Youth, Abstinence, and the One-Flesh Union

Paul A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University
Deerfield, Illinois

This article discusses the biblical concept of the one-flesh union, recent research findings on sexuality among Christian youth, and ways to foster abstinence.

Introduction
The One-Flesh Union
Fostering Abstinence

To What Extent Does Guilt Prevent More Sexual Activity?
To What Extent Does Religion Affect You?
Do You Want to Marry a Virgin?
How Much is Your Sexual Behavior Influenced by Parents’ Thinking?
What is the Marital Status of Your Parents?
Do Youth Who Have Masturbated Engage in More Sexual Behaviors Than Youth Who Have Not Masturbated?
Do Christian College Youth Behave Similarly to Secular College Youth?

Reflections
References

Readers of this document are permitted to download any portion provided "all such use is for . . . personal noncommercial benefit." Please cite the document as follows: Twelker, Paul A. (2002). Youth, Abstinence and the One-Flesh Union.  Paper presented at the  American Association of Christian Counselors 2002 Super Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 24-26, 2002.  Internet resource available at URL: <http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/AACC_Paper.htm > (last updated March 07, 2009).  Copyright © 2002 Paul A. Twelker.

Fostering Abstinence

The relationship of six factors on abstinence will be examined.  Six questions were asked relating to guilt, faith, personal expectations, parental expectations, parental marital status, and masturbation:

• To what extent does guilt prevent more sexual activity?
• To what extent does faith affect you?
• Do you want to marry a virgin?
• How much is your sexual behavior influenced by parents’ thinking?
• What is the marital status of your parents?
• To what extent is masturbation related to other sexual behaviors?

The following sexual behaviors were examined:

• Masturbation
• Sexual fantasizing
• Giving and receiving petting
• Giving and receiving oral sex
• Sexual intercourse

As shown in Table 11, masturbation was strongly related to guilt as a preventative to more sexual behavior.  It appears that for youth who said that guilt does not serve to prevent more sexual activity, substantially more than expected said they had masturbated ((34.3%) while substantially less than expected said they had never masturbated (17.2%).  On the other hand, for those youth who said that guilt prevented more sexual activity, more youth than expected said they did not masturbate (55.5%) while less said they masturbated (42.7%) (χ²=11.72, p=.003).  

Table 11. The Relationship of Masturbation to Guilt

As shown in Tables 12 through 17, all of the other sexual behaviors were not related to guilt: sexual fantasy (χ²=.1.26, p=.553), petting (giving) (χ²=.56, p=.756), petting (taking) (χ²=1.85  p=.396) oral sex (giving) (χ²=1.59, p=.452), oral sex (taking) (χ²=1.24 p=.538) and sexual intercourse (χ²=2.23 p=.327).  

Table 12.  The Relationship of Sexual Fantasy to Guilt

Table 13.  The Relationship of Playing with Partner's Genitals to Guilt

Table 14.  The Relationship of Partner Playing with Genitals to Guilt

Table 15.  The Relationship of Giving Oral Sex to Guilt

Table 16.  The Relationship of Taking Oral Sex to Guilt

Table 17.  The Relationship of Sexual Intercourse to Guilt

Guilt appears related to masturbation but to none of the other sexual behaviors. For youth who report that guilt prevents more sexual activity, more abstain from masturbation as compared with those who do not.  In explaining this relationship, one might be tempted to use guilt as an explanatory variable.   

Guilt comes in two basic forms: objective (violation of a law) and subjective (shame, self-punishment, self-rejection).  Subjective guilt is generally triggered by violating a prohibition, but it may also be triggered by simply assuming too much responsibility for behaviors or events, setting impossible standards or unreasonable expectations for oneself, or engaging in irrational thinking.  It may also be triggered by thinking that one is unable to attain standards, external or self-imposed.  Guilt emotions develop because youth have an innate capacity for self-observation and judgment, they incorporate standards and expectations of parents and significant others, they incorporate punishments and corrective attitudes in related matters (which leads to self-rejection or fear of self-rejection or rejection by others), and they become angry over the frustration of personal needs and desires.  It is possible that youth who develop these guilt emotions by using self-observation and judgments, valuing expectations of others, and incorporation of past corrections in related matters, are in a stronger position to abstain from masturbation and other sexual behaviors.  But once the taboo of masturbation is overcome, more sexual behavior becomes easier.  

A second explanation looks at masturbation as the explanatory behavior for affecting levels of guilt.  But why would guilt be fostered in youth that abstain from masturbation, and minimized in youth who engage in masturbation?  In the former case, those youth have not violated any norm or expectation.  The masturbation taboo is very strong in our society.  However, the need for identity achievement and autonomy in youths is not to be overlooked.  Youth who have masturbated may have found a way to stifle the guilt.  That is, they may reframe the self-observations, minimize the expectations of others, perhaps dampen their conscience through rationalization or logical analysis, and perceive themselves as the underdog with respect to the frustration of personal needs and sexual desires.  Once overcoming the masturbation taboo, these newly developed coping skills for neutralizing guilt may be generalized to fantasy and interpersonal sexual behaviors. Since all of the other sexual behaviors appear unrelated to guilt, it is possible that guilt becomes a non-factor in preventing abstinence early on.  

Another scenario is possible.  Once a prohibition or expectation is violated, then guilt in the form of punitive neurotic guilt (guilt emotions) might emerge, for better or for worse.  The youth may become so attached to feelings of guilt, inadequacy and failure that these feelings become incorporated into the self-concept and woven into the personality.  Whereas the form of guilt that the abstainer uses has strong cognitive-behavioral elements, the youth who is given to solo sex and fantasy uses punitive neurotic guilt to a much greater extent.  

As a corrective, we must help youth develop an adequate concept of God, of sin, and of forgiveness.  We need to remind youth that the Gospel message is that Jesus has fulfilled all the Law on our behalf.  We are in union with Him so that we can respond from inner conviction rather than neurotic punitive guilt as we walk in the Spirit.  

As shown in Table 18 and 19, the two intrapersonal sexual behaviors were not related to faith: masturbation (χ²=1.22, p=.543) and sexual fantasy (χ²=1.43, p=.488).  On the other hand, all of the interpersonal behaviors were strongly related to faith.

Table 18.  The Relationship between Masturbation and Religion

Table 19.   The Relationship of Sexual Fantasy to Religion

As shown by Table 20, for those youth who said that religion affected them a large amount or a great deal, more youth than expected did not play with their partner's genitals (90.1%) while less youth than expected petted their partner's genitals (73.9%).  For youth who said that their religion had no effect or only a small effect on them, there were only chance differences.  On the other hand, for youth who said that their religion affected them a moderate amount, more youth than expected petted their partner (17.8%) as compared with those who did not pet their partner (2.5%) (χ²=12.44, p=.002).

Table 20.  The Relationship of Playing with Partner's Genitals to Religion

As shown by Table 21, for those youth who said that religion affected them a large amount or a great deal, more youth than expected did not have partners play with their genitals (87.7%) while less youth than expected received petting from their partner (74.5%).  For youth who said that their religion had no effect or only a small effect on them, there were only chance differences.  On the other hand, for youth who said that their religion affected them a moderate amount, more youth than expected received petting from their partner (17.9%) as compared with those who did not receive petting from their partner (2.5%) (χ²=12.08, p=.002).  

Table 21.  The Relationship of Partner Playing with Genitals to Religion

As shown by Table 22, for those youth who said that religion affected them a large amount or a great deal, more youth than expected did not give oral sex (86.1%) while less youth than expected gave oral sex (71.2%).  For youth who said that their religion had no effect or only a small effect on them, there were only chance differences.  On the other hand, for youth who said that their religion affected them a moderate amount, more youth than expected gave oral sex (19.9%) as compared with those who did not give oral sex to their partner (7.3%) (χ²=12.32, p=.002).

Table 22.  The Relationship of Giving Oral Sex to Religion

As shown by Table 23, for those youth who said that religion affected them a large amount or a great deal, more youth than expected did not take oral sex (87.7%) while less youth than expected took oral sex (70.9%).  For youth who said that their religion had no effect or only a small effect on them, there were only chance differences.  For youth who said that their religion affected them a moderate amount, more youth than expected took oral sex (19.9%) as compared with those who did not take oral sex (5.8%) (χ²=15.29, p<.001).

Table 23.  The Relationship of Taking Oral Sex to Religion

Finally, as shown by Table 24, for those youth who said that religion affected them a large amount or a great deal, more youth than expected did not have sexual intercourse (89.1%) while less youth than expected had sexual intercourse (63.3%).  However, unlike the previous interpersonal sexual behaviors, for youth who said that their religion had no effect or only a small effect on them, more youth than expected had sexual intercourse (12.7%) as compared with youth who did not have intercourse (4.1%).  Similarly, for youth who said that their religion affected them a moderate amount, more youth than expected had intercourse (24.0%) as compared with those who did not have sex (6.7%) (χ²=32.61, p<.001).

Table 24.  The Relationship of Sexual Intercourse to Religion

In a subsequent analysis using all of the categories in the religion survey question, as shown in Table 25, it was found that for each sexual behavior, the youth who reported the highest level of faith showed the greatest degree of abstinence.  The percentages shown are the percent differences between those that abstained and those that engaged in the behavior.  A positive percentage denotes that the abstainers outnumbered the engagers.  Further, the data suggest that for giving and receiving petting, the "large amount" of effect of religion actually produces less abstinence than expected.  One might argue that these youth with this level of faith commitment might be using petting as an acceptable alternative to intercourse.  To verify this hunch, an analysis was completed of the relationship between petting and sexual intercourse.  As shown by Tables 26 and 27, youth who engaged in petting (giving or receiving) were much more likely to have engaged in sexual intercourse while youth who did not engage in petting rarely engaged in intercourse (χ²=57.28, p<.001 [giving petting]; χ²=73.00, p<.001, [receiving petting])  Of course, enough youth engaged in petting while abstaining from intercourse to leave this question unanswerable.   A subset of youth may have use petting as a means of fostering abstinence. 

Table 25.  Differences in Percentage between Youth who Abstain and Youth who Participate in Sexual Behaviors

Table 26.  The Relation of Giving Petting to Engaging in Sexual Intercourse

Table 27.  The Relation of Receiving Petting to Engaging in Sexual Intercourse

In summary, faith appears unrelated to masturbation and sexual fantasizing but appears strongly related to petting, oral sex and sexual intercourse. In the case of these interpersonal sexual behaviors, strong faith was related to higher levels of abstinence whereas weaker levels of faith was related to the increased incidence of sexual behaviors. The differences were statistically and practically significant. It is clear that in order for religion to be a factor in abstinence, it has to be taken seriously. The late Henri Nouwen (1989), in his insightful book, In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership, suggests a key question: Are you in love with Jesus? Sold-out faith demands sold-out love, and youth whose faith does not affect them a great deal may be in essence displacing their love either onto themselves in the pursuit of hedonistic pleasure or onto other persons.

Although these data suggest that strong faith is related to higher levels of abstinence, is it  premature to jump to conclusions about the efficacy of strong religious faith?   Tony Campolo stated that " while religious orientation influences the sexual behavior of young people", that difference is not as large as expected.  

In studies made among those students in church-related colleges who considered themselves "very religious," it has been discovered that 31 percent of the girls and 39 percent of the boys have experienced sexual intercourse by the time of graduation from high school (Campolo, 1985).

A quick check of the present data revealed that 34.6 percent of those youth  that engaged in sexual intercourse stated that their religion meant a "great deal" to them.  Thus, the present survey yields virtually identical results to those cited by Campolo.  The problem is that Campolo does not provide comparison data with youth with less religious fervor.  The present study suggests that strong faith does indeed make a difference.  The question arises: do strongly religious youth engage in sexual intercourse because they are committed to the partner and intend on getting married eventually?  However enticing that argument might be, the data are inconclusive.  When asked the question, "Do you think you will marry the last sexual partner?", more youth with strong religious convictions actually stated that they would not marry the partner as compared with marry the partner (40.9% vs. 25.9%).  Thankfully, this difference failed to reach statistical significance (χ²=5.85, p=.21)!  

Campolo also suggested that "very religious" young people are certainly more likely to enter into petting than those in the general population.  In the present study, of those who stated that their religion meant a great deal to them,  45.0 percent gave petting while 44.5 percent received petting.  This is far less than the percentages for a university population reported by DeLamater and MacCorquodale (1979).  They found that 84 percent of male students at the University of Wisconsin petted while 80 percent of the female students petted. Among non-university individuals, they found that 85.5 percent of males and 83.5 percent of females petted.  However, the total percentage of youth in the present study who had given or received petting was 76.5 percent, which was just under the DeLamater and MacCorquodale figures. It appears that strongly religious youth do pet considerably less than the general population. 

Why does faith appear unrelated to solo sexual behaviors such as fantasy and masturbation? This is especially interesting in light of the strong masturbation taboo that seemingly operates in our society. One might argue that youth use masturbation to relieve their sexual tensions in their pursuit of abstinence. If this is the case, masturbation rates would be independent of the degree religion affects them. But what about sexual fantasy? Perhaps youth consider fantasy harmless, regardless of the way religion affects them. However, the rhetoric one hears from Christian youth concerning the danger of lust being equivalent to adultery would seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps solo sexual behaviors such as masturbation and fantasizing are seen as not causing harm to others. Certainly, the two solo behaviors are related to each other; perhaps 75 percent of those who masturbate also fantasize.

There is a further issue here that begs our attention.  It has to do with the type of faith that is being exhibited by youth who abstain and youth who don't.  Among the models of faith development, perhaps Fowler's is the most widely discussed.  I would suspect that some college students may be stuck at the mythical-literal faith stage, where authority figures perceptions are used to develop their personal belief system.  Others are probably at the synthetic-conventional stage typical of adolescence where role models, including peers, are instrumental in their grappling with life's deepest meanings.  Here, authority is found outside oneself and the individual defines himself or herself within the meaning system of a group, which could be the college community they find themselves in.  The next stage of faith development is the individuative-reflective faith where there is an interruption of reliance on external sources of authority and a moving away from these sources as the individual reexamines their old assumptions and new responsibilities.  I would suggest that the next step in research would be to examine youth's sexual attitudes and behaviors in light of their faith development.     

An important and related question has to do with the stage of faith development that is represented by youths' parents, church and school.  I fear that the context in which a youth develops their belief system is often shallow itself, and does not offer appropriate role models for ethical decision-making and faith development.  Colleges, for example, that stress compliance with community expectations represent the synthetic-conventional stage, so any attempt to move the individual toward a transition to maturity and an individuative-reflective faith is problematic. 

Continued

Revised: March 07, 2009

Contact the Author