The Moral Case for Sex After Marriage

If you haven't read the article by Jill Filipovic on "The moral case for sex before marriage" then you might probably want to check it out on the guardian.co.uk or from the link below before reading this one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/moral-case-for-sex-before-marriage?INTCMP=SRCH

The Bible says that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Perhaps an even more difficult scenario than these two, is to find an objective journalist who writes articles on issues of morality. So what makes an article objective you might ask? It is when an author puts both arguments on the table and scrutinizes one against the other before coming to a conclusion. It doesn't omit the other side of the argument as this one does so well but allows the reader to be a part of the analytical reasoning or process behind it. Anything short of that would be just a bias representation of the author's personal belief system and convictions and that's what I felt the above article was. If for some reason however, the title of this article doesn't give away my position on the subject, allow me to clarify by saying that I am pro-abstinence and my reason for being is not because I belong to the religious community; it's because I have carefully weighed both sides of the argument. This here is your opportunity to do the same. Now...to the batmobile

The Majority is Right 
The first major point that the author made for the case for sex before marriage was none other than...(rolling drums) nearly everyone is doing it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot before you actually go out to battle. My enthusiasm for the article dispersed instantly as if it had just seen a ghost and my brain started telling my right hand to drag the mouse over the x and click on it. Two sentences lower down however, I was able to glimpse at the words, "—just because lots of people do a thing doesn't mean it's a good thing" and I felt like the electricity came back on. For all the years that I've been doing argumentative writing, this was the first time that I had ever seen or heard someone knowingly refute their own point and seem so nonchalant about it. I was intrigued all over again. 

Sex Is Not a Bad Thing
The positive side effects of an active sex life became the next major point, and according to the article: "People with active sex lives live longer." It goes on to state that, "Sex releases stress, boosts immunities, helps you sleep and is heart-healthy" and just to show how fair I am, I will even throw in something extra—sex is also a good form of exercise. But the big question here is: do most puritans or believers in abstinence disagree with that? The words and tone of the article seem to assume that puritans have an issue with sex and that they don't understand how important or fulfilling it is for the individual and his or her relational development. But it can be argued that it's because they understand how important it is, they are advocating marriage first so I didn't quite understand the correlation there. I've never heard teachings from any pastor or religious person asserting that sex is a bad thing or is an unclean practice. The context that is challenged and remains to be: is when it's done outside of marriage.

Marriage is Not a Safe Haven
So what is it about the context of marriage that makes sex more appealing for some? Ms. Filipovic asserts that marriage is not, and has never been, a way to protect against the harmful, bad and dangerous potential of sex. I would be a hypocrite to deny or ignore that the author has a point there. A married couple can have a horrible sex life and the legal document they share cannot protect them from infidelity, pregnancy, heartache or acquiring sexually transmitted diseases either. Many couples go into marriage clueless about sex and clueless about life but can't the same be said for those who are not interested in waiting till marriage who enter into relationships? And if educating young people to practice responsible, ethical and consensual sex is a solution to teenage pregnancy, abortions, rape, heartache etc. why can't these same principles be applied to young couples waiting to be married? I don't see any reason why the two cannot co-exist here. You can advocate abstinence but still educate young people on how to take the necessary precautions to protect the physical and mental health of themselves and their partners which would come in handy after marriage or in the event that they indulge prior to. Teaching someone about driving (the mechanics of the vehicle, road signs, precautions, the best way to change gears etc) doesn't strip them of the choice or desire for waiting till they get their license first before hitting the road. Granted, it could be more tempting but the understanding of the potential consequences involved will indicate that driving is far better and safer after you get a license. Now can a driver's license protect you from a vehicle accident, a bad alternator or flat tire? Of course not...but the consequences of an accident would be far graver without it than the "ponies and rainbows" that one might experience before.

In Feb 2010 in the US, there was new research conducted that utilized this same idea of incorporating the message of abstinence with education, and according to the results, it actually worked. Researchers followed the sixth and seventh graders in separate groups. In one, the focus was abstinence; in the other, they taught contraception and safe sex. Two years later, they talked to the kids again and half the students learning about safe sex were now having sex, while only a third in the group focused on abstinence were engaged in sex. "I think this is a game-changing piece of evidence," says Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Unplanned Pregnancy." See: ABC World News with Diane Sawyer: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-abstinence-works/story?id=9731048#.UGF4hoYQfAg )

The concept that prevention is better than cure may seem trivial to some but it does carry some heavy metal into this argument and I don't think it can be undermined or dented by the statement: "—nearly everyone has sex before marriage." The fact that most people are doing it however, does pose a very interesting question: why is the majority falling within the cracks of the high calling of abstinence or purity? I thought Ms. Filipovic hit the nail on the head when she said (paraphrasing) that the taboo of sex before marriage has created a reluctance on society as a whole to speak openly about the pleasures and issues of sex. Now while she's right in establishing that this is part of the problem, I think she is equally wrong in assuming that the solution is getting rid of abstinence all together. Campaign programs by government and churches encouraging single couples and families to have open conversations about sex can help resolve the issue overtime without dismissing the goal of waiting for marriage. Why throw away the furniture when you can simply re-adjust it to pass through the door?

Early Marriage and High Divorce Rates:
In the Eastern countries, where early marriages are more predominant and the families are more involved, the divorce rate is recorded as the lowest in the world and those statistics are not inclusive of the extreme or/and abusive cases. Ms. Filipovic says that "...people who marry early and/or hold traditional views on marriage and gender tend to have higher divorce rates and unhappier marriages." I suppose we should count the Eastern countries out of this generalization since they clearly disprove this claim. Now though I cannot deny the truth of those really horrible divorce statistics in the West, I am a bit curious as to how Ms. Filipovic established a causal relationship between the high divorce rate and early marriage. The rules of logic teaches us that correlation isn't always equal to causation. So not because A, B and C are in one jar means that C equals the summation of A and B. There is no evidence stated in the article or otherwise to suggest that early marriage is the cause of the high divorce rates. This is a very ticklish topic and we must be very careful how we approach it. Now does early marriage pose a great risk for divorce? Certainly! Low maturity, financial instability and  different views on educational attainment all have the potential to destroy the life of a young marriage. Well, so does one case of infidelity. I have also heard equally solid arguments which pose similar risks for those who marry later. It is too broad of a topic to try to base a theory on in my opinion; especially one where the two components do not have a causal relationship.

Common Misconceptions
It should also be said that many who support the idea of sex before marriage, don't condone teenagers having sex. Their gripe with puritans and the religious community is that they've chosen to place adults in the same circle as teens. Shouldn't an adult have the guilt-free right to choose whom he or she wants to have sex with? It is perhaps the strongest argument made for sex before marriage there is. Ms. Filipovic puts it in these words "—not everyone is going to get married, or even legally can get married.The instruction to wait forever to experience a fundamental human pleasure is pointless and cruel." Though I think she exaggerated on the "forever" part, I do understand the point being made here. There are some people in churches who have waited for decades to find a partner and are not sure if they ever will. It's a tall glass to drink from and certainly requires a lot of discipline and faith. I spoke to one of the elderly ladies at church recently and asked her how she felt about her waiting and she responded, "If the purpose of sex is to physically, emotionally and spiritually join two people who have committed to each other, why should I do it with a man who hasn't committed to me yet? So until I find him or he finds me, I'm going to wait." It wasn't the type of response that I had expected. Something to the extent of "God said it, so I am trusting Him" was usually the song that played on that particular station but her answer through a curve ball at me. She saw a relationship between sex and commitment and didn't fancy the idea of having one without the other. As interesting as her theory sounds however, I cannot help but wonder if marriage is the only true manifestation of commitment there is. Can't a couple commit without getting married and if the answer is yes, the bigger question is: why would they not want to get married if marriage is the highest level of commitment there is. Think about it; it involves not just a verbal, spiritual or social contract but one tied in with the law...talk about putting your legal right where your mouth is.

I should also take this time to clear up a misconception that sexual liberals have towards conservatives. Ms. Filipovic asserts further down in her article that "Purity peddlers construct a false universe where there are pure virgins who wait until marriage, and then there are slutty whores who are going home with different men every night of the week." This is clearly an extreme position which doesn't accurately reflect the general position of those who believe in abstinence or purity. That's like saying that all feminists hate men and the idea of family. The drive behind the campaign for abstinence isn't dogmatic for everyone who believes it. It may be dogmatic for those who are members of religions who are subjected to follow the teachings of their faith, but for others, it is merely a case of what they believe is the better decision.

The Argument over Sexual Incompatibility:
There is an old adage which tells women that men won't buy the cow if they can get the milk for free and the first article addresses that. I am not sure if i agree with it completely but Ms. Filipovic was able to deliver a good counter: "—if I'm buying a cow, you can bet I'm going to make sure the milk is to my liking." I've often heard something similar about taking a vehicle for a test drive before you buy it and I must admit that on the surface, this argument does have some clout. Picturing your glorious wedding night being marred by horrible sex can be quite an encouraging argument for the advocates of sex before marriage. But after spending some time contemplating the logic of it, as I do with most things, I have determined that this is actually a shallow and idiotic retort to a deeper and more complex subject of sexual compatibility.

The taste of a cow's milk is highly unlikely to change over time but sex is no milk and your spouse is no cow: they both can change. The desire for sex can vary based on moods, emotions, temperaments and what's going on at the time. Most couples will attest that there are days when the sex is out of this world and there are days when the sex is just...well; sex. In addition, sexual compatibility isn't something that is written in stone as some would have us to believe. With the right tools and conversations, it can improve and gradually change from a deathly pond to an orgasmic spring as long as both parties are willing to be open about it and put in the work. Of course, this is easier said than done but I neither see it as a deal breaker or a necessary element for a great marriage. The importance of sex in a relationship is seldom an issue of compatibility but more often an issue of love: consideration to think of your partner's needs, kindness to do it when you're not in the mood and openness to be able to share and express what works and doesn't work. The idea that sexual incompatibility, on its own, is sufficient to destroy a relationship is just as ridiculous as the idea that sexual compatibility will make a bad relationship good. People who jump on this bandwagon are lackadaisically trading their reasoning in exchange for a quote that supports their moral preference. The potential negative effects of sex outside of marriage far outweighs that of a sexually incompatible married couple.

'Sex Makes you Stupid? '
One of the strongest arguments for sex within the confinement of marriage is not based on a moral or physical  principle as most people tend to believe. Sex is a very powerful emotional and psychological tool as well. Secondary to procreation, it's greatest purpose is to glue people together by acting like a reset button in the relationship. I am by no means asserting that sex has the power to make our bad situations or problems magically disappear but it performs a convincing job of bringing down our guard and reducing relationship tensions which psychologically and emotionally produces a sense of security that may not necessarily be there. It cannot make a bad relationship good but it can surely prolong it. Ever wonder why it becomes very difficult for people to detach themselves from relationships that they know are hurtful and unproductive? It isn't always just the fear of being alone. There are many other reasons for this too but sex is and should be included as one of them. Years ago I used to think that this was a phenomenon that took place with just girls upon losing their virginity but boy was I wrong. This is a very real thing that happens to everybody. Now as a male, I struggled with accepting this idea simply because on the surface it appears to go against the animal (dog) nature of most men but this isn't about a one time event. As long as a man stays clear of a consistent sexual relationship he is not susceptible to the effect. Over time however, if he's having sex consistently with the same person, it can cloud his vision and make it difficult for him to make a decision that seems obvious from the vantage point of any outsider.If the couple is married on the other hand, the effect is more positive.

Mark Gungor, national marriage speaker and creator of Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage refers to it this way: "Sex makes you stupid." In one of his latest articles he writes: 'This same phenomenon that makes men and women dumber than bricks when it comes to making the right decisions in premarital or extra-marital relationships, has extreme power when the sex is according to God's plan. The very same idea that "sex clouds your vision" is wonderful and necessary in marriage. God has created sex to have this kind of effect so we can forget and overlook the faults and missteps, the offenses and transgression and forgive our spouse. It's like a drug you can get a hit of that gives you selective amnesia. It's also another reason why married people need to be having regular sex...so they can get a little clouded vision to overlook the everyday annoyances like toilet seats and toothpaste caps and sometimes the way bigger things that need to be forgiven. We should be "dumb" to those kinds of things.' (http://blogs.christianpost.com/marriage/sex-makes-you-stupid-1719/ )


Closing Arguments
Ms. Filipovic concludes her discourse by stating that her point isn't that everyone should have sex before marriage – people should determine for themselves when they are ready to have sex. She, like many others, accuse 'purity peddlers' of bullying society into conforming to a system that is based on religious and anti-feminist values yet she doesn't see that this article is hypocritically an example of the very same type of bullying. Being sexually pure has been the antiquated norm in western culture for decades now and those kids in schools brave enough to declare that they're virgins or plan on being so until marriage are ostracized and mocked daily because of it. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. But when it boils down to it, the reality is that not everyone is at a stage of maturity to determine when is the right time to have sex and I am not referring to just the adolescent nation. Sex is an amazing tool but a very delicate and dangerous one: the slightest miscalculation can result in utter disaster for all those who wield it. Whilst it's evident that marriage by itself cannot protect a couple from heartache, pregnancy or infidelity, as these things can occur in some of the best marriages, it does provide a better safety net legally and emotionally to handle some of the residue. I am not so much a puritan to call abstinence a perfect practice but I've yet to see how "engage at your own will" is better.

Written by
Valentine Dantes