Even grandma had premarital sex, survey finds

[mikew262]

Why suppot immoral practices?

While premarital sex is certainly not optimal, it’s happening. 95% statistic is pretty telling. You can’t keep your head in the sand, and neither can the Church.

As I mentioned, chasity should always be the 1st choice, but young folks and all folks need to be educated on the other choices.

AIDS, STDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions are all up. I would much rather see a person wear a condom that will probably prevent a pregnancy, than have somebody get an abortion or have that child live in poverty and misery.

God has to feel the same way.

 

[corvidae]

While premarital sex is certainly not optimal, it’s happening. 95% statistic is pretty telling. You can’t keep your head in the sand, and neither can the Church.

As I mentioned, chasity should always be the 1st choice, but young folks and all folks need to be educated on the other choices.

AIDS, STDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions are all up. I would much rather see a person wear a condom that will probably prevent a pregnancy, than have somebody get an abortion or have that child live in poverty and misery.

God has to feel the same way.

All those things are on the rise, but so is condom use, and so is sex education. Those things may be linked to the failure rate on condoms that is rarely if ever admitted to. Or they may be linked to the fact that people are taught abstinence as an afterthought, rather than as the only way to 100% protect yourself. People are told that it is perfectly ok for them to have sex with anyone, at any time, and that this is perfectly natural. Now, when they are taught that, why would they choose abstinence over other “safe and effective” methods?

People are told that “safer sex” and birth control will solve their problems, and so they use it without realizing that there is a failure rate. sooner or later, it fails, and then what happens?

A lone Raven

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

In theory you are correct, but hello? In reality, it’s obviously not working. Certainly abstainance should continue to be encouraged, but reality has dictated another approach needs to be tried. AIDS, STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies, abortions, are all up. Condom use and other non-abortion causing birth control needs to be offered as alternatives. Sometimes you need to pick the lessor of 2 evils.

What is your definition of reality?
And “what” is not working?
I want to be with Jesus, so I am not going to be picking ANY evil adn I don’t want to advise others to do so either.

The alternative to the method today would be society NOT approving of pre-marital sex. The media has inundated our culture with messages that fornication is a-okay and God is just a boogeyman to be ignored.

The message needs to be about Love to our youth, not how to wrap up their genitals. The message needs to be about how chastity increases self worth and dignity while fornication destroys self worth.

The Prince of the World agrees with you I believe. He wants us to choose an evil, any evil, because that choice means we are not looking toward God and certainly not seeing God’s image in your fellow man. What then, now that we do not see God’s image in our fellow man, will be our next action to our fellow man?

Stop the madness. Recognize each person’s sanctity, starting with ourselves and them treating each other with dignity.

You do not get there by wrapping your genitals in rubber.

peace

 

[mikew262]

What is your definition of reality?
And “what” is not working?

peace

Why do I even bother? By you asking those questions in relation to this subject tells me what your state of reality is.

:banghead:

BTW, using the good sense that God gave us all to try to stop terrible diseases, children wallowing in poverty and abortions is not evil. However, you have to put that good sense to work.
In fact, not trying to stop these things when you have the methodology available is more evil IMO.

Putting rubber on your gentials as you crudely put it is not a end all beat all solution, I admit. However, doing nothing except preaching chasity certainly isn’t cutting it either.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I did not say do nothing but teach chastity.

Better factual education, activities for the yout, better understanding of the consequences of fornication and sodomy and other sins of lust can help the most vulnerable to this sin defend against it.

Do nothing? Hardly.
Preach the Truth. Teach about the effects of these sins and the destruction of family life. Hold up the benefits of the family life. Protect marriage. Encourage marriage throuh legislation. Provide activities to the youth, not frat boy hijinks and college football, but activities that embolden the spirit and strengthen the character. Promote positive values with good writing or at least accurately portray the vile consequences of bad behaviour. And mostly pray to Jesus through Mary. Pray the Rosary. I need to do that myself more.

peace

I put it crudely, because IT IS CRUDE. The truth will out,

 

[fix]

In theory you are correct, but hello? In reality, it’s obviously not working. Certainly abstainance should continue to be encouraged, but reality has dictated another approach needs to be tried. AIDS, STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies, abortions, are all up. Condom use and other non-abortion causing birth control needs to be offered as alternatives. Sometimes you need to pick the lessor of 2 evils.

Intrinsically evil acts, like contraception, may never be done. A good end is never justified by an evil means. It is not a choice of the leeser of two evils if the means are evil.

 

[fix]

While premarital sex is certainly not optimal, it’s happening. 95% statistic is pretty telling. You can’t keep your head in the sand, and neither can the Church.

I do not deny the frequency of sin. A head in the sand attitude would be to call evil good as in recommending immoral acts.

As I mentioned, chasity should always be the 1st choice, but young folks and all folks need to be educated on the other choices.

They need to be educated in good moral reasoning, not misinformed as to what our obligations are to ourselves and to God. To teach another that sin is a choice is not exactly a good idea.

AIDS, STDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions are all up. I would much rather see a person wear a condom that will probably prevent a pregnancy, than have somebody get an abortion or have that child live in poverty and misery.

Not a choice at all. It is not a choice to commit one sin over another sin. That really seems to view humans as less than human and incapable of moral reasoning and chosing justly. It makes us out to be little more than brainless robots controlled by biology.

God has to feel the same way.

We know what God asks of us in these matters. There is no debate.

 

[lotusblossom]

Putting rubber on your gentials as you crudely put it is not a end all beat all solution, I admit. However, doing nothing except preaching chasity certainly isn’t cutting it either.

But why teach teenagers (and younger now too) the options of either “being patient and waiting (a dreaded word to kids today)” or “well, since you’re going to probably do it anyway, here’s something that’ll help ‘protect’ you?” With an instant gratification-soaked society already, which alternative do you think they’re going to choose? If you feed into that attitude, all you’re doing is setting them up for more mess than they’re ready to handle.

I think you should teach children respect and dignity and then the "why"s behind chastity and abstinence. They’ll work. If they don’t, they suffer the consequences. My sister suffers from an STD, and it’s awful, but it’s the consequence of a wrong action. Just like a child will get burned from touching a stove that’s on, after being told repeatedly not to do so.

By the way, I don’t think God would choose to pick the rubber. I’m obviously not in any position to speak for Him, but He is ALL good - so he wouldn’t choose an evil.

 

[catsrus]

The article you cite says, “high rates extend even to people born in the 1940’s”.
That is so funny.
I was born in the 1940’s and came of age in the 1960’s.
HELLO??? 1960’s? Anyone? The sexual revolution???
So, DUH?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

While premarital sex is certainly not optimal, it’s happening. 95% statistic is pretty telling. You can’t keep your head in the sand, and neither can the Church.

As I mentioned, chasity should always be the 1st choice, but young folks and all folks need to be educated on the other choices.

AIDS, STDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions are all up. I would much rather see a person wear a condom that will probably prevent a pregnancy, than have somebody get an abortion or have that child live in poverty and misery.

God has to feel the same way.

mikew262,

People use contraceptives to “protect” themselves against pregnancy and expect to be able to have sex without any of the “consequences.” It’s a lie. Contraceptives don’t eliminate pregnancies, which are not a disease that we need to be protected against.

People need to understand that babies are beautiful and wonderful gifts from God 100% of the time, even when we feel like it’s not the best time or we didn’t plan it that way. Contraceptives do not lead people to that understanding, they lead away from it.

God bless.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

But why teach teenagers (and younger now too) the options of either “being patient and waiting (a dreaded word to kids today)” or “well, since you’re going to probably do it anyway, here’s something that’ll help ‘protect’ you?” With an instant gratification-soaked society already, which alternative do you think they’re going to choose? If you feed into that attitude, all you’re doing is setting them up for more mess than they’re ready to handle.

lotusblossom,

I completely agree. It reminds me of a story. My friend asked her younger brother, age 3, if he wanted fruit or ice cream after lunch. Guess which one he picked?

God bless.

 

[a_cermak]

I notice the institute the researcher is affliated with and I am not surprised at all.

I, also, am interested in the wording used here. Frequency equals normal? Where does such logic lead?

Yes frequency does equal normal in a way. Normal only means that a behavior or belief is toward the norm (or the average) of what people’s behaviors or beliefs are. So if 90% of people are having pre-marital sex then yes, it would be to the norm or normal. Normal is not a word that implies moral approval.

I’m not at all surprised. I was listening to a writer who has written a book about sexuality during the Great War (wwii) and she spoke to a lot of women who were alive back then. Many of them engaged in pre-marital sex with their honeys or had rapid-fire marriages before honey was due to be shipped. Women were frequently living apart from their families because they were either working in a war factory or following honey to his camp. Adultery was also common because many of these couples had had a snap wedding and didn’t really know each other all that well.

I think the comment about chaperones is true, that once women were allowed to go out without a chaperone, chastity took a nosedive because suddenly there was a temptation that hadn’t been available before.

 

[a_cermak]

lotusblossom,

I completely agree. It reminds me of a story. My friend asked her younger brother, age 3, if he wanted fruit or ice cream after lunch. Guess which one he picked?

God bless.

But the people having pre-marital sex aren’t 3 years old. They tend to be in their teens and older. If you want people to choose abstinence, make it more attractive, don’t just lie and hide the other options.

 

[fix]

Yes frequency does equal normal in a way. Normal only means that a behavior or belief is toward the norm (or the average) of what people’s behaviors or beliefs are. So if 90% of people are having pre-marital sex then yes, it would be to the norm or normal. Normal is not a word that implies moral approval.

I am familiar with statistical method and the article did not specify the intent of the user. From the usage I would take it to mean morally acceptable.

I’m not at all surprised. I was listening to a writer who has written a book about sexuality during the Great War (wwii) and she spoke to a lot of women who were alive back then. Many of them engaged in pre-marital sex with their honeys or had rapid-fire marriages before honey was due to be shipped. Women were frequently living apart from their families because they were either working in a war factory or following honey to his camp. Adultery was also common because many of these couples had had a snap wedding and didn’t really know each other all that well.

It goes back much farther than WWII. It goes back to the fall of man.

I think the comment about chaperones is true, that once women were allowed to go out without a chaperone, chastity took a nosedive because suddenly there was a temptation that hadn’t been available before.

I agree here.

 

[fix]

But the people having pre-marital sex aren’t 3 years old. They tend to be in their teens and older. If you want people to choose abstinence, make it more attractive, don’t just lie and hide the other options.

I do not think anyone should lie. That is why claiming it is acceptable to do X or Y to possibly avoid this or that all the while engaging in wrong behavior is the true lie. It would be like telling you child if they must rob someone, please do it in a safe manner. It is absurd.

 

[lotusblossom]

But the people having pre-marital sex aren’t 3 years old. They tend to be in their teens and older. If you want people to choose abstinence, make it more attractive, don’t just lie and hide the other options.

They do say that how you were as a toddler is how you will be as a teen. And honestly, today, most teens make decisions like they are three years old. I agree you can’t hide the other options, but unfortunately, most of those other options aren’t shown their negative and evil sides, and are presented to them at an inappropriate age and maturity.

Secondly, I agree that abstinence should be seen as more attractive, but if it’s it taught correctly, it will be. So many teens out there just want to truth and they can’t even find it because most programs and adults today don’t even give them the chance to learn about abstinence and chastity, since they figure they’ll “do it anyway.” And it is very similiar to the icecream analogy that another poster gave. They say, well, here’s boring old abstinence and end it at that and then say, “Well, since we know that you won’t/can’t refrain from sex, here’s the how-to’s (then goes the condom on the banana, lessons on oral sex and pornography, etc).”

If you encourage a person to be the best person they can be, most of the time you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[T1Catholic]

While premarital sex is certainly not optimal, it’s happening. 95% statistic is pretty telling. You can’t keep your head in the sand, and neither can the Church.

As I mentioned, chasity should always be the 1st choice, but young folks and all folks need to be educated on the other choices.

AIDS, STDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortions are all up. I would much rather see a person wear a condom that will probably prevent a pregnancy, than have somebody get an abortion or have that child live in poverty and misery.

God has to feel the same way.

I understand where you’re coming from and I also understand the black and white position most people take on this forum-it is such a tough issue. The funny thing is I would venture a guess that most people on this forum had pre-marital sex and came by their opinion to be pro-abstinence from a return to the Church and being exposed to the Truth (myself included). I don’t like the reality that most young people will have pre-marital sex and I will teach my children abstinence but I know that if they stray (which I say through gritted teeth), the Church will be there for them as the father was there for the prodigal son.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I hope all those who are insisting on “abstinence only” safe sex programs, will now wake up and face reality. We need a realistic approach to safe sex education in this country. Condom use is an absolutely necessary part of any sensible safe sex approach. It’s about time that our federal government focuses policies on scientific reality, rather than be driven by the convictions of religious morality. Hopefully, a new congress in 2007 will change that.

Between when one is in high school (say 14 to start) and 44 (the oldest cut off in the study) is a long time!! If an abstinence only program does nothing other than delay a child from having pre-martial sex until their mid-twenties that has halved that person’s active sex life. Other studies–by the same groups that did this one–also show that people who start having sex later in life have fewer partners, engage in less risky behavior, and are more likely to use condoms (and other abc) correctly. So even from a humanist point of view, abstinence programs work!

A child who gets an abstinence message in high school can still learn whatever you think they might need to know about “safe sex” later, if they do choose to become sexually active befor marriage. But with the STD statistics today, the smart kid who wants to stay alive and healthy, will do best to stay off sex!

 

[Sr_Sally]

. With today’s society putting a priority on education and careers before marriage, are we going counter to what is biologically natural. … As people get older and older before marriage are they faced with a burden of abstinence that no other generation has ever faced?

Interesting thought. Of course there have always been people who never married (and not just concecrated religious) and presumably in previous generations many of them never had sex and still managed to live normal lives. But, the vast majority who did get married often did so much younger than the late 20s-early 30s (and older) that is common now. Another reason not to hold to those artifical timelines of when is the '“right” time to get married.

 

[fix]

I understand where you’re coming from and I also understand the black and white position most people take on this forum-it is such a tough issue. The funny thing is I would venture a guess that most people on this forum had pre-marital sex and came by their opinion to be pro-abstinence from a return to the Church and being exposed to the Truth (myself included). I don’t like the reality that most young people will have pre-marital sex and I will teach my children abstinence but I know that if they stray (which I say through gritted teeth), the Church will be there for them as the father was there for the prodigal son.

My chronic disagreement with Mike over this issue is that I contend it is false to claim it is always about shades of gray. It is false because even though moral choices are hard for us it does nor follow the correct answer is ambiguous or on a continum. The problem is conforming our will to Christ’s will. We know His will in this matter quite well.

The confusion is sown by folks who create false choices and claim all these “choices” are legitimate simply because they exist and so-called experts back them.

This leads us to the discussion of sex education for teens. What education would include false morality? What education emphasizes one part of truth so much that the truth becomes a lie? If the message is always well you should abstain for this reason or that reason, but if you don’t then do X or Y. That says that all choices are equal or at least all acceptable to some degree. That moral reasoning is not moral at all.