While members of the Christian faith rely heavily on tradition, it cannot be overlooked that some of these traditions are far outdated. Though what most people consider what is said in the Bible and interpret it, there are several topics discussed that are not interpreted, but taken at face value. For those raised in a way that upholds Christian morals, one thing that is common is the emphasis on sexual purity. While we no longer consider cutting off hands of those who steal, it is alarming that we still place value on people based on their sexual practices. Through the teachings of Christian morals, young men and women are taught that virtue is an ultimate indicator of worth and that it is shameful to “give it away.” While there are some positive aspects of this view, it can cause psychological damages and can vary based on the socio-economic status of parishioners.
Though both young men and women are subject to the emphasis on sexual purity, there is clear double-standard. For thousands of years, participants of the Christian faith have taken the words of the Bible and interpreted them to coincide with contemporary society. From bartering to dealing with criminals, there are lessons to be learned from the stories existing in the holy book. The allure of following a moral system that puts emphasis on acting out for the greater good; however, it is shocking how prevalent and important it is for women to keep their virtue in the eyes of Christians.
In Leviticus chapter 21, it states: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute, these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people.” With this statement, the bible lays out the foundation for a good wife. By stating that the woman a man seeks to marry must be a virgin, the bible trivializes other aspects of the woman, boiling down her worth to whether or not she has ever had sex with another man. Though women were once treated as though they were property, the contemporary fight for women’s suffrage has come too far for this mindset to exist today.
While some Americans have altered their interpretations about the bible’s teachings in regard to virtue, some refuse to do so. Reasons for this divide among Christians are vast, however, there has been some analysis that points to socio-economic status affecting these attitudes. In an article written by Russell Reno, the views of virginity are looked at through the scope of the class divide that exists in the contemporary United States. By acknowledging the different views that exist just in America, Reno points out the ways in which education can affect these views on virtue. As expressed in the text, those who receive higher education tend to fall more on the liberal side of the spectrum, therefore, tend to be more open to the sexual revolution. A lack of education may be to blame for closed-mindedness; however, the lessons being taught at home and through the church are just as responsible for these attitudes.
Both inside and outside of church, adults are taught that premarital sex is a cardinal sin. The idea that value is reliant on virtue is taught at all levels. A common practice in all levels of theology courses is to take a piece of scotch tape, stick it to clothing and pass it to the next person. By the time the tape reaches the other side of the classroom, it is covered in lint and the adhesive has been worn down. This exercise is followed up with remarks along the line of “This tape is your virtue. If you pass yourself around, how are you supposed to stick to your spouse?” Not only does this activity devolve virtue to nothing more than a piece of tape, it teaches students that monogamy is only achievable if their only sexual partner is their spouse.
While there is hope that students involved in this exercise do not take it too seriously, it is a topic that is often shied away from in the household. Parents often leave the conversation to: “Sex is bad. Wait until you are married.” In an article from a Christian publication, the authors tackle this lack of conversation.
“For Christians, conversations about this topic (even and especially the ones in the car on the way to school) should take place, implicitly or explicitly, in light of Christian sacraments and sacramental life. Put another way, the whole topic of premarital sex cannot be conceived or evaluated properly apart from a broader discussion of the nature and purposes of marriage and the nature and purposes of sex.”
According to the author, the conversation about premarital sex cannot be had through one class or resounding birds-and-bees talk, it must be part of a larger conversation. Sex should be discussed on a level in which it is not shamed, but informative. Rather than focusing on the value of one’s virginity, care should be taken to explain the negative effects of sex and how to prevent them from happening. If parents choose to discuss the church’s views of premarital sex, it should not rely on scare-tactics, but on the ideals that are attached to the core belief in virtue.
Though not all Christian upbringings emphasize purity to an extreme degree, the pressure put on young adults to keep their virginity can cause psychological issues further in life and into adulthood. Along with the stress that accompanies avoiding temptation, young adults may develop taboo beliefs about sex due to horror stories told by misinformed people around them. The pressure that arises in abstinence-only education can cause sexual dysfunction as adults and apprehension toward the opposite sex.
While sexual dysfunction is a possible outcome of an extreme view of sexual purity, young adults growing up with this view also face a severe lack in knowledge. In an article written in the Journal of Adolescent Health, psychologists examined the effects of an abstinence-only education on young adults and decided that teaching abstinence as the only method of sexual health was unlawful.
“…although abstinence is often presented as the moral choice for adolescents, we believe that the current federal approach focusing on AOE raises serious ethical and human rights concerns. Access to complete and accurate HIV/AIDS and sexual health information has been recognized as a basic human right and essential to realizing the human right to the highest attainable standard of health.”
By not giving students full, comprehensive lessons about sexual health, educators are contributing to a lack of knowledge in the scope of sexual health that is already plaguing the contemporary era.
Though pre-marital sex is not something that should be encouraged, it should be something that parents and children discuss both on a spiritual and physical level. By providing information about the possible consequences of pre-marital sex, young adults will be able to make informative decisions should the time come. Creating an open environment for discussions about sex, free of judgment and shaming, would be beneficial to both psyche and outlook on sex in general. Though this is progressive, it is something that is being discussed more and more. According to the book American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, starting in the late 1970s, liberal stances on premarital sex have risen.
With the progressive views of this generation, it is only logical to teach adolescents about sex in a way that is enlightening and informative. The views of sex as a major sin belong in the past. Though sex should not be encouraged, it should be an area of education, so that young adults will go into situations with information regarding consequences of partaking in unsafe sex. The value of human worth goes a lot deeper than virginity and it should not be emphasized in way that makes it seem like virtue is all someone can offer a spouse. The non-Christian method of approaching sex in an educational sense is the most up-to-date and appropriate view with contemporary society.
