Its exclusiveness and uniqueness is what makes it so special to the two people involved. To spread the intimacy "around" to a variety of sexual partners dilutes and scatters (in little doses to a number of people) the totality of all the love, care, and intimacy one has to give.
This is the choice and the real challenge facing young people today. If given the option of a hamburger at 5:00 or a filet mignon at 7:30, are there good reasons to forego the hamburger and wait for the filet? Why not both? Why not take the hamburger now and the filet later?
This "both" mentality reflects the rationale of those who encourage sexual activity outside of marriage. It is my conviction, however--through personal experience and hundreds of counseling situations--that it is not possible to have both without encountering problems later. Too many hamburgers now tends to ruin one's taste for filet mignon later on. A popular song, "Mambo No. 5" by Lou Bega, dramatically illustrates this:
"A little bit of Monica in my life
A little bit of Erica by my side
A little bit of Rita is all I need
A little bit of Sandy in the sun
A little bit of Mary all night long
A little bit of Jessica here I am
A little bit of you makes me your man. . . I do all
To fall in love with a girl like you
You can't run and you can't hide
You and me gonna touch the sky"
The accumulation of stored-up sexual memories one has experienced with multiple partners creates a composite, mental "phantom" which that person brings along with him/her to every sexual encounter with a spouse. The more vast the experience, the greater the likelihood that the unfortunate partner will not, by comparison, be able to measure up in sexual performance to his/her looming, unseen rival!
Biological Argument
Now let us examine the various arguments posed to justify and rationalize sexual activity before and outside of marriage. We will analyze the data of each argument briefly and explore its general implications so the reader can decide which course of action will provide the best path to the most meaningful and satisfying sexual experience with a life partner.
Perhaps the most common reason used to justify sexual activity of all kinds is the simple fact that the sex drive is a basic, biological one, along with hunger, thirst, and survival. The argument is as old as the Bible where Paul states in I Corinthians 6:13, "Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food." The Corinthians were using the biological argument to justify their immorality, but Paul explained that the analogy to the sex appetite was (and is) fallacious. Humans cannot live without food, air, or water. But we can live without sex.
Nature has several things to say on this point. First, God has built into the natural world a mechanism for sexual release (quite apart from any human initiative): nocturnal emissions--orgasmic release while asleep. Second, that nature rejects human promiscuity is dramatically illustrated by sexually-transmitted diseases (STD). The AIDSA menace world-wide is killing millions today. It is estimated that one third of the population of Sub-Sahara Africa is HIV positive! To make matters worse, new strains of gonorrhea and syphilis are appearing today that stubbornly resist antibiotics which previously provided adequate treatment.{5}
In stark contrast, couples who confine sex to their marriage partners face no such danger from disease. Further, we can safely conclude that abstinence does not impair one's health. Sociologist Robert Bell quips, "There appear to be no records of males hospitalized because girls refused to provide sexual outlets."{6}
While recognizing that human beings, as mammals, share many common genetic characteristics with cats, dogs, chimpanzees, etc., we do not find comparable sexual behavioral patterns in the animal world. A tomcat takes any female who will receive him, but he then wanders off to others while the female raises the young alone. Human sexuality is unique in that it not only includes, but transcends physical reproductive elements. It reaches an intimacy unknown in animals.
Statistical Argument
A second popular argument reasons that "Everyone is doing it." First, we must categorically deny that this is a true statement. Looking back to the Kinsey Report findings between 1948-53, it reported that 58% of the college-bound boys between 16-20 were without sexual experience and 80% of the twenty-one year-old unmarried women were virgins{7}. More recent studies{8} show significant increases of promiscuity among these populations, but no study says everyone is doing it.
Further, it is important to note that statistics do not reflect or establish moral values. Masters and Johnson in their findings have noted, "Is the frequency with which something happens a reliable indication of its value (or rightness)!" {9} Until recently the Papuan Tribe in the South Pacific had a 100% majority consensus that cannibalism was right! Does that make it right? A majority can be wrong or misguided. If a society sets the standards, those standards are subject to change with the whim and will of the majority. Therefore, in one generation (19th Century) slavery may be right and abortion wrong, while the next generation (20th Century) says slavery is "out" and abortion is "in." This serves to prove that making something legal does not necessarily make it moral.
In every school, college, or community, there are significant numbers of young people who are committed to abstain from sexual activity until marriage. Any young man or woman who wants to be one of them will have plenty of company. It is up to each person to decide where he or she will show up in the statistics.
Proof of Love Argument
A third argument suggests that intercourse demonstrates a proof of one's love for another. It supposedly symbolizes how much the other cares. One therefore exerts pressure upon the more reluctant partner to demonstrate a certain level of care for the other. Those reluctant partners who succumb to this pressure do so with the underlying hope that it will somehow cement the relationship and discourage the other from searching elsewhere for a less hesitant friend.
Any person who insists on making sex the ultimate proof of a genuine relationship isn' t saying "I love you," but rather, "I love it"! True love concerns itself with the well-being of the other person and would not interpret hesitation in such a selfish way. Furthermore, the person adopting this practice develops a pattern of demonstrating love by purely sexual responsiveness. Ultimately he or she enters marriage with somewhat of a distortion as to what real intimacy means, to say nothing of having to deal with the memories of previous lovers. Some behaviors are irreversible, and this process is like trying to unscramble an egg. Once it's done, it's done.
The broader perspective sees sex as an integral and important part of a meaningful relationship--but not the totality of it. Remembering this will help any individual to make the right decision to refrain from sexual involvement if a potential partner puts on the pressure to make sex the test of a meaningful relationship. In this regard, Hugh Hefner, the creator of the Playboy empire, said he didn't believe in promiscuity, just "meaningful" relationships! {11}
Instructive at this point are the comments of Cynthia Maddox, a former special girl of Hefner's. When her "meaningful" relationship with Hefner declined, she began to see a psychiatrist. As Hugh Hefner's ex-girlfriend and a Playboy cover girl, she found many men looking on her as a sort of trophy-in short a sex symbol. But she felt much different inside. She said, "Sometimes. . .God, I don't feel like I have any identity of my own. . .I would like someone who really notices me, really can respect me, really can remember things about me-some man who thinks about me when I am away from him." (11) In short, Cynthia perceived the fallacy of sexual responsiveness as "proof" of love: she still hungers for intimacy and self-esteem. She gave sex, but she wants to love and be loved. She wants to give herself sexually in a caring relationship.
When a couple insists on a premature beginning for sexual intercourse, their interpersonal communications tends to slack off. Ironically, in their coming together sexually, the couple may lose the very thing they really wanted. . .intimacy and companionship.
), but who cares? It's us. Do what's right for you, don't worry about what other people think.
