|
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.
Do You Want to
Marry a Virgin?
All of the
sexual behaviors were strongly related to the
expectation of wanting to marry a
virgin. As shown by Table 28, for those
youth that said that they wanted to marry a
virgin, substantially more than expected
said they did not ever masturbate (75.0%)
while substantially less than expected said
they masturbated (62.3%). On the other
hand, for youth who said it did not matter
to them, substantially less than expected
did not masturbate (23.4%) while
substantially more than expected masturbated
(32.1%). For the few youth who did not
want to marry a virgin, substantially more
than expected said they masturbated (5.7%)
while substantially less than expected said
they did not masturbate (1.6%) (χ2=7.25,
p=.027).
Table 28. The Relationship of Masturbation
to Expectations of Marrying a Virgin
|
|
Ever masturbated?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
62.3% |
75.0% |
67.1%
|
|
No
|
5.7% |
1.6% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
32.1% |
23.4% |
28.8% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(212)
|
100.0%
(128)
|
100.0%
(340)
|
Table
29 reveals that for those youth that
wanted to marry a virgin, substantially more
than expected said they did not ever have a
sexual fantasy (85.4%) as compared with those
who did not ever have a sexual fantasy
(64.6%). On the other hand, for youth
where marrying a virgin did not matter to
them, substantially less than expected did not
ever have a fantasy (12.2%) as compared with
those who had sexual fantasies (31.1%).
For the few youth who did not want to marry a
virgin, there were only chance differenceds(χ2=7.12,
p=.028).
Table
29. The Relationship of Sexual
Fantasy to Expectation of Marrying a
Virgin
|
|
Ever
had a sexual fantasy?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
64.6% |
85.4% |
67.1%
|
|
No
|
4.3% |
2.4% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
31.1% |
12.2% |
28.9% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(302)
|
100.0%
(41)
|
100.0%
(343)
|
Table
30
reveals that for those youth that wanted to
marry a virgin, substantially more than
expected did not pet (88.5%) while
substantially less than expected petted their
partner (59.8%). For those youth who
said it did not matter whether they married a
virgin, substantially more than expected
petted (35.6%) while substantially less than
expected did not pet (9.0%) (χ2=22.46,
p<.001).
Table
30. The Relationship of Playing with
Partner's Genitals to Expectations of
Marrying a Virgin
|
|
Played
with partner's genitals with hands?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
59.8% |
88.5% |
66.4%
|
|
No
|
4.5% |
2.6% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
35.6% |
9.0% |
29.5% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(264)
|
100.0%
(78)
|
100.0%
(342)
|
As shown in
Table 31, for those youth that wanted to marry
a virgin, substantially more than expected did
not receive petting (87.7%) while substantially
less than expected received petting from their
partner (59.6%). For those youth who said
that it did not matter to them if they married a
virgin, substantially more than expected
received petting (35.4%) while substantially
less than expected did not received petting
(11.1%) (χ2=21.75,
p<.001).
Table
31. The Relationship of Partner
Playing with Genitals to Expectations of
Marrying a Virgin
|
|
Partner
played with your genitals with hands?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
59.6% |
87.7% |
66.3%
|
|
No
|
5.0% |
1.2% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
35.4% |
11.1% |
29.6% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(260)
|
100.0%
(81)
|
100.0%
(341)
|
Table
32
reveals that for those youth who wanted to
marry a virgin, substantially more than expected
did not give oral sex (80.5%) while substantially
less than expected gave oral sex (55.0%).
For those youth where marrying a virgin did not
matter, substantially more than expected gave oral
sex (38.7%) while substantially less than expected
did not give oral sex (18.1%) (χ2=25.21,
p<.001).
Table
32. The Relationship of Giving Oral
Sex to Expectations of Marrying a Virgin
|
|
Ever
given oral sex?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
55.0% |
80.5% |
66.2%
|
|
No
|
6.3% |
1.3% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
38.7% |
18.1% |
29.7% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(191)
|
100.0%
(149)
|
100.0%
(340)
|
Table
33
reveals that for those youth who wanted to
marry a virgin, substantially more than expected did
not take oral sex (82.2%) while substantially less
than expected took oral sex (55.8%). For those
youth who did not care whether they married a
virgin, substantially more than expected took oral
sex (38.3%) while substantially less than expected
did not take oral sex (16.3%) (χ2=25.71,
p<.001).
Table
33. The Relationship of Taking Oral
Sex to Expectations of Marrying a Virgin
|
|
Ever
taken oral sex?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
55.8% |
82.2% |
66.3%
|
|
No
|
5.8% |
1.5% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
38.3% |
16.3% |
29.6% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(206)
|
100.0%
(135)
|
100.0%
(341)
|
As shown in
Table 34, for those youth who wanted to marry
a virgin, substantially more than expected
did not have sexual intercourse (87.0%)
while substantially less than expected had
sexual intercourse (40.5%). For
those youth who did not care whether they
married a virgin or not, substantially
more than expected had intercourse (50.7%)
while substantially less than expected
abstained from sex (12.5%) (χ2=82.69,
p<.001).
Table
34. The Relationship of Sexual
Intercourse to Expectation of Marrying a
Virgin
|
|
Ever
had sexual intercourse?
|
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
Want to marry a
virgin?
|
Yes
|
40.5% |
87.0% |
66.8%
|
|
No
|
8.8% |
.5% |
4.1%
|
|
Doesn't
matter |
50.7% |
12.5% |
29.1% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(148)
|
100.0%
(192)
|
100.0%
(340)
|
In summary, the
data are strongly supportive of a pronounced
relationship between the various sexual
behaviors and the expectation of wanting to
marry a virgin. Whenever youth held the
expectation of wanting to marry a virgin,
they were more apt to abstain from the
sexual behavior. On the other hand, youth who
did not care about marrying a virgin were
more apt to not abstain. Some of
these differences are remarkable and
certainly represent practical significance.
To expect
something is to look forward to its probable
occurrence or appearance. An expectation is
more than a wish or a hope. It is
something a person believes will happen,
anticipates experiencing, or even requires
from another. The expectation of
wanting to marry a virgin refers to those
thoughts that a youth holds about the future
with respect to the virginity of one's
lifelong partner. It also refers to those
thoughts that a parent or family member
holds toward the youth. The fascinating
thing about expectations is that they act
like a goal or plan, an organizational
system that helps the individual determine
what is or is not worth putting effort
toward. Expectations influence
experience and helps the individual
construct reality and change behaviors, for
better or for worse. Holding false
expectations, such as "All youth have
sex" can lead to loss of virginity
because what is believed is acted upon.
Parents are not exempt from this sort of
self-fulfilling prophecy. When parents
believe the worse about their children and
respond on the basis of their strong
negative expectations for their children,
communication channels may close down and
contribute to negative behaviors consistent
with the false expectations. When parents
fail to recognize their child's potential
and hence fail to respond in ways that
encourage their child to fulfill their
potential, sustaining expectations are
formed that work against abstinence. Of
course, merely holding certain expectations
for children has no mystical power to affect
their performance or attitudes. Rather, it
is the translation of these expectations
into actions that influences outcomes.
I have been
discussing the expectation of wanting to
marry a virgin as an explanatory
variable. That is, the expectation of
wanting to marry a virgin influences sexual
behavior. However, it is probable that
sexual behavior also influences
expectations. Some youth who have
sexual intercourse may be influenced to set
aside the expectation of wanting to marry a
virgin. One might argue that this dynamic is reasonable for behaviors
such as oral sex and intercourse. But
one has to wonder how far this goes--does it
apply to masturbation, for example? The expectation of wanting to marry
a virgin should be a powerful factor in
abstinence. Rather, the data leave open the
possibility that this
expectation may be neutralized or even
reversed for youth who engage in any sexual
behavior, including masturbation.
Could it be
that once youth engage in any sexual
behavior (from masturbation to intercourse),
they
perceive their sexual purity as
compromised? I talk with a handful of
youth that claim solo sex is
redeeming and helps keep them celibate.
But the majority claim masturbation is a sin
and the vast number have a difficult time
establishing biblical conditions or limits
for the activity. And those that can't
put qualifiers around masturbation but
practice the behavior against their better
judgment are perhaps most prone to
neutralize the expectation of wanting to
marry a virgin because they see themselves
as losing the battle to remain pure. Ideally, youth
should be prepared to make an informed
ethical decision, based on biblical
principles, and perceive their ethical
choice in a way that promotes, not inhibits
abstinence! I have noted a trend in
youth ministries to deal with this subject
in a more straightforward way, rather than
ignoring the subject or prohibiting
masturbation as an unrighteous behavior. For
example, Dale
Kaufman (2001) presents a permissive Christian viewpoint with respect to
masturbation:
We are
looking for a way to "redeem the
experience," giving honor and glory to
God for the gifts given to us. One of those
gifts is sexuality and the pleasure which
God has made possible in our bodies. It
therefore follows that the best way to
masturbate is to focus the mind on God,
giving thanks for the pleasure which the
person is feeling and for the gift of
sexuality that has been given, as well as
gratitude for the ability to gain a needed
sexual release without illicit sexual
contact...It’s imperative that we let them
know that masturbation can and should be
used as a viable, God-honoring way to deal
with the stresses of their newly acquired
sexuality. With a sex-saturated society all
around us, we as parents, youth pastors, and
other caring adults, need to give our young
men and women the ability to live godly
lives in the midst of a perverse culture.
Masturbation, within the Biblical
boundaries, helps give them that ability.
In fairness
to Kaufman, I suggest that his entire
article should be studied to better
appreciate his perspective. It should
be noted that Kaufman's article elicited a
firestorm of responses, which led to the
journal, Youthworker, issuing a
disclaimer that his views did not represent
the journal's or the editor's
position. The many responses from
readers makes for instructive reading (Penner,
2001). If one has doubts that the
masturbation taboo is dying among
Christians, these responses should set the
record straight.
Of course,
parents, pastors and youth workers could dig
in their heels and use these research data to
increase the rhetoric that masturbation is a
sin. I admit that this approach might
work with many youth. Since Christians are not
the only ones who believe deeply in a
masturbation taboo in our society, these youth
have support for their position from other
(non-Christian) segments of society.
However, for many youth, the argument simply
does not have enough weight to make it
convincing.
How Much is
Your Sexual Behavior Influenced by Parents’
Thinking?
All of the
sexual behaviors were strongly related to the
perception of how much parents influence
youths' thinking.
Table
35
reveals that for those youth who said they
were influenced by their parents' thinking,
more youth than expected said that
they did not masturbate as compared with youth
who masturbated. On the other hand, for
youth who were not influenced by their
parents' thinking, more youth than expected
masturbated as compared with youth who did not
masturbate (χ2=6.34,
p=.012).
Table
35. The Relationship of Masturbation
to Influence of Parents' Thinking?
|
|
Ever
masturbated? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
48.1% |
62.2% |
53.4% |
|
No |
51.9% |
37.8% |
46.6% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(212) |
100.0%
(127) |
100.0%
(339) |
Table
36
reveals that for those youth who said they
were influenced by their parents' thinking,
more youth than expected said that
they did not have sexual fantasies as compared
with youth who had sexual fantasies. On
the other hand, for youth who were not
influenced by their parents' thinking, more
youth than expected had sexual fantasies as
compared with youth who did not have sexual
fantasies (χ2=6.97,
p=.008).
Table
36. The Relationship of Sexual
Fantasy to Influence of Parents' Thinking?
|
|
Ever
had a sexual fantasy? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
50.3% |
72.5% |
52.9% |
|
No |
49.7% |
27.5% |
47.1% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(302) |
100.0%
(40) |
100.0%
(342) |
Table
37
reveals that for those youth who said they
were influenced by their parents' thinking,
more youth than expected said that
they did not play with their partner's
genitals as compared with youth who
petted. On the other hand, for youth who
were not influenced by their parents'
thinking, more youth than expected petted as
compared with youth who did not pet (χ2=9.85,
p=.002).
Table
37. The Relationship of Playing with
Partner's Genitals to Influence of
Parents' Thinking?
|
|
Played
with partner's genitals with hands |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
49.0% |
69.2% |
53.7% |
|
No |
51.0% |
30.8% |
46.3% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(263) |
100.0%
(78) |
100.0%
(341) |
As shown in
Table 38, for those youth who said they were
influenced by their parents' thinking, more
youth than expected said that their partner
did not play with their genitals as
compared with youth who were petted. On
the other hand, for youth who were not
influenced by their parents' thinking, more
youth than expected were petted by their
partner as compared with youth who did not pet (χ2=9.09,
p=.003).
Table
38. The Relationship of Partner
Playing with Genitals to Influence of
Parents' Thinking
|
|
Partner
played with your genitals with
hands? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
49.0% |
68.4% |
53.5% |
|
No |
51.0% |
31.6% |
46.5% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(261) |
100.0%
(79) |
100.0%
(340) |
Table
39 reveals that for those youth who
said they were influenced by their parents'
thinking, more youth than expected said that
they did not give oral sex as compared with
youth who gave oral sex. On the other
hand, for youth who were not influenced by
their parents' thinking, more youth than
expected gave oral sex as compared with youth
who did not give oral sex (χ2=12.34,
p<.001).
Table
39. The Relationship of Giving Oral
Sex to Influence of Parents' Thinking
|
|
Ever
given oral sex? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
45.3% |
64.4% |
53.7% |
|
No |
54.7% |
35.6% |
46.3% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(190) |
100.0%
(149) |
100.0%
(339) |
Table
40
reveals that for those youth who said they
were influenced by their parents' thinking,
more youth than expected said that
they did not take oral sex as compared with
youth who took oral sex. On the other
hand, for youth who were not influenced by
their parents' thinking, more youth than
expected took oral sex as compared with youth
who did not take oral sex (χ2=9.32,
p=.002).
Table
40. The Relationship of Taking Oral
Sex to Influence of Parents' Thinking
|
|
Ever
taken oral sex? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
46.8% |
63.7% |
53.5% |
|
No |
53.2% |
36.3% |
46.5% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(205) |
100.0%
(135) |
100.0%
(340) |
As shown in
Table 41, for those youth who said they were
influenced by their parents' thinking, more
youth than expected said that
they did not have sexual intercourse as
compared with youth who had sex. On the
other hand, for youth who were not influenced
by their parents' thinking, more youth than
expected had intercourse as compared with
youth who did not have intercourse (χ2=27.73,
p<.001).
Table
41. The Relationship of Sexual
Intercourse to Influenced of Parents'
Thinking
|
|
Ever
had sexual intercourse? |
Total |
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
Sexual
activity influenced by parents
thinking?
|
Yes |
37.6% |
66.3% |
53.7% |
|
No |
62.4% |
33.7% |
46.3% |
|
Total |
|
100.0%
(149) |
100.0%
(190) |
100.0%
(339) |
In summary, for
each sexual behavior, it appears that
youth who engaged in the behavior were more
influenced by their parents' thinking while
youth who do not engage in the behavior were
less influenced. When
youth say that they do not masturbate,
fantasize, give or receive petting, give or
receive oral sex, and have sexual
intercourse, they tend to be more influenced
by their parents’ thinking, rather than
less influenced by their parents. This
relationship opens a host of questions
concerning the role of parenting in moral
development and ethical decision-making. For
example, what factors make teens more apt to
listen to their parents? How are
communication channels nurtured and kept
open? Does abstinence promote communication
with parents, or does open communication
channels with parents promote abstinence?
What does the influence of parents consist
of? Are these elements negative or positive?
From Diana Baumrind's research, one would
assume that the authoritative parenting
style offers the best chance of keeping
communication channels open. Parents who are
loving and nurturing, promote limits, and
offer consistent discipline would be in a
better positive to positively influence
youth's thinking.
The influence
of parents' thinking is closely related to
the efficacy of expectations. When influence
is high, the level of connectedness to
parents is also high. And when connectedness
is high, abstinence is fostered and sexual
behaviors are delayed. When parents clearly
and consistently convey their disapproval of
adolescent sexual behaviors, these
expectations are most likely to be acted on
when youth feel cared for and connected to
their parents.
Continued
|
