...The post that's been a long time coming.
I don't understand Evangelical Christianity's obsession with virginity. There. I said it. In fact, I think it's really dangerous and hurtful to young people--especially young women.
The worst part is, as a teenager in a Christian youth group, I was lied to. I like to think the people "lying" to me didn't know they were spreading lies, but I was given inaccurate information about sex (and the dangers of having sex). They tried to scare me away from having sex, teaching me that condoms are ineffective in preventing HIV. I was taught that my virginity was "a gift" that I would regret giving to someone other than my husband. Pregnancy was held over my head as a threat, rather than teaching me how to prevent it. Although I don't agree with the platform, this video resonates with me because I was sold so many of these lies. Since when is spreading lies helpful for "protecting women?"
I'm not advocating "hookup culture," as that can hurt women, too. In fact, I think my "purity pledge" in high school did protect me from some situations I wasn't ready for, but it missed the mark. The issue was that I wasn't ready for sex then (and I needed to be taught that I have the ultimate say in what I do and allow others to do with my body), not that I needed to wait until marriage to have sex. I used my chastity vow as an excuse, when, instead, I needed to be able to tell the boys I was making out with, "I don't want to have sex with you. This is as far as I'm comfortable going." Somebody needed to tell me that it was okay to say "no" simply because I wanted to.
We can't use virginity as the ultimate gauge of whether or not a young woman is living a moral life. In Jessica Valenti's book The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, she says, "Staying 'pure' and 'innocent' is touted as the greatest thing we can do. However, equating this inaction with morality not only is problematic because it continues to tie women's ethics to our bodies, but also is downright insulting because it suggests that women can't be moral actors. Instead, we're defined by what we don't do--our ethics are the ethics of passivity. (This model of ethics fits perfectly with how the virginity movement defines the ideal woman.)" Let's teach our young women to be moral actors--women who can change the world, not women whose ethics are defined by whether or not they delay sex for marriage!
What do you think about abstinence-only education? Benefits? Dangers? Experiences?
12 comments:
wow sherry! can i just say that sometimes you write things that i have been thinking?!
I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of all Christians, but I don't understand what you mean by Evangelicals obsession with virginity. Maybe because I grew up in a household that was not Christian I just don't understand what you mean. I do think there is an emphasis on purity, holiness, etc. That makes sense if you're a Christian because the book Christians follow tells you to be holy because God is holy. Virginity is a part of that but I don't understand why that's a negative thing.
I don't really understand, also, what "abstinence-only" really even means anymore. Tell students that abstinence is the only way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is just the truth. I don't know if these teachers are fooling themselves in to believing that sex ed is the first time these students are being introduced to contraception. Hell, I knew what a condom was when I was in the 3rd grade. All I know is that when I'm a parent, I'll be sure to have any of those awkward and important conversations with my kids so a teacher won't have to.
I could go in to more but I've already written more than I wanted to.
Lindsey
Sherry,
I agree with you on a few points.
First, I agree that motivating young teenagers to abstinence primarily using fear and threats is not a good approach.
Second, I agree that in some segments of Christianity there is an unhealthy (I would call it unbiblical) obsession with sexual purity—though I would disagree on reason it is unhealthy.
Third, I know there are churches—it sounds like yours may have been like this—that teach a Christianity that is somewhat legalistic or moralistic. In this form of Christianity people are told not to do certain things. These people find it incredibly hard not to do these certain things. So manipulation, guilt, fear, and threats, rather than the gospel, are employed in order to achieve the desired moral behaviors. These threats often utilize unbiblical ideas to motivate. For example, pointing to the creation of a baby as a great disaster in order to curb teenagers’ sexual desires seems sub-biblical and somewhat sad.
Fourth, I think youth pastors and other Christian teachers should teach girls that they have control over their body (I also think they should teach girls and boys that God owns their body), and have the right and power to say (shout or yell) no if they do not want to do anything. I once heard Elisabeth Elliot tell a bunch of USC students this exact thing. She was telling women to be strong and take ownership of their lives and bodies. She is of the perspective that that ownership and choice should be utilized to obey and honor God.
Now, I also have a few places where I, as Christian, disagree, or at least differ.
First, not all of “evangelical Christianity” is like those churches, and many evangelical churches are a mix of more biblical and less biblical teachings and approaches.
Second, Christian churches should speak to the issue of sexuality, since the Bible speaks a lot about sex and Christians think God is speaking in the Bible (and that God is good and wise). In addition, since we live in a hyper-sexualized culture, biblical teaching on sex is especially important for people wanting to live a life under the God of the Bible rather than under the values of the recent Western sexual revolution.
Third, I don’t think the church should be doing “abstinence only education,” because I don’t think the church is in the business of sex education. It should teach the Bible.
Fourth, the Bible has some helpful stuff to say on sex. It does not say, “Don’t have sex or you’ll have a baby!” That is not how God motivates, I don’t think. Rather I think he has given a lot of good gifts, and has given a good law that provides the guidelines in which to enjoy his good gifts. The church, if it believes the Bible, needs to focus on teaching what the Bible says about God, sex, trusting God, obeying God, honoring God, and the kind of human flourishing the Bible says is only possible when leaning on God’s wisdom. Finally, the church needs to teach plenty about the redemption and forgiveness found in Jesus, since the Bible also teaches we are all broken—virgins or not.
Hi Lindsey, I hope you're doing well! :)
Maybe that wasn't your experience, but it was definitely mine. We had a major focus on pledging to be virgins until marriage (True Love Waits/Teen Esteem), and through those programs I was given much inaccurate, fear-based information. We were even told what to do if we lost our virginity already and how to become "secondary virgins." The focus was not on redemption and holiness, but on virginity. We had pledge nights, that weren't quite as creepy as Purity Balls, but they were close. I have major issues with the patriarchy involved--the idea that my virginity belongs to my father until he passes it on to my husband. My body is mine (or, if I were a Christian, it would be God's).
I'm not even talking about schools--sorry if I wasn't clear on my use of "education." I'm talking only about my experience with church and my family. Like Mark mentioned and you seemed to hint at, I think the experiences I had were misplaced. The important conversations about sexuality with a teenager belong at home, in an environment where it's safe to ask questions. More than being a source of information (because the information's readily available--hello Google), parents need to have those awkward conversations to acknowledge that their teens are sexual beings and so the teens know that their parents are there to support and guide them. We NEVER talked about sex at home except to be given a purity ring and asked not to have sex until marriage. I don't even think my mom knew what they were telling me at church.
That's problematic.
To be fair, I DEFINITELY think my youth pastor (and the neighboring youth pastors) had my best interests in mind, and I don't think he was intentionally misleading us. Unfortunately, in his zeal, he was being quite misleading.
Thanks for your response, Mark. I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you said. I apologize for using the term "evangelical Christianity" in what could have been a damaging way. I was speaking from my experience and what I've read of others' experiences with "evangelical Christianity." You're right that all churches are not like that. It gives me hope.
I would echo what you have all said and would add that the theology behind some tactics can often get lost. I think even well informed education of sexual issues can sometimes not encapsulate the beauty of our bodies and their sexual nature.
I think the biggest issue is the emphasis on some event to be prevented vs. a body to be guarded and cherished. I think the biggest difference is in empowerment as you mentioned Sherry. One seeing sex as something to be avoided and one seeing it as something that we are can control and as a gift but one which should be used carefully and with maturity.
I think for us men an issue that I had a major problem with as well was the notion that after marriage that noble virtues like chastity and self-control seemingly could be thrown out the window.
So the same emphasis on abstinence and avoidance played a part in the teenage evangelical male's life, while I wish it would have been a respect for our bodies and a greater notion of what sexual experience means for the Christian (though I think this could be adopted far greater outside of the Christian realm of course)
Absolutely, Tyler. I miss talking to you, by the way. I hope your beautiful little family is doing well.
Good thoughts, all.
I will add one last thing. I remembered last night that the Bible does have quite a bit to say on the consequences of sin. Proverbs 5 is all about how sex outside marriage seems great for a time but brings great pain in the long term.
So I think there is a place for the church helping people see the long term negative consequences of sex outside marriage, rather than just the short term pleasure. Still, this is not the Bible's primary teaching on sex or main motivation to sexual purity, and should not be the main/only theme in a youth group.
I definitely remember a certain wednesday night in youth group where we were given a chart, starting with hugging, and then listing sequential actions all the way down to sex, and the title was something like "How far is too far?"
As a 14 year-old, I remember thinking, "Okay, I can go up to here and still be considered a "good" Christian and still keep my purity ring on."
Looking back now, I see, while they meant well, how misleading that was. My motivation was to remain "good" in the eyes of everyone else (parents, church, peers, etc.) I shouldn't have been asking "How far can I get away with before I'm officially "bad", but rather "What actions with my significant other would glorify Christ and show Him that He is a priority in our lives, not the selfish use of one another's bodies?"
I wish I had learned this thought process as a teenager, and not through mistakes in my twenties.
I also think the church (and I'm speaking the one I grew up in, and probably many like it), have failed in teaching that purity only equals sexual intercourse. Purity is so much more than that...it encompasses it all, from thoughts to sex and everything in between. And I do think it is something to be protected, and cherished. (Which, by the way, I don't see as passive...I think the girls readily having sex are MUCH more passive than the girls boldly taking the ACTION to say no.)
Anyways...miss you Sherry Friend. :)
Robin, Will you explain to me what you mean when you say purity is something to be protected and cherished? In childhood? Just until marriage? Why? What makes a person pure? Is having sex a loss of purity? I would say there are few things purer/holier than sex, but we might disagree there.
Although I think remaining abstinent can be a challenge, I definitely don't think it's more proactive than having sex. I don't get that.
Miss you, too, Robin. I hope all is well in your world! :)
Mark, Proverbs 5 seems to be about the dangers of having sex with other people while married, not about premarital sex. Seeking sex elsewhere while in a monogamous relationship is an entirely different issue (and not something I'm advocating), but I do remember Bible lessons lumping it all together. It's the first scripture I've read in a really long time, and that probably wasn't a good call on my part. The portrayal of "the adulteress" made me sad. It's funny how verses that once made a lot of sense to me are deeply disturbing now. She seems to be carrying an unfair burden of the evil in the proverb.
Sherry,
Yes, Proverbs 5 is not mainly about pre-marital sex, but it illustrates a kind of teaching the Bible uses: "go outside the boundaries, disregard God's instruction, and things will not go well for you in the long run." So all I was saying is that warning about long-term consequences is a good thing when done in a biblical way (not fear mongering, but truth-telling).
Regarding the depiction of the adulterous woman: The father speaking here is definitely trying to get his son to see her as less appealing than a lust-filled man might be apt to -- so she doesn't come off too appealing, nor should she.
But the adulterous man seems to carry his fair share of the burden. He is depicted as foolish, stupid, and guilty. And in the end, it is ultimately his own lack of discipline and his own "folly" that leads him astray, not the woman. The man deserves and gets "wounds," "dishonor," and "disgrace."
Hi Sherry. :)
I was reading this article and I thought of your blog post! Have you had a chance to read this? Just some food for thought.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/164/2/152?home
Post a Comment