Abstinence until marriage

So in other words, destroy abstinence until marriage, and you get rid of romance novels.

How fast can we wipe out this meme?

It won't remove the adultery-based romance novels (the ones with tropes such as The Unfair Sex, Good Adultery, Bad Adultery etc.)

However, it might still reduce them, given that post-wedding sexual incompatibility is a factor of adultery (while not the only one).

edited 21st May '13 1:02:24 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

We should all follow the example of the Bonobo. They have one of the most stable societies in the animal kingdom.

I dunno, I wouldn't mind getting rid of that shelf of dross at the bookstore >_>

Not true. There's the people who piss on the electric fence, and there's the ones that look at it and say "yeah that's not such a good idea". We don't call the former group smart for having to try it out first, and we try not to normalize it.

edited 21st May '13 1:28:51 AM by Pykrete

*googles*

I see your point.

edited 21st May '13 3:31:10 AM by optimusjamie

Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good

Firstly, have a song. "Abstain With Me" by Roy Zimmerman.

---

Now that you're back from laughing at that and his other pieces, I'm not sure exactly what the question is asking.

Is it the safest option? Yes. You can take precautions like condom use or STD testing beforehand to make sex safer and pregnancy less likely, but there's still a risk. There isn't when you don't have sex.

Should you abstain? That's up to you. Weigh the pros and cons for yourself and decide whether you want to. If so, that's fine, and partners of yours should respect it (although don't use that as a way to shut down discussion about sex). If not, that's fine too; just be sure to stay safe, sane, and consensual, as Radical Taoist said.

Can/does everyone who intends to abstain until marriage uphold that? Quite simply, nope.

Should abstinence-only education be in schools? No. It does (PDF) not work. Those studies (well, three studies and one review of several studies) show that abstinence-only sex education really has no more effect than no sex education whatsoever, but comprehensive sex education can help.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.

As far as I understand, abstinence did not exactly "work" even when it was the only option that society (officially)supported. Sex before marriage always been a common occurrence, but in the "abstinence until marriage" climate, the consequences of it tend to be much worse.

Another thing to keep in mind is that often, the abstinence was rather one-sided notion, that is, it was required of female, while the male was given much greater latitude, and that it was closely tied with an idea that woman is man's property and so should be delivered in pristine condition. While I do not think that genealogy of a notion is by itself an important factor in it's evaluation, it is still something to consider.

Lastly, marriage is not the only form of relationship people can find fulfilling. Some people never intend to marry, some are looking to form a permanent relationship that would still not be considered a "traditional marriage" (which is newer than traditionalists think, but that's besides the point). "Abstinence until marriage" argument assumes that everyone is going to and planning to eventually get married, which is currently not the case.

edited 22nd May '13 9:58:35 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

See, part of my own reasons for putting off sex*

is pretty much for this: There is basically always a risk, no matter how many precautions you take. Even if there's a .1% chance of pregnancy or STDs, the chance is still there, and not everyone is willing to risk it. Condoms? They can break pretty damn easily. The pill? Does it always really work? Always? There is no method that is completely foolproof, and there's always at least one fool. I don't think a night of fun is worth a life of regret.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

To put things in perspective, with perfect use (which not many people do), the failure rate of combining pills and condoms (which not many people do) is such that you still have about a 1 in 16000 chance of pregnancy every year. Which sounds small until you realize we're talking about a sample space of a hundred million or so fertile couples in the country.

edited 23rd May '13 1:04:12 PM by Pykrete

For the New Testament people, there's also the Paul "better than burning" thing which translates roughly into "I don't see the point to this carnal sex thing, but I know some of you just gotta have it, and for you, we have marriage. If you absolutely must. No temple prostitutes or anything like that. Just marriage."

@SKJAM: Assuming that you're not part of a Protestant sect that doesn't accept celibacy as an option, of course.

One thing to keep in mind when asking whether abstinence "works" is that there could be two separate questions:

• Does abstinence "work" for an individual person who practices it
• Does it "work" as an education policy

The answers, I suspect, would be quite different. While it is true that refraining from sex is pretty much the only thing that guarantees no pregnancy and no STD (except in cases of rape), as far as I know, abstinence as an educational policy has proven singularly ineffective in preventing unplanned pregnancy, ST Ds and other negative consequences of not well-thought-of sex among the population.

edited 23rd May '13 7:35:28 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

As usual, Beholderess boils it all down correctly.

Sure, abstinence "works" as a personal choice if the goal is zero risk of unplanned pregnancy/sexually transmitted infection. "The only safe sex is no sex at all" is completely true...however, attempts to use abstinence as a policy for education have singularly failed, and every study I've read on the subject back that up.

I have absolutely no issue with abstinence being presented as an option during sex-ed (indeed, it should be, because it is) but the ability to make informed decisions is what education is for. "You shouldn't do this" has singularly failed to make much of an impression on America's youth...particularly because the people preaching this message are generally married and are allowed by the standards of society and the law to have sex whenever they want to - And most teenagers know it.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

@Beholderess: You forgot the important question.

• Does preaching abstinence "work" at filling your heart with self-righteous satisfaction?

edited 27th May '13 2:48:59 PM by MarkVonLewis

For the record, abstinence doesn't completely protect you from ST Ds. There are still things like contaminated needles and blood transfusions.

@Mark: Dude, insecurities is thattaway.

@Clarste: Yes, yes...technically you can catch diseases via medical infection or other means. But you can't catch them sexually if you don't have sex. Not sure why you felt the need to make that point, but I guess if you want to split hairs I'll identify the halves.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

And it hasn't to be said, not all sex is consensual.

hashtagsarestupid

Don't worry, in case of legitimate rape there are protection mechanisms.

Beholderess got it right. I think the answers are yes and no, respectively.

edited 24th May '13 1:09:34 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Who cares how you catch it? The point is that you don't want the disease. If your argument is that the only way to be 100% safe from these things is to not have sex, then that fails because it's not 100% safe. And if you only care about 100% safe sex then abstinence fails on that count too because abstinence is by definition not sex. Once you mention abstinence you're already in the realm of nonsexual behavior.

It is of course reasonable to compared the 99% (rounded down) of a condom with the 99% (rounded down) of abstinence. I'm sure there's an order of magnitude in the difference.

edited 24th May '13 1:53:51 AM by Clarste

Unless you're having sex with a blood bag, they're completely orthogonal vectors of transmission. Comparing them is utterly pointless.

Even if it wasn't, you're right, there is a vast difference in order of magnitude. Condoms aren't 99% effective even in perfect use, and in most cases they don't even break 90% (2%/15% annual perfect/typical use failure rate). Meanwhile, blood transfusion has pretty stringent testing, and getting a sexually transmissible disease from it is on the order of 1 per million. Most transfusion infections aren't even actual diseases but platelet contamination, which is still rarer than most birth control failure.

Furthermore, a blood transfusion isn't recreational — it's something that not doing it potentially kills someone and as such is not an optional risk.

Shared needles? Well if you're doing that, unsafe sex might well be the least of your concerns.

edited 24th May '13 2:22:34 AM by Pykrete

I, for one, do not get why people have sex at all. There're hands and Internet, after all.

@Ira The Squire: Not to be a smart arse but have you actually tried it?

hashtagsarestupid

Don't see why I should.

I'm an abstinence advocate's wet dream.

edited 24th May '13 3:49:49 AM by IraTheSquire

... Emotional connection with another human being?

Be not afraid...