Youth, Abstinence, and the One-Flesh Union

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.

What is the Marital Status of Your Parents?

As shown in Tables 42 through 46, the following sexual behaviors were not related to the marital status of parents: masturbation (χ²=.591, p=.442), sexual fantasy (χ²=.107, p=.743), petting (giving) (χ²=.555,p=.456), oral sex (giving) (χ²=.026 p=.871), and oral sex (taking) (χ²=2.36, p=.125).

Table 42. The Relationship between Masturbation and Parent's Marital Status

		Ever masturbated?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	74.1%	77.8%	75.4%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	25.9%	22.2%	24.6%
Total		100.0% (212)	100.0% (126)	100.0% (338)

Table 43. The Relationship of Sexual Fantasy to Parent's Marital Status

		Ever had a sexual fantasy?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	74.5%	76.9%	74.8%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	25.5%	23.1%	25.2%
Total		100.0% (302)	100.0% (39)	100.0% (341)

Table 44. The Relationship of Playing with Partner's Genitals to Parent's Marital Status

		Played with partner's genitals with hands?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	74.0%	78.2%	75.0%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	26.0%	21.8%	25.06%
Total		100.0% (262)	100.0% (78)	100.0% (340)

Table 45. The Relationship of Giving Oral Sex to Parent's Marital Status

		Ever given oral sex?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	74.7%	75.5%	75.1%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	25.3%	24.5%	24.9%
Total		100.0% (190)	100.0% (147)	100.0% (337)

Table 46. The Relationship of Taking Oral Sex to Parent's Marital Status

		Ever taken oral sex?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	72.3%	79.7%	75.2%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	27.7%	20.3%	24.8%
Total		100.0% (206)	100.0% (133)	100.0% (339)

However, as shown in Table 47, receiving petting was related to parents' marital status (χ²=4.52, p=.034). For youth who had married parents, somewhat more youth than expected did not receive petting (84.4%) as compared with those who received petting (72.5%), but these percentages did not differ in a statistically significant way from chance. On the other hand, for youth who had parents who were separated, divorced or widowed, more youth than expected received petting (27.5%) as compared with youth who did not receive petting (15.6%).

Table 47. The Relationship of Partner Playing with Genitals to Parent's Marital Status

		Partner played with your genitals with hands?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	72.5%	84.4%	75.2%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	27.5%	15.6%	24.8%
Total		100.0% (262)	100.0% (77)	100.0% (339)

As shown by Table 48, sexual intercourse was also related to parent's marital status. For youth who were from intact homes, more youth than expected did not have sexual intercourse (83.6%) as compared with youth who had intercourse (64.0%). For youth who came from non-intact homes, more youth than expected had sexual intercourse (36.0%) as compared with youth who did not have intercourse (16.4%) (χ²=17.10, p<.001).

Table 48. The Relationship of Sexual Intercourse to Parent's Marital Status

		Ever had sexual intercourse?		Total
		Yes	No
Parent's marital status	Married	64.0%	83.6%	74.9%
Parent's marital status	Separated Divorced Widowed	36.0%	16.4%	25.1%
Total		100.0% (150)	100.0% (189)	100.0% (339)

Since previous research has shown a gender difference with respect to parental marital status, an additional analysis was conducted, as shown in Table 49. Gender differences are evident: considering youth coming from non-intact homes, when males are compared with females, there is twice the percentage difference between youth who had intercourse and those who did not (χ²=14.13, p<.001). For males from non-intact homes, more youth than expected had intercourse (38.8%) as compared with youth who did not (12.3%). For females from non-intact homes, more youth than expected had intercourse (32.2%) as compared with youth who did not (19.0%). For males from intact homes, more youth than expected did not have intercourse (87.7%) as compared with youth who had intercourse (61.2%). For females from intact homes, more youth than expected did not have intercourse (81.0%) as compared with youth who did (67.7%), but these differences were not significantly different from chance.

Table 49. The Relationship of Sexual Intercourse to Parent's Marital Status and Gender

		Ever had sexual intercourse?		Total
Gender	Parent's marital status	Yes	No
Male	Married	61.2%	87.7%	73.4%
Male	Separated Divorced Widowed	38.8%	12.3%	26.6%
	Total	100.0% (85)	100.0% (73)	100.0% (158)
Female	Married	67.7%	81.0%	76.2%
Female	Separated Divorced Widowed	32.3%	19.0%	23.8%
	Total	100.0% (65)	100.0% (116)	100.0% (181)

The marital status of the youth’s parents is related to abstinence but only with respect to receiving petting and sexual intercourse. The youth who abstain from receiving petting and sexual intercourse have more parents who have stayed married whereas youth who have received petting and have had sexual intercourse have more parents who are separated, divorced or widowed. Again, the differences are practically significant. However, masturbation, fantasizing and the other interpersonal sexual behaviors are independent of the marital status of parents. It is not altogether clear why receiving petting was the only non-intercourse sexual behavior related to parent's marital status. The key cell that contributed to the statistically significant difference involved the youths from non-intact homes and who abstained from receiving petting. The percentage was less than expected.

Currently, there is a hot debate going on between two nationally recognized authorities regarding the effect of divorce on children and teens. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly (2002) have published a book, For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered, that suggests that while destructive in the short-term, divorce can also be positive, creating new opportunities for long-term personal growth. However, they recognize that divorce poses a special risk to adolescents. Judith Wallerstein and others (2000), in The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, suggest that, contrary to the popular belief that kids would bounce back after the initial pain of their parents' split, children of divorce often continue to suffer well into adulthood. Their pain plays out in their relationships, their work lives and their confidence about parenting themselves. In the present study, it seems abundantly clear that divorce, separation, and even widowhood, has a strong negative relationship to abstinence among Christian youth.

Previous studies have shown that not living with both biological parents is a predictor of early sexual intercourse (Capaldi, Crosby, & Stoolmiller [1996]; Smith [1997]; Metzler, et. al. [1994]; Billy, Brewster & Grady [1994]; Fergusson, Horwood & Lynsky [1994]; Miller & Moore [1990]). However, Newcomer & Udry (1987) showed differential effects for boys and girls. Boys were significantly more likely to initiate sex after the parents separated due to the disruption effect and not the state of being in a single-mother household. Girls were also significantly more likely to have intercourse, but it was due to the state of being in a single-mother household. The disruption surrounding marital separation and divorce is a pivotal time when the single parent either loses control of the boy or he becomes more independent. It should be noted that the data collected from the Christian college sample does not follow Newcomer & Udry's finding that girls are just as likely as boys to initiate sex after parental separation. Although intercourse rates increase for girls, the increase for girls is about half that of boys.

There is one additional analysis that is worthy of attention--the relationship between masturbation and other sexual behaviors. Is masturbation associated with increased or decreased levels of fantasy, petting, oral sex or sexual intercourse? Controversy surrounds the practice of masturbation, and many suggest that masturbation begins a slippery slope toward increased sexual behaviors and promiscuity.

Do Youth Who Have Masturbated Engage in More Sexual Behaviors Than Youth Who Have Not Masturbated?

As shown in Tables 50 through 53, four of the sexual behaviors were related to masturbation. Two of the behaviors showed similar trends as the other behaviors but did not reach statistical significance.

Table 50 reveals that for those youth who had masturbated, more youth said they had sexual fantasies than not. For youth who had not masturbated, many more said they had not had sexual fantasies than had. (χ²=18.15, p<.001).

Table 50 The Relation of Masturbation to Sexual Fantasy

		Ever had a sexual fantasy?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	67.1%	62.5%	63.0%
Ever masturbated?	No	32.9%	67.5%	37.0%
Total		100.0% (301)	100.0% (40)	100.0% (341)

As shown in Table 51, for those youth who had masturbated, more said that they had played with a partner’s genitals than said they had not. For youth who had not masturbated, more said they had not petted than petted (χ²=5.18, p=.023).

Table 51. The Relation of Masturbation to Playing with Partner's Genitals

		Played with partner's genitals with hands?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	65.9%	51.9%	62.5%
Ever masturbated?	No	34.1%	47.5%	37.5%
Total		100.0% (258)	100.0% (81)	100.0% (339)

Table 52 reveals that for those youth who had masturbated, more said their partner had played with their genitals than not. For those youth who had not masturbated, more said their partner had not played with their genitals than had (χ²= 4.68, p=.030).

Table 52. The Relation of Masturbation to Partner Playing with Genitals

		Partner played with your genitals with hands?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	65.9%	52.5%	62.7%
Ever masturbated?	No	34.1%	47.5%	37.3%
Total		100.0% (258)	100.0% (80)	100.0% (338)

Table 53 reveals that masturbation was positively related to giving oral sex. For those youth who masturbated, more gave oral sex than did not. For youth who had not masturbated, more did not give oral sex than give it (χ²= 7.28^,p=.007).

Table 53. The Relation of Masturbation to Giving Oral Sex

		Ever given oral sex?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	68.8%	54.4%	62.5%
Ever masturbated?	No	31.2%	45.6%	37.5%
Total		100.0% (189)	100.0% (147)	100.0% (336)

Table 54 reveals that for those youth who had masturbated, more youth said they had taken oral sex than had not taken oral sex. For those youth who had not masturbated, more had not taken oral sex than had taken oral sex. Although these differences were consistent with the other relationships above, they failed to meet statistical significance (χ²=3.11, p=.078).

Table 54. The Relation of Masturbation to Taking Oral Sex

		Ever taken oral sex?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	68.8%	54.4%	62.5%
Ever masturbated?	No	31.2%	45.6%	37.5%
Total		100.0% (203)	100.0% (135)	100.0% (338)

Tables 55 reveals that for youth who had masturbated, more had sexual intercourse than did not. For youth who had not masturbated, more youth did not have intercourse than did. However, these differences, although trending in the same direction as the other relationships reported above, do not reach statistical significance (χ²=2.00, p=.158).

Table 55. The Relation of Masturbation to Sexual Intercourse

		Ever had sexual intercourse?		Total
		Yes	No
Ever masturbated?	Yes	68.8%	54.4%	62.5%
Ever masturbated?	No	31.2%	45.6%	37.5%
Total		100.0% (145)	100.0% (192)	100.0% (337)

It would appear that masturbation is related to increased levels of fantasy. Since the majority of individuals who masturbate use fantasy during masturbation, this comes as no surprise. It also appears that masturbation is related to increased levels of petting. Youth who abstain from masturbation engage in less petting while those who masturbate engage in more petting. With respect to oral sex, the results are mixed. Masturbation appears to be related to increased levels of giving oral sex, but not taking oral sex. There is no reasonable explanation for this difference. Masturbation is also not related to sexual intercourse. Youth who do not masturbate show neither increased nor decreased levels of sexual intercourse, as compared with youth who masturbate. It must be stressed that these data do not suggest that masturbation causes increased levels of other sexual behaviors, as other unmeasured variables undoubtedly influence these behaviors, such as level of sexual drive, amount of conservatism and close-mindedness, unrecognized and unexpressed emotions such as boredom, anger and anxiety, and perhaps, the amount of desire to abstain from sexual intercourse. However, can parents and pastors give a collective sigh of relief from a review of these data? Hardly! Most likely, the same dynamics that push youth toward masturbation also push them toward interpersonal sexual behaviors Masturbation serves as a "red flag" that the youth has a higher risk of engaging in petting and oral sex.

Do Christian College Youth Behave Similarly to Secular College Youth?

Schwartz (1999) reported an interesting study that reported research findings from data collected from several Northeastern college and university human sexuality and health classes in 1995-1996. Of special interest in this study was the sexual practices prior to coital initiation. They surveyed 120 males and 191 females from two public and two private colleges. The Schwartz study specifically excluded virgins since they "were unable to report the entire range of precoital sexual behaviors they might engage in prior to their first coital experience." The Twelker (2002) research questionnaire specifically stated to the respondents that the survey was designed for unmarried teenagers, and that if they were married, they were to answer the questions as if they were engaged, one month before marriage. This was done to prevent inflating and distorting the various premarital sexual behavior rates.

Since Schwartz's study excluded non-virgins, the Twelker data were analyzed in two ways, one excluding non-virgins and one excluding virgins, as was the case with the Schwartz study. This Christian college virgin sub-sample included 86 males and 129 females, while the non-virgin sub-sample included 84 males and 70 females. It should be emphasized that both studies used convenience samples that makes generalization to larger student populations extremely risky. Since two different studies were compared, statistical tests of significance were not conducted.

With respect to masturbation, Table 56 reveals that there were hardly any difference between males in the two studies. However, non-virgin females in the Christian college beat out their secular college counterparts by about 22 percent while the virgin females in the Christian college beat out the secular college females by 9 percent. Males outnumbered females about two-to-one in both studies.

Table 56. Comparison of Masturbation Behaviors Between Two Samples of College Youth

Research Study	Male	Female
Schwartz (1999) (Non-virgins)	85.0%	36.6%
Twelker (2002) (Virgins)	87.2%	45.7%
Twelker (2002) (Non-virgins)	72.8%	58.2%

With respect to giving petting, Table 57 reveals that the secular college students showed more petting behaviors, with no sex differences. Sixty-two percent of the virgin Christian males gave petting as compared with 88 percent of the secular college males. Sixty-two percent of the virgin Christian college females gave petting as compared with 85 percent of the secular college females. However, when the non-virgin Christian sub-sample is examined, the differences disappear, and the Christian sample appears to be more sexually active with respect to giving petting than the secular sample.

Table 57. Comparison of Giving Petting Behaviors Between Two Samples of College Youth

Research Study	Male	Female
Schwartz (1999) (Non-virgins)	87.5%	84.8%
Twelker (2002) (Virgins)	61.1%	62.3%
Twelker (2002) (Non-virgins)	95.2%	97.1%

With respect to receiving petting, Table 58 reveals that there appears to be a gender difference between the two studies. There is a large difference between the Christian college virgin sample and the secular sample for males, but not for females. When the Christian college non-virgin sample is examined, once again we see little difference at all between the two studies except for the females where the sex difference is all but wiped out in the Christian non-virgin sample.

Table 58 Comparison of Receiving Petting Behaviors Between Two Samples of College Youth

Research Study	Male	Female
Schwartz (1999) (Non-virgins)	90.0%	57.1%
Twelker (2002) (Virgins)	61.6%	61.2%
Twelker (2002) (Non-virgins)	100%	97.1%

Table 59 reveals a large difference in giving oral sex between the two samples. Thirty-three percent of the Christian college males gave oral sex as compared with 70 percent of the secular college males. Thirty-nine percent of the Christian college females gave oral sex as compared with 57 percent of the secular college females. But when the Christian college non-virgin sample is compared with the secular college sample, the Christian sample rates highest on giving oral sex, especially the females.

Table 59. Comparison of Giving Oral Sex Behaviors Between Two Samples of College Youth

Research Study	Male	Female
Schwartz (1999) (Non-virgins)	70.0%	56.5%
Twelker (2002) (Virgins)	33.3%	39.2%
Twelker (2002) (Non-virgins)	78.3%	87.1%

As revealed in Table 60, there was a large difference between the two samples. Thirty-eight percent of the Christian college males received oral sex as compared with 68 percent of the secular college males. Forty-two percent of the Christian college females received oral sex as compared with 57 percent of the secular college females. The Christian college non-virgin sample clearly has the highest rates of receiving oral sex, and once again, there is no sex difference.

Table 60. Comparison of Receiving Oral Sex Behaviors Between Two Samples of College Youth

Research Study	Male	Female
Schwartz (1999) (Non-virgins)	68.3%	57.1%
Twelker (2002) (Virgins)	38.4%	41.9%
Twelker (2002) (Non-virgins)	88.1%	87.1%

When the Christian college virgin sample is compared with the Schwartz sample, it appears that with the exception of masturbation behaviors, Christian college youth are behind their secular counterparts in all of the interpersonal sexual behaviors. Yet, when the Christian college non-virgin sample is examined, we find that their use of precoital sexual behaviors is consistently higher than the secular college youth, especially among the females. Schwartz indicates that precoital sexual behaviors are nearly universal among young adults who have not had sexual intercourse. This analysis would support that premise but only as it pertains to masturbation. Petting in the Christian college virgin sample involved about 61 percent of the youth while oral sex involved, on the average, about 38 percent of the youth who had not initiated coitus. Common? Yes. Universal? Not really. Only when the non-virgin Christian college youth sample (and the non-virgin secular college youth) are examined does one find rates of noncoital sexual behavior approaching universality.

One cannot help but wonder what effect the sampling procedures had on these results. The Schwartz research excluded a subset of subjects that would have dropped the rates of sexual behavior. It would be expected that the full range of precoital behaviors would be part of the territory for youth engaging in coital intercourse. One would think that only sampling virgins would provide a different, and possibly more accurate measure of precoital sexual behaviors among youth prior to coital initiation. This comparison points up the difficulties in comparing data from different studies. Unless the research method is clearly understood, any perceived differences may be attributable to sampling procedures instead of or in addition to differences in the behavior of youth.

A concern that was addressed by Schwartz and is shared by this researcher is that some of these precoital sexual behaviors carry the risk of transmitting STDs. Yet, these precoital behaviors are largely ignored in prevention efforts. The message that must accompany the abstinence (from sexual intercourse) program is that every other interpersonal sexual behavior carries its own risk, both of disease and possibly pregnancy. If the goals of an abstinence program were achieved, as measured by reduction in rates of sexual intercourse, it would not be surprising to see the maintenance of high levels of STDs.

Reflections

In summary, expectation of wanting to marry a virgin and influence of parents' thinking, are strongly related to all of the sexual behaviors. Faith is strongly related to all of the interpersonal sexual behaviors. The parents’ marital status is strongly related to receiving petting and sexual intercourse only. Guilt is strongly related to masturbation only. Parents, pastors and youth workers who rely on laying guilt trips on youth are using an ineffective and misguided approach. The emphasis on strengthening faith in Christ and reestablishing the Christian subculture’s norms on sexual behavior seem to be much more effective in fostering abstinence. Unfortunately, of the five factors, the marital status of parents is probably the one factor currently most immune to influence by the church. Rather, pastors and youth workers should look for damage-control interventions with youth instead.

The one factor that was not measured in the present study was sexual ideology³, and this factor was one of the most important in determining youth's sexual expressions, according to DeLamater and MacCorquodale (1979). They argued that ideology forms the basis of self-control. This makes sense because the setting of goals is clearly an important first step in self-control, and the setting of goals cannot be accomplished in a vacuum. Many youth either set no goals or they set impossibly high goals. Besides goal-setting, youth need to be aware if their behavior is failing to meet their standards. This awareness involves self-knowledge or self-awareness which is often resisted by youth (and adults) because they really do not want to know a lot of information about themselves. Often times, the truth hurts. But the more youth can overcome the "head-in-the-sand" trait, the better they can develop self control.

Thus we come full-circle to the importance of youth understanding the one-flesh union concept. The church, in my opinion, is losing the fight in its stand for sexual purity because it does not acknowledge and proclaim the crucial role that sexual intercourse plays in the establishment of the one-flesh union, a type of blood covenant. Since the church does not level with its young people concerning how the one-flesh union is formed, it is left with communicating concepts of questionable impact (for example, premarital sex and technical virginity), and pathetic, unworkable models of self-regulation (for example, "Just say no"). Our culture is ready and able to fill this void with lifestyle models that appear rational and appealing to Christian youth, that allow for instant self-gratification, and that allow for an uneasy truce with a belief system of shallow convenience.

I believe that many young people are starving for information on Biblically-consistent perspectives on sexuality. They know the questions to ask, but they are not receiving the answers. My challenge to the church and its young people is simple--recognize the primacy of the one-flesh union concept in guiding the making of sexual decisions. Realize that continuing the status quo will not only postpone the adoption of a lifestyle that is truly God-honoring, it will prevent adoption of a lifestyle that has the highest probability of bringing true personal satisfaction over the long run. The creation of a counterfeit one-flesh union poses intolerable tradeoffs of immense significance that jeopardize the very foundations of future relationship building. Even more importantly, a counterfeit one-flesh union calls into question the most important union of all--the union of the believer with Christ. How long must we tolerate selling out our youth to simplistic, legalistic answers and high-sounding religious pronouncements that have little or no impact in their search for identity?

Note: Research on the sexual attitudes of this sample is reported in a separate paper (Twelker, 2003).

References

Bailey, Derrick S. (1952). The Mystery of Love and Marriage. New York: Harper.

Bailey, Nathan (1997-2000). Dating vs. Courtship: Part 1. Internet resource available at
URL: http://polynate.net/books/courtship/

Balswick, Judith K & Balswick, Jack O. (1999). Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Billy, John O. G., Brewster, Karin L. & Grady, William R. (1994). Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women. Journal of Marriage and Family 56: 381-404.

Burke, John (no date). The Blood Covenant! Internet resource available at URL: http://www.carlsbadnm.com/johnburk/BldCvnt.htm

Campolo, Tony (1985). Christian Ethics in the Sexual Wilderness. Youthworker, Winter 1985. Internet resource available at URL: http://www.youthspecialties.com/ywj/articles/sexuality/ethics.html

Capaldi, Deborah M., Crosby, Lynn, & Stoolmiller, Mike (1996). Predicting the Timing of First Sexual Intercourse for At-Risk Adolescent Males. Child Development 67: 344-359.

Coles, Robert & Stokes, Geoffrey (1985). Sex and the American Teenager. New York: Harper Colophon Books.

DeLamater, John & MacCorquodale, Patricia (1979). Premarital sexuality: Attitudes, relationships, behavior. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Fergusson, David M., Horwood, John & Lynsky, Michael T. (1994). Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33: 1122-1131.

Forlines, F. Leroy (2001). The Quest for Truth: Answering Life's Inescapable Questions. Nashville: Randall House.

Glenn, Norval & Marquardt, Elizabeth (2001) Hooking Up, Hanging Out and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Mating and Dating Today. New York, New York: Institute for American Values. Internet resource available at URL http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf

Greenberg, B., Brown, J. & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. (1993), Media, sex and the adolescent. Cresskill, N. J.: Hampton Press.

Harris, L. (1986). American teens speak: Sex, myths, TV and birth control. New York: Planned Parenthood.

Hetherington, E. Mavis & Kelly, John (2002). For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered New York: W. W. Norton and Co.

Joy, Donald M. (1986) Rebonding: Preventing and Restoring Damaged Relationships. Waco: Word Books

Kass, Leon R. (1997) Courtship’s End. Chicago Tribune Magazine, February 9, 20 & 21-23.

Kaufman, Dale (2001) Is Masturbation a Sin? Youthworker November/December. Internet resource available at URL http://www.youthspecialties.com/ywj/articles/sexuality/masturbation.html

Kuriansky, Judy (1995) Generation Sex: America’s Hottest Sex Therapist Answers the Honest Questions About Sex. New York: HarperCollins.

Lye, John (1997). Ideology: A Brief Guide. Internet resource available at http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/ideology.html

Lowry, D. & Towles, D. (1989). Soap opera