. You have one 2008 CDC report that announces a 25% STD rate in teen girls under 18(that does not include HIV).You replied that in their lifetime, 50% of all adults will have had an STD. That is not the same as 50% of all adults having an STD. That assumes that 1 in 2 adults have an STD at the time of study, which is not true or at the very least, unsubstantiated (also consider that the cause of infection could or could not have been inside of a marital relationship). If both you and your partner are tested before sex (yes, it happens), use birth control, etc. your chance of infection drops dramatically. It’s about responsibility.
“Many” is more than one. Anything else is ambiguous, and always presents some wonder or justification in the person’s mind of when they crossed over to slutdom, after partner 4 or 5, 13 or 14, 36 or 37.
-Ah, wondering when this type of language would weave itself into the conversation. Slut. Tramp. Whore. Prude. Ice box. Frigid. All the terminology and external cues that we (originally) agreed were detrimental to the self imagery women and girls cultivate and defines a woman through her sexuality. And yet, here it is. I thought we agreed it was a problem we must extinguish?
A 17 year old is not ready to parent and sex causes babies.
-Of course they’re not, that’s why you try to prevent it.
Teaching kids how to use birth control is not sending the message that you give permission to use it?
-No.
You are giving the message that you EXPECT them to use it.
-No, I’m teaching them the mechanics, emotions and resources used when having sex. Because you need to know.
Teaching kids how to do something, short of providing the tools, is still sending the wrong message.
-The other part of our agree/disagree. I’m not going to throw a million #s and %s to prove you wrong, although there are plenty of resources that could do that. You believe that teaching about sex equates to allowing teens to do it, responsibility and consequence free. I believe teaching about sex equates to giving teens an age-appropriate information that keeps them safe, smart and ready for world. With comprehensive information, my child is likely to think twice before giving themselves over to someone else.
Condoms are only needed if you have sex outside of marriage
-Not true, lots of married couples use condoms as well.
Comp sex ed “fixes” what isn’t broke and results in more sexual activity among teens, since they’ve been lied to and told that latex will protect them.
-Again, let’s not bother with throwing paper at each other, but you know the facts dispute this claim.
If you don’t expect kids to have sex, why waste your time teaching them how to do it in a supposably safer way?
-Jacqueline, I DO expect kids to want to have sex. It is human nature. It is not permission, it is not encouragement. It is what happens as we get older, explore relationships and express it in different ways. If you have no idea how sex works, what can happen, what’s true about pregnancy, disease and the complexities of relationships, how on earth are you expected to shield yourself when you walk out the door? On your first one on one date? The first time you’re challenged by a classmate on myths and rumors about sex? I want my kids armed and informed. I want them smart and not ignorant. I want them to know what to do and how to do it to make the best, healthiest decision for themselves. That includes understanding birth control and how it works.
I’ll leave you with this and you choose to believe me or not: You’ve figured out by now that I grew up in a pretty progressive, single family household. One of my mom’s closest friend is a conservative, married woman, with two older daughters, a long term marriage and is very active in the church. They’re a great, giving family.
Needless to say, her daughters and I were raised very differently. I always had frank, open discussions about sex and relationships with my mom. Friend chose the bare minimum route on the subject with her kids. I recall a big controversy while I was in Jr High between Mom and Friend…she had let me wear painted condom wrappers to school as earrings (my idea). Friend thought this was absolutely ludicrous, inappropriate and ‘invited’ me to start experimenting with sex. They continued to debate parenting styles with each other over the years.
Within two years, Friend’s youngest daughter had run away with a boyfriend, after several months of rebellion at home and returned home pregnant at 16. She proceeded to continue leaving the home periodically after. Within 18 months, the older daughter also announced a pregancy, that she’d been hiding for months. Their mother was devastated and blamed herself. The two of them moved out of their parent’s house within I think the past 8 years, I believe.
I, on the other hand, graduated high school a virgin and actually didn’t have my 1st drink until 11th grade at party (underage yes – but older than kids around me). I hated it, didn’t try again until college.
Is this everyone’s story? No. Is it a demonstration of how exposure to information and resources helps make a different, maybe smarter decision? Yes.
SELF CONTROL!!
Why is that such a hard concept to understand these days?
Danielle,
I think we’re soul mates :-)
That man in your example wouldn’t be carrying herpes if he and others waited for marriage.
And THAT is what I’m saying is patently untrue. This is a huge myth about herpes — that cold sores are not herpes, or that they’re somehow not “really” herpes. I don’t disagree at all with this statement:
Obviously, the first girl has fewer partners and chances to be exposed.
But the latter half of this statement is not true when it comes to herpes:
The point is, even fewer partners in an out-of-marriage context result in exposure, whereas two people having the marriage standard have no risk of exposure.
It is untrue that if only we were all virgins, no one would have herpes. A high percentage of the US population carries the virus. The majority of these people DID NOT get it through sex, but they can still transmit it through sex.
Alexandra, I don’t think herpes is the only STD we’re talking about here. Everyone knows that herpes can be transmitted in other ways.
Danielle, I was raised in a single parent household. Never knew my father because he was adulterous and my mom divorced him. He chose to remain a stranger, despite my efforts even as an adult to have a relationship with him. However, despite the fact that I should have been a statistic, I wasn’t. I never smoked, drank, did drugs, or had sex before marriage. Was it because I’m perfect? No. Is it because my mom was involved in my life and had instilled a deep faith in me? Probably.
Parental involvement goes a long way. Perhaps the friends you are talking about had issues that went way beyond what you saw on the surface. Being an involved and honest parent is hugely important.
However, as stated in the original post, kids live in a “hyper-sexualized” culture. Perhaps your mom’s friend never had a frank discussion about sex with her daughters, and perhaps that coupled with society screaming at them “you’re gonna do it anyway” had some impact. But not all parents who teach abstinence are so backward as to not speak frankly with their children about sex.
Sorry, anon 1:14 is me. I’m using a different browser today.
Alexandra, I don’t think herpes is the only STD we’re talking about here. Everyone knows that herpes can be transmitted in other ways.
I know that there are other STD’s, Kel. Herpes gets a lot of attention in these discussions. It’s much darker-sounding to say that someone “lives with herpes” than to say that someone had syphilis until the doctor diagnosed and cured it. And syphilis is certainly no joke just because it’s treatable; likewise all other things being equal no one wants herpes, even the kind that comes without social stigma attached. These things are best avoided even if they’re curable or not sexually transmitted.
But if someone repeatedly states that abstaining until marriage protects someone from the risk of herpes — that’s not true. It’s a misconception that furthers the spread of the virus. It is important for people to realize that virgins can and do spread herpes just the same as non-virgins.
This is not politically-correct, but what Danielle said is precisely the problem!
People feel the need to vindicate their “non-traditional families” rather than recognizing that they were not as they should have been. People don’t want to seem like the are deningrating their single mother, but the truth is Danielle, that you DESERVE and should have a father. Just because you didn’t and are still pleased with the outcome does not mean that you weren’t denied something that you should have had. It took two people to make you, and both of those people should have been there to raise you.
And here’s where the problem spirals out of control: In order to justify the actions of their parents, people repeat the same mistakes. A girl I know just got pregnant for the second time out of wedlock and when I asked, “Don’t you want your kids to have a dad?” She replied, “I didn’t have a dad and I turned out fine.” Somehow she thinks the injustices she endured make it okay to wreak those injustices on her own kids: It’s not. And the fact that they use their own dysfunctional families (yes, non-traditional families are not properly functioning, since some major player is missing) as a model to create their own, just proves that kids need to have the right behaviors modeled to them. If the absence of a father is enough to make people beleive that they can abandon their children or create children without a father, shouldn’t that be a testimony to how important a father is?
Families are made solely through marriage, blood and adoption. These are TRADITIONAL. A non-married couple that have a child are not family. Mother and child are family. Father and child are family. Mother and father are not. You can’t define a family anyway you please because biology demands certain players: A kid can’t have two moms or two dads. It took a man and a woman to make that kid. Every time.
My best friend had no dad, and 7 siblings with 7 different fathers. Mother never married, and she was raised in poverty. She decided that she wanted better for her children, so she waited until she was married to have sex. Since she didn’t have a father, there was no way she was going to do that to her own children. Likewise, since I have a father, how can I justify denying my children what I have?
I know people want to approve of their parents choices to make them out of wedlock or divorce, because they don’t want to acknowledge that their parents wronged them. But it doesn’t stop there: They wrong their children, too.
For the record, Jacqueline, I was not a father-less child.
Yes my parents divorced, but he was very much a part of my rearing. I had the added benefit of a step-father by the time I reached my mid-teens. I know the one and two parent model very well and overall I did get everything I deserved, which was everything (at least emotionally). So do a lot of people who were not raised and are not being raised in the structure that you describe. A two parent model is a great option, I agree with you and always did. You assumed I didn’t, because I defended other alternatives. A mom and dad are great. And so is a mom and a mom. And a dad and a dad. And a mom and a granddad, and so on.
If different equals wrong, well then, there is our brick wall. I wish you the best in raising your own family under your own beliefs.
Danielle,
I am glad that your father was still involved with you after the divorce but your situation is still not what is best for children. You may have escaped unscathed but that is the exception. Long-term studies are revealing that people still suffer the effects of divorce after they are grown and out of the house. Studies also show that children fare best when they are raised by a mother and father who are in a committed marital relationship not simply a “committed” relationship. Some relations may have to step in and replace the absent mom or dad and may provide much emotionally and materially but that should never be looked upon as a perfectly acceptable alternative to the traditional family.
Danielle,
Lots of people have weekend dads and whole staircases of step-parents and step-siblings, but just because you managed to do fine in that situation doesn’t mean it’s what was best for you. I’m glad you see it as a positive, but the norm is broken, devastated children treated as second-class citizens to the step-parents biological children, and the child their biological father makes with his new family, the one he lives with the way he should have been living with you. Screams of “You’re not my real dad” are more common than appreciating the stranger who has entered your home and taken the attention of your mother.
A two-parent model is not a great “option”- it’s the way things are intended. Anything less is abandonment. Anything else is a sign that something is wrong. It took a mom and dad to make a child, so having one of those people off living another life rather than mothering or fathering is tragic. You have somehow accepted fathers and mothers passing children between eachother, children with no moms and two dads and no dad and two moms or a grandparents, etc. A mother and father made the child. When did it become “optional” for them to raise that child?
It’s not that different is wrong. People make the best of bad situations like abandonment and death and rely on other people than the biological parents to help compensate as best they can. But you are all about making these bad situations the norm- and saying that they aren’t making the best of dysfunction, but just as good as a functional family. As progressive as you want to be, children inately desire their parents. Ask any person adopted into a good home, there is still a need there.
If different equals wrong, well then, there is our brick wall. I wish you the best in raising your own family under your own beliefs.
“To each his own” isn’t what is objectively best for children. My beliefs could mean that I want my kids to call our chihuahua dad- Because that dog is family! It doesn’t mean that it is what my kids deserve.
I don’t support people redefining families to suit their wants at the expense of kids. It’s purely selfish at the heart of it.
I’m glad you see it as a positive, but the norm is broken, devastated children treated as second-class citizens to the step-parents biological children, and the child their biological father makes with his new family, the one he lives with the way he should have been living with you.
This was my life.
A two-parent model is not a great “option”- it’s the way things are intended. Anything less is abandonment. Anything else is a sign that something is wrong. It took a mom and dad to make a child, so having one of those people off living another life rather than mothering or fathering is tragic.
Yes, it is tragic, and it is abandonment. And though I am happily married with kids of my own today, those wounds will never become scars. They seem to get ripped open periodically. I’ve seen parental abandonment affect my friends, as well, one of whom lost his life to drugs last year. In his writings, he said “I’m still five years old….” That was how old he was when his mom left he and his dad and never came back. He never got over it.
The presence of a happily married mother and father, together in the home, cannot be underestimated.
It is untrue that if only we were all virgins, no one would have herpes. A high percentage of the US population carries the virus. The majority of these people DID NOT get it through sex, but they can still transmit it through sex.
Posted by: Alexandra at May 6, 2009 11:59 AM
I would think we are talking about genital herpes here Alexandra. Many people if not most people have been exposed to some form of herpes virus. Chicken pox is from the same family of viruses.
You cannot get genital herpes unless you have some kind of sexual encounter. Therefore, if you are a virgin you can’t get genital herpes. I was a virgin until marriage and I had NO sexual diseases.
And Kel you are so right in your 4:17pm post. Not only do the children of divorced parents suffer but often the abandoned spouse suffers for years as well.
I would think we are talking about genital herpes here Alexandra. Many people if not most people have been exposed to some form of herpes virus. Chicken pox is from the same family of viruses.
You cannot get genital herpes unless you have some kind of sexual encounter. Therefore, if you are a virgin you can’t get genital herpes. I was a virgin until marriage and I had NO sexual diseases.
angel, you can get genital herpes from oral herpes. So while you are unlikely to get genital herpes without having sex, you can be a virgin and marry a virgin and still get genital (or oral) herpes from him. Because, as you correctly note, many people have been exposed to herpes as oral herpes. More people would probably have genital herpes if they did not already have that strain of herpes orally, honestly.
I am well aware that chicken pox is a herpes virus. What most people are unaware of is that HSV1 is not “oral herpes,” and HSV2 is not “genital herpes.” HSV1 is more common as cold sores but the main difference is that it is, simply and very generally speaking, a milder form of herpes compared to HSV2. BOTH HSV1 AND HSV2 can be, and are, transmitted TO OR FROM an oral or genital location, in addition to other locations.
Danielle, Danielle, Danielle. Don’t you know that Jacqueline knows what is best for you, and what would have been best for you as a child?? Her Christian beliefs and super-virginity have given her the powers to hear the screams of, “You’re not my real dad!” that echo through your mind day in and day out, though you may not hear them. She also knows, deep down and without a doubt, that your father loves his children with his new wife more than he loves you. Sorry, Sweets.
Also, angel, oral herpes are very, very easily transmitted from ones person’s mouth to another’s genitals. This results in an HSVI infection of the genitals, the results of which are no different than an HSVII infection. A person who has had cold sores since childhood could very well transmit this STI to their virgin spouse. You are incorrect in stating that a virgin until marriage is immune to sexual diseases.
Ah, Alexandra, we posted at the same time. Nice to see someone else around here knows what they are talking about.
Besides Jacqueline, of course. She obviously is all-knowing.
Yes, Bilbo, you are correct in how oral herpes can be transmitted so that genital herpes may result, however the majority of genital herpes cases are the result of STDs contacted through promiscuous sex.
Glad to see that you appreciate J’s knowledge and logic– I certainly do!
Until people stop thinking of themselves as the center of the universe and start wanting what is best for those around them; babies born and unborn, children, and young people are going to continue to suffer.
Danielle, Danielle, Danielle. Don’t you know that Jacqueline knows what is best for you, and what would have been best for you as a child??
Posted by: Bilbo at May 6, 2009 4:43 PM
LOL.
My bad for not realizing how tragic it all is! Turns out I didn’t have a nice childhood at all. I must be reaaallly repressing it.
That’s how my hardened, evil, Godless, 2 sizes 2 small, pro-death, pro-abort, pro-deviant, Obamaloonie heart works!
Yes, Bilbo, you are correct in how oral herpes can be transmitted so that genital herpes may result, however the majority of genital herpes cases are the result of STDs contacted through promiscuous sex.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 6, 2009 5:19 PM
Thank you Eileen#2.
Bilbo and Alexandra: I am well aware of all the intricacies of how one can transmit genital herpes, thank you very much. However, if one is a virgin and marries a virgin then the risk is nil. (Oh yes, this situation DOES happen!)
I think you are both overstating the case in order to denigrate virginity.
Anyone I know who married as a virgin has no sexual diseases. Period.
Lakita was absolutely awesome in this video.
I have put into practice EXACTLY what Lakita stated here: the teen years are a time of discovery!
Not sexual discovery. Not oral sex discovery. Not STI discovery. Not pregnancy discovery. Not broken-heart discovery. Not abortion discovery.
Discovery about ones self. Teens need to be discovering what talents they have. What personality strengths they have. What are their weaknesses? What are their goals in life? This takes tremendous emotional and physical and psychological effort.
Bilbo and Alexandra: I am well aware of all the intricacies of how one can transmit genital herpes, thank you very much. However, if one is a virgin and marries a virgin then the risk is nil.
angel, if you say that it’s impossible for a virgin to transmit herpes, or that oral herpes is irrelevant to a discussion on genital herpes, then you certainly don’t seem aware of the intricacies of how it’s transmitted.
The reason I know so much about this is specifically because I know several people who married as virgins, one of whom got genital herpes from her spouse. He was absolutely guilt-ridden; at first he thought she must have cheated, because he was so thoroughly convinced that virginity and fidelity would protect against herpes. It took a doctor to convince him that oral herpes, aka “cold sores,” is the EXACT SAME THING as genital herpes.
I have absolutely no interest in denigrating virginity, and I have not commented on the pro-virginity aspects of this conversation because I don’t disagree with them. I don’t think anyone should base her sense of self-worth on whether or not she’s a virgin, and I don’t think it’s other people’s business what women or men do so long as they accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. But I was a virgin far later than most of my friends, and I did not enter my current (and, if I’m blessed, only) relationship until I felt confident that I would enjoy spending and building a life with this man.
I simply believe that no one is well served by spreading false information. The truth is always worth stating. I saw an incorrect comment made, and I spoke up; I was told that I’m wrong so I responded that I am not. I’m not jumping all over anyone but if I offer a fact and am told it’s incorrect, I’m not going to let that sit. Who knows who might read it?
The reason I know so much about this is specifically because I know several people who married as virgins, one of whom got genital herpes from her spouse. He was absolutely guilt-ridden; at first he thought she must have cheated, because he was so thoroughly convinced that virginity and fidelity would protect against herpes. It took a doctor to convince him that oral herpes, aka “cold sores,” is the EXACT SAME THING as genital herpes.
Alexandra my understanding is that there is a difference between oral and genital herpes. HSV-1 is the type that causes cold sores. HSV-2 causes genital herpes. I am talking about HSV-2 which is transmitted via sexual contact.
I have no idea what YOU are talking. I suppose a person with HSV-2 can infect a person orally and vice versa but that is not what we are talking about here. These are rare and dependent once again upon the sexual practices of the couple.
My point is: if you remain a virgin until marriage your chances of getting an STI are zero. That’s important to understand. Nothing is fail-safe in life Alexandra but remaining a virgin and having one partner make the risk of contracting an STI very very slim indeed.
I don’t think anyone should base her sense of self-worth on whether or not she’s a virgin, and I don’t think it’s other people’s business what women or men do so long as they accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
I personally loved Kathy Lee’s statement at the end: “except what they do with their bodies has consequences for the rest of their life…”
and I would say not only for their life but also other’s lives too.
Unfortunately, our self-worth is based on our actions because our actions describe the kind of person we are and define our character.
If a person lies continually we say he is a liar and cannot be trusted.
If a person has many sexual encounters we say they are promiscuous (or ho’s as the teens do!) and maybe not a good marriage prospect.
I think to expect otherwise is very naive.
angel,
A person can be infected with genital herpes (hsv2) on their mouth, and oral herpes (hsv1) on their genitals. They symptoms are the same.
If a virgin bride with a cold sore flosses her teeth before getting into bed with her virgin groom and then touches him, she could very easily infect him with the herpes virus as it is highly contagious. She probably wouldn’t even know if it was hsv1 or hsv2 that causes her cold sores because the two are so interchangeable these days. Most people who get cold sores aren’t even aware of which virus they have, 1 or 2, because they are rarely tested.
The chance of two virgins contracting any STD from each other is really slim, but not zero.
Alexandra my understanding is that there is a difference between oral and genital herpes. HSV-1 is the type that causes cold sores. HSV-2 causes genital herpes. I am talking about HSV-2 which is transmitted via sexual contact.
angel, HSV-1, the type that is commonly associated with cold sores, causes genital herpes as well. And HSV-2 causes both genital and oral herpes. BOTH HSV1 AND HSV2 CAN BE TRANSMITTED VIA SEXUAL CONTACT IN ADDITION TO NON-SEXUAL CONTACT.
My point is: if you remain a virgin until marriage your chances of getting an STI are zero.
In the case of herpes that is absolutely incorrect. I don’t understand why you’re clinging to factual errors. There is a very strong case for sexual responsibility without resorting to misrepresenting the truth about herpes.
I’m sorry Alexandra I simply disagree with you.
If you have nonsexual contact how can you get a sexual disease?
In the case of herpes that is absolutely incorrect. I don’t understand why you’re clinging to factual errors. There is a very strong case for sexual responsibility without resorting to misrepresenting the truth about herpes.
Posted by: Alexandra at May 6, 2009 7:48 PM
NO there is a very strong case for virginity Alexandra which you for some reason seem to be trying to dismiss by stating that (very rarely) two virgins can give each other a sexual disease without having a sexual disease themselves. It is a matter of sexual practice that will determine this scenario. And not everyone does these sort of things.
I guess what’s bothering me Alexandra is that you are trying to state that virginity is just not a safeguard against STI’s.
I believe you are simply wrong. The highest rates of STI’s are among persons who have multiple partners.
Ya know my doctor won’t even test virgins for STI’s. Do you know of any doctor that does routine testing for STI’s among virgins? Wouldn’t most doctors think this a waste of medical resources?
This discussion reminds me of the ones I use to have with medical students about legalizing abortion. They would frequently bring up some God-forsaken illness (example, one where a baby eats his own flesh) as a reason for legalizing abortion.
Hard cases do not makes laws nor dictate behavior.
angel, they are referring to transmission of the virus via oral sex. But my point is that the majority of genital herpes cases are spread in cases where people have multiple sexual partners.
angel, they are referring to transmission of the virus via oral sex. But my point is that the majority of genital herpes cases are spread in cases where people have multiple sexual partners.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 6, 2009 8:07 PM
yes I know. But many couples who are virgins are also not likely to engage in this behavior – for good reasons!
It’s a fact, angel. You can’t simply disagree.
Herpes is not an exclusively sexual disease. It’s a virus that can be transmitted many ways, including sexually. The reason genital herpes is an STD is because it requires contact with the genitals, obviously. But it does not require genital-genital contact.
A five-year old boy can get oral herpes when his mom kisses him one day. He may have one cold sore in his whole life — it’s not the worst thing in the world. But he can transmit that very same virus to his wife, and she can get oral OR genital herpes from that virus he innocently got from his mom.
NO there is a very strong case for virginity Alexandra which you for some reason seem to be trying to dismiss by stating that (very rarely) two virgins can give each other a sexual disease without having a sexual disease themselves.
Are you completely ignoring everything I’m saying? I have no interest in dismissing virginity.
I guess what’s bothering me Alexandra is that you are trying to state that virginity is just not a safeguard against STI’s.
NO, I have explicitly said that virginity until marriage does not remove the risk of herpes. WHICH IS TRUE.
The only people I know who have genital herpes have contracted it through oral sex with a partner who has oral herpes. As I have said, one was in a chaste, married relationship. Another was in her only and very monogamous sexual relationship. It happens.
Hard cases don’t make law but they’re certainly worth knowing about! Good grief.
angel,
I have only ever had one sexual parter, my husband. For full disclosure I will admit that we did not wait until our wedding day, but I have never had another partner.
I have gotten terrible cold sore since I was a young child. When I have an outbreak I am EXTREMELY cautious and wash my hand a hundred times a day because I know it is extremely contagious and I do not want anyone else in my household to become infected, even orally, because it stinks.
Though neither my husband nor i have a sexual disease, I could give him herpes if we were not careful. In his genitals, not just on his face. That would be considered a “sexual disease,” I suppose, since his symptoms would be identical if he caught the virus genital-to-genital.
While very rare, and certainly not the norm, I’m sure there are cases where people have gotten infections without having intercourse. I’ve heard that public hot tubs are dangerous for that reason, though that could be a myth.
Eileen,
I was not necessarily referring to oral transmission. Did you read my flossing example?
From the CDC website:
HSV-1 and HSV-2 can be found in and released from the sores that the viruses cause, but they also are released between outbreaks from skin that does not appear to have a sore. Generally, a person can only get HSV-2 infection during sexual contact with someone who has a genital HSV-2 infection. Transmission can occur from an infected partner who does not have a visible sore and may not know that he or she is infected.
HSV-1 can cause genital herpes, but it more commonly causes infections of the mouth and lips, so-called “fever blisters.” HSV-1 infection of the genitals can be caused by oral-genital or genital-genital contact with a person who has HSV-1 infection. Genital HSV-1 outbreaks recur less regularly than genital HSV-2 outbreaks.
oh my God, this is ridiculous.
Please go on trashing virginity with your hard cases.
I well know a child can get cold sores from his mother for pete’s sake!
They often run in families too – did you know that! :p
You do a tremendous disservice by telling people that virginity doesn’t help in the case of herpes. And that’s exactly what you are doing here. And you are wrong because the chances of person getting herpes from sexual activity are much greater than if they remained chaste. Virginity removes the main source of sexually transmitted herpes infection.
More from the CDC:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including genital herpes, is to abstain from sexual contact, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.
More from the CDC:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including genital herpes, is to abstain from sexual contact, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 6, 2009 8:25 PM
not according to Alexandra.
Please go on trashing virginity with your hard cases.
angel, why do you insist that I’m trashing virginity? Where have I ever said, “Virginity before marriage doesn’t protect 100% against herpes, so go out and screw whoever you want!”? NOWHERE. I have simply said, “Virginity before marriage doesn’t protect 100% against herpes.” The truth about herpes DOES NOT speak negatively about virginity.
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including genital herpes, is to abstain from sexual contact, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at May 6, 2009 8:25 PM
not according to Alexandra
I have NEVER disputed that point. I have said that women who are promiscuous are at greater risk for herpes, but women who abstain until marriage are not free from the risk.
not free from the risk, as nothing is risk-free in life Alexandra.
But the risk is minimal and very very much less than that of a non-virgin.
have a nice evening
not free from the risk, as nothing is risk-free in life Alexandra.
Nothing is risk-free, and promiscuous women are at significantly more risk for all STI’s than chaste women. Virginity and chastity do basically lower your risk of many STI’s to zero; the difference with herpes is that it is not only controlled by human behavior (ie abstaining). Thus the risk for herpes transmission within a chaste marriage is higher than with other STI’s, which rely on human error (infidelity, etc) to enter a marriage. That is worth noting when someone claims that chastity removes the risk of herpes. The risk is still there, much more than with other STI’s. My friend knows that and Cheshire knows that and many other people deserve to know that.
Bilbo,
Yes! I invented the concept of saving sex for marriage. The idea is all mine, and I am the only one who believes that sex should be saved for your lifelong partner. It is solely my concoction that children take a male and female to be conceived, and I am the only person that thinks men should be committed to the mother of their children, and live with them as a family to raise the children.
Yes, I am all wise and all knowing, because you know no one else thinks that abstinence is the only foolproof way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy and STD’s! And the opinion that children abandoned or heartbroken by divorce don’t suffer for that- yep, that is uniquely my concept, too.
The idea that sex belongs between a husband and a wife has only been deemed crazy in the past 50 years, when sex got divorced from its natural purpose. It seemed like everyone believe that sex was best saved when they couldn’t spare themselves the consequences.
Like you, Danielle. Would you have sex if you couldn’t contracept? I bet you’d find some self-control if you lost the ability to have your baby dismembered at will.
That’s how my hardened, evil, Godless, 2 sizes 2 small, pro-death, pro-abort, pro-deviant, Obamaloonie heart works!
It’s not humorous if it’s true.
not free from the risk, as nothing is risk-free in life Alexandra.
But the risk is minimal and very very much less than that of a non-virgin.
That’s all I was trying to say. Back when you were insisting:
I’m sorry Alexandra I simply disagree with you.
If you have nonsexual contact how can you get a sexual disease?
and
My point is: if you remain a virgin until marriage your chances of getting an STI are zero. That’s important to understand
and
However, if one is a virgin and marries a virgin then the risk is nil.
Those statements are simply false. I agree that the best way to avoid STI infection is to remain chaste. But some people who do remain chaste still get infected, unfortunately.
Imagine if someone believed you, and remained a virgin until marriage and then did contract the herpes virus from her spouse’s cold sore. If this person believed what you have stated as fact I would imagine it would cause a great deal of confusion and heartbreak within her relationship.
“Like you, Danielle. Would you have sex if you couldn’t contracept? I bet you’d find some self-control if you lost the ability to have your baby dismembered at will.”
Great point. All of a sudden, within the last 40 yrs, teens can not control their sexual urges.
Cheshire, this discussion about herpes is really nothing but hair splitting.
Eileen,
Isn’t it also interesting that the presence of contraception and abortion has resulted in more out-of-wedlock children born now than before the sexual revolution. Even with 88% of abortions performed on single women, and 1 in four babies killed in the womb, we still have more out-of-wedlock births now than ever before.
It seems that sexual abstinence was absolutely possible before people got the false notion that sex and babies are separate concepts.
Imagine if someone believed you, and remained a virgin until marriage and then did contract the herpes virus from her spouse’s cold sore. If this person believed what you have stated as fact I would imagine it would cause a great deal of confusion and heartbreak within her relationship.
Posted by: Cheshire at May 6, 2009 9:41 PM
oh,please don’t be a drama queen, ok?
we are talking about a specific sex act!
good grief girl!
and I agree Eileen#2 this IS splitting hairs but that’s exactly my point.
Why is this being done? It’s being done to try to make the case that virginity doesn’t protect someone when in fact in 99.99999% of situations it does and does very very well.
Your point about teen’s unable to control themselves when it comes to sex but our expectations that they can when they smoke, drink and drive – yes this is very true.
We’ve lowered our expectations. I wonder why? Maybe it’s because people like sex-educators and PP WANT teens to be promiscuous.
It seems that sexual abstinence was absolutely possible before people got the false notion that sex and babies are separate concepts.
Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2009 10:40 PM
Yes Jacqueline!
There are probably many factors at play here but the biggest one to my mind is contraception which greatly encouraged promiscuity, the breakdown of the family, divorce, abortion, and the predatory behavior of mainly males but also some females.
Angel, I’m sorry, I love you, but I think you are wrong here.
Fact: Cold sores can be obtained innocently.
Fact: Genital herpes can come from oral-genital contact with a person with a cold sore.
Fact: Oral stimulation is not illicit, according to any church tradition I am aware of. I am not talking about oral sex, only oral stimulation. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to do it, but it isn’t sinful.
Therefore, it is possible for one virgin to contract genital herpes from another. If I had a cold sore, I could have given my husband genital herpes without doing anything wrong.
This doesn’t negate what anyone is saying about virginity and chastity. Chastity is still the best course of action and still prevents many diseases, as well as negative spiritual and emotional consequences. This does not make chastity bad.
And it is also worth noting that you still couldn’t get genital herpes without sexual contact. So a virgin would be protected.
Alexandra, thank you for the information–it is almost always better to be better informed. (Never did find out what “teabagging” was, and am fine with less information there).
Danielle said:
“-You do not have a 50% chance of catching an STD if you have sex with someone outside of marriage. There are methods to reducing this risk, including monogamy, birth control and abstinence, but no, the rate is not 50%.”
Um, Danielle, you make no sense here. Abstinence doesn’t “reduc[e] the risk” of “catching an STD if you have sex with someone out of marriage.” If you are abstinent, you aren’t having sex with someone outside of marriage, and there is no risk. Some forms of birth control reduce risk, and some do not. Being on the pill won’t protect you from syphilis, and spermicide won’t keep you from getting AIDS. It is no wonder kids get confused when they are just told “birth control can protect you” but not given specifics.
And of course monogamy can protect you–that would be marriage. I think we all could agree that a relationship just like marriage except for the piece of paper would have the same sexual health protection as marriage.
Danielle, you never mentioned why it was okay to kill a baby in the eighth trimester instead of delivering her early.
And it comes out. You have to have some form of sex to get genital herpes! Is that not what we’ve been saying?
If you want to segregate sex like Bill Clinton, you are technically correct to say virgins can get herpes. But our advocacy isn’t technical virginity, but chastity.
You can get all sorts of diseases from oral sex. I even know a woman that got pregnant without having intercourse, so obviously, intercourse is not soley what we’re talking about.
Danielle, you never mentioned why it was okay to kill a baby in the eighth trimester instead of delivering her early.
Because caring for children would interfere with her sex life. Don’t you know sex is purely for her enjoyment and has nothing to do with children?
Fact: Cold sores can be obtained innocently.
Fact: Genital herpes can come from oral-genital contact with a person with a cold sore.
Fact: Oral stimulation is not illicit, according to any church tradition I am aware of. I am not talking about oral sex, only oral stimulation. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to do it, but it isn’t sinful.
I’m well aware of all of this YCW except that oral sex and oral stimuation may be the same term and I’m not convinced that it is not immoral. It has only been since oral sex has become so popular that this has become such a problem. It was not commonly seen in my generation that I know for certain. Not one of my friends has ever contracted a genital herpes infection via the mouth. A few friends have genital herpes from regular genital sexual intercourse. (And we talk about everything!)
And it would make sense to consider the ramifications of such practices. Maybe there’s a God-given reason why mouth to genital contact is not very wise?
Most people of my generation have a sensibility against oral sex. So for us, contracting herpes is not an issue because we don’t practice sex in a manner that leads to contracting genital herpes via oral contact.
My beef is that these special situations are ALWAYS brought up to state why a certain position isn’t tenable or is only partly successful. If I told this information to a young woman, what woman would ever want to kiss a man? Maybe he has genital herpes in his mouth? Should she ask the man have you ever had oral sex prior to having a kiss?
This then leads us to what exactly is a virgin? And what constitutes virginity? Maybe in this day and age if one can get genital herpes from kissing as you and Alexandra insist, then maybe anyone wishing not to catch anything should question a potential date and not kiss prior to marriage and abstain from oral sex genital sex and so forth?
My point again: Virginity is the BEST protector against STI’s. And I still maintain that it is the best protector against ALL STI’s including herpes. That’s what the clip was about and that’s what the thread was stating. I’m in agreement with this.
Thanks to all who tried to burst the bubble on virginity. You’ve done a terrible disservice to young people by implying that they are NEVER safe and that virginity is not safe way to protect yourself.
:P
And it comes out. You have to have some form of sex to get genital herpes! Is that not what we’ve been saying?
If you want to segregate sex like Bill Clinton, you are technically correct to say virgins can get herpes. But our advocacy isn’t technical virginity, but chastity.
Thank you Jacequline for this. You are quite correct! But unfortunately, in our contraceptive society, sex gets compartmentalized. And then we work ourselves up to see just how a chaste person can (im)possibly get STI’s so that those who have not been chaste really don’t have to feel all that bad because well, it wouldn’t have made any difference anyway……
I think that you are doing a greater disservice by insisting that two virgins who marry have zero chance of ever having an STI.
Young people should most certainly be aware of these facts. If I had a child who got cold sores I would most certainly tell them, when they were old enough to be discussing such things, that there was a chance they could pass the virus on to their future spouse and that they should be very careful. Not telling them would be wrong.
These situations should be brought up because an outbreak of genital herpes, weather transmitted orally, genitally, or from touch, is devastating and permanent.
If you want to believe that oral sex or stimulation is immoral go right ahead. That doesn’t mean everyone does. Jacqueline is correct that it is not defined as sinful by any church that I’m aware of. And I’m pretty certain that “most” of your generation does not agree with you. Perhaps among people you know personally, but not world wide.
Notice that Danielle became eerily silent the second we called her out on her behavior.
Hmmmm.
Alexandra, thank you for the information–it is almost always better to be better informed. (Never did find out what “teabagging” was, and am fine with less information there).
Thank you for that, YCW. It feels pretty crummy to be accused of being anti-virginity simply because I don’t want to let inaccurate facts sit on the record in such a valuable discussion. It’s not like I came in here calling anyone stupid or saying how awful virginity is! I pointed out an inaccurate statement and stood my ground when people defended the inaccuracy.
And Tanya, I most certainly agree with this:
Young people should most certainly be aware of these facts. If I had a child who got cold sores I would most certainly tell them, when they were old enough to be discussing such things, that there was a chance they could pass the virus on to their future spouse and that they should be very careful. Not telling them would be wrong.
I think that people should absolutely know the realities about things like this. I don’t think that the truth “bursts the bubble” on virginity — and if it does, then what does that say about virginity? For pity’s sake.
Jacqueline:
And it comes out. You have to have some form of sex to get genital herpes! Is that not what we’ve been saying?
The assumption in this argument — pre-marital sex versus waiting until marriage — is that most people will decide to have ‘some form of sex’ at some point. Sex after marriage is still sex, and herpes can be transmitted via sex after marriage even if both spouses are virgins. That’s what I’ve been saying.
The assumption in this argument — pre-marital sex versus waiting until marriage — is that most people will decide to have ‘some form of sex’ at some point.
That has in no way been the assumption. People that have sex before marriage like to make that the assumption because it makes them feel better about their choices. It’s also wrong and unfair to humanity and to kids to tell them that they are expected to have some sort of sex prior to marriage.
Your assumption must be that if two virgins marry, they had to have had oral sex or sexual contact before they married. This is not true. Some people are chaste, get married, and remain faithful to their spouses.
That has in no way been the assumption. People that have sex before marriage like to make that the assumption because it makes them feel better about their choices.
Well if we’re talking about people who never have sex ever in their lives then yes, obviously they will have extremely low chances of contracting an STI. The discussion of waiting until marriage assumes that marriage is something that is being waited for, not that someone is choosing another vocation.
Your assumption must be that if two virgins marry, they had to have had oral sex or sexual contact before they married. This is not true. Some people are chaste, get married, and remain faithful to their spouses.
PLEASE read what I and others have written. It is VERY POSSIBLE for someone to abstain from all forms of sex and still be in a position to transmit the herpes virus. IT HAS HAPPENED TO PEOPLE I KNOW.
Sex after marriage is still sex, and herpes can be transmitted via sex after marriage even if both spouses are virgins. That’s what I’ve been saying.
Posted by: Alexandra at May 7, 2009 3:24 PM
NO it cannot. If two people do not have herpes (oral or genital) and were virgins before marriage they have NO chance of getting herpes, assuming they have no oral sex and they do not share drinks with others who are infected with herpes. I’ve never had a core sore in my life nor do I carry any herpes virus as determined by testing (which may or may not be accurate). I was a virgin before I married and I’ve never had oral sex. Surprise, I don’t have herpes!!
If two people have oral herpes (as in cold sores) they can reinfect each other with oral herpes but can also never get genital herpes if they never have oral sex. You are assuming that all married couples use oral stimulation/sex. Many couples do not.
I’m sorry you think you are hard put upon Alexandra, but you are making a case against virginity where one doesn’t exist. It is a rare case despite your unlucky acquaintances.
Well if we’re talking about people who never have sex ever in their lives then yes, obviously they will have extremely low chances of contracting an STI. The discussion of waiting until marriage assumes that marriage is something that is being waited for, not that someone is choosing another vocation.
No Alexandra, they will have NO chance of getting an STI. A chaste person cannot get an STI. And there are some who do believe and not assume that saving sex for marriage is a worthwhile sacrifice and a SAFE practice.
No Alexandra, they will have NO chance of getting an STI. A chaste person cannot get an STI. And there are some who do believe and not assume that saving sex for marriage is a worthwhile sacrifice and a SAFE practice.
angel, PLEASE educate yourself on this matter.
http://www.herpes.com/Transmission.shtml
People can get herpes while remaining chaste. People can then spread herpes to their spouse in many ways, including through sex. THIS IS A FACT.
I’m sorry you think you are hard put upon Alexandra, but you are making a case against virginity where one doesn’t exist. It is a rare case despite your unlucky acquaintances.
As for it being rare, many doctors think that one of the reasons it is actually as infrequent as it is results from the fact that so many people have oral herpes already. When my friend contracted genital herpes from her spouse and he learned that his cold sores were the cause, many of the friends and acquaintances in my circle had this discussion with their spouse or partner. What many found was that BOTH people in the relationship had had a cold sore at least once in their lives, which meant they already had the antibodies and were unlikely to get the same kind of herpes genitally. If their partner had not already had oral herpes, many of those people would have given him or her genital (or oral) herpes.
So in some ways people are lucky that oral herpes is so prevalent, because it does likely result in fewer emotional and upsetting cases like my friend’s. But it seems like lousy logic to me to say, “Well, the person I marry has a good chance of having oral herpes too, so I’m just going to pretend that a chaste virgin cannot transmit genital herpes because it better fits my worldview.”
Alexandra: did you read ANY of my post!?? ANY part of it Other than the part that you just want to argue about.
And thanks for the link, but it proves my statements above:
from your link:
Herpes is spread by direct skin to skin contact. Unlike a flu virus that you can get through the air, herpes spreads by direct contact, that is, directly from the site of infection to the site of contact. For example, if you have a cold sore and kiss someone, you can transfer the virus to their mouth. Similarly, if you have active genital herpes and have vaginal or anal intercourse, you can give your partner genital herpes. Finally, if you have a cold sore and put your mouth on your partners genitals (oral sex), you can give your partner genital herpes.
my point: If two people do not have herpes (oral or genital) and were virgins before marriage they have NO chance of getting herpes, assuming they have no oral sex and they do not share drinks with others who are infected with herpes.
NOT EVERYONE HAS ORAL SEX, Alexandra!
Being chaste prior to marriage, and having only one partner – your spouse that you both are faithful to each other over your lifetime means these sad “stories” don’t have to happen!
Have a nice day.
You too, angel. I’m sorry you feel that the legitimate truth about herpes is somehow a slur against virginity.
“NOT EVERYONE HAS ORAL SEX, Alexandra!
Being chaste prior to marriage, and having only one partner – your spouse that you both are faithful to each other over your lifetime means these sad ‘stories’ don’t have to happen!”
Angel, I would just let this go, but you are hurting our cause by keeping this up. I am very pro-virginity, pro-chastity, pro-family, and pro-life. I don’t do things because they are “popular,” and I don’t discuss sex with my friends, so I do not know what is popular.
You are free to say that you don’t want to have oral-genital contact, you are free to say it is safer not to because it could lead to genital herpes, and you are free to find the sexual practices of others distasteful.
You are not free to say that a sexual practice is sinful because of your personal dislike of it.
The point is not about people having oral sex and still calling themselves virgins. I agree that isn’t right. I am not sure whether I believe that oral sex is never right or not–but I respect your right to believe it is not okay, and I respect the right of the Catholic church to proclaim that it’s not okay. I was not completely chaste before I married (though anything I did was with my husband), but we did not have oral-genital (or genital-genital) contact before marriage. I am not trying to make myself feel better about anything I know was wrong. I am not talking about oral sex or any sex act outside of marriage. I am talking about oral-genital contact as a form of foreplay within a chaste marriage.
If two people do not have oral or genital herpes, no, they cannot give it to each other. If one spouse has oral herpes (cold sores, which can be obtained through chaste kisses among relatives), and the other spouse has never had a cold sore, it is possible for one spouse to give the other genital herpes, even though both were completely chaste before marriage. And while you may find the act that can cause this distasteful, it is not prohibited by the church.
Absolutely it is best to remain a virgin, and remain chaste. Absolutely it is safest. I’m not arguing those points. I completely agree with you. I am not making a case against virginity.
Let me know if any more information about my sex life is necessary to convince you that I am chaste enough now to listen to. I think I meet the standards of the Catholic Church, but it sounds like yours may be higher.
[This post has been edited by moderators.]