|
The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and
Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and Complementarity
Paul
A. Twelker
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
Trinity College
Trinity International University
Chapter 7: Youth, Sexual Ethics, and the
One-Flesh Union
The Biblical Norm for Interpersonal
Sexual Relations
To Have Sex or Not Have Sex...That is the
Question
What Constitutes Virginity?
Some Guidelines for Sexual Conduct
Serial Recreational or
Casual Sex
Serial Liaisons with Developing Emotional
and Sexual Intimacy
Serial Non-sexual
Relationships Followed by a Single Intimate Bonding
Fostering
Abstinence
Guilt
as a Preventative
The Effect of Religion
Expectations of Wanting to Marry a Virgin
Influence of Parents' Thinking
Parent's Marital Status
Relation of Masturbation to Other Sexual
Behaviors
Reflections
References
Youth, Sexual Ethics, and the One-Flesh Union
Today’s youth receive
conflicting messages about sex from the culture and from the Church. The
culture presents mixed messages ranging from outright hedonistic
expression to cautious exploration to abstinence. For the most part, the
Church preaches a more consistent message in that premarital sexual
intercourse is forbidden, a message that falls on deaf ears for a
significant proportion of the Church’s young people. However, the Church has
offered a confusing message with respect to the difference between the
one-flesh union and marriage. The Church usually focuses on marriage as
the linchpin: sex before marriage is sinful while sex after marriage is
sanctified. Very few youth understand the concept that while marriage is
established by vow following mutual consent, the one-flesh union is established by sexual
intercourse. Because of this confusion, Christian youth often take the
risk of engaging in sexual intercourse before marriage since they reason
that at worst, fornication is a "reversible" sin that can be
forgiven. Little do they realize that in their first act of intercourse,
they pass through a one-way gate that creates a permanent condition or
state called the one-flesh union, a condition that cannot be reversed
whether the couple intended to establish the union or not.
Since the one-flesh union concept is poorly understood by
the Church, youth are confronted with the strange predicament of making
sexual ethical choices using a legalistic rule book rather than using
Biblical principles. One variation is the "Just say no" rule as
it is applied to sexual intercourse before marriage. This mandate falls
short in that it fails to tell youth what they can say Yes to. While
keeping vaginal intercourse off limits, young people test the limits of
the rule by any means imaginable to the point that oral sex (and most
other sexual expressions, including anal sex) become permissible (at least
in their eyes) since virginity, at least technically, is retained. To
makes matters even more interesting, the Church’s prohibition against
sexual intercourse and many other forms of interpersonal sexual expression
(in the general category called "petting") is often coupled with
the prohibition against solitary sex (self-pleasuring or masturbation). In
essence, from many youth’s point of view, the Church becomes practically
irrelevant in their struggles with finding sexual identity and finding
permissible ways of relieving sexual tension.
Christian youth are polarized into several camps when it
comes to the importance of sex in their lives. The "See no sex,
think no sex, do no sex" group finds all forms of sexual thought
and expression sinful before marriage. This group is generally successful
in maintaining sexual purity, but with that purity often comes costs
associated with sexual repression. Finding self-pleasuring abhorrent, they
tend to judge others by their own standards. And when they fail to keep
their own moral standards, they experience a huge amount of guilt which
may stand in the way of repentance and forgiveness. Even more problematic,
when they fail to live up to their high standards with respect to
interpersonal sexual relations, they often move toward relaxing them with
devastating consequences. These youth best function in a closely-knit peer
group of like-minded individuals who attempt to minimize the influence of
cultural norms.
The "Anything goes but sexual intercourse"
group tries to maintain a balancing act between Biblical Christianity and
our culture’s attitudes and values. They manage to keep a loose rein on
their sexual expression so that vaginal intercourse may be reserved until
after marriage (or at least until after engagement) but all other forms of
sexual expression are thought permissible or appropriate. Views on
self-pleasuring are marked by diversity. For some, self-pleasuring is
conflictual, silently endured, or strongly battled. For others, it becomes
a poor but acceptable sexual outlet for a sometimes poorly understood
sexual drive. For still others, it is an acceptable means of sexual
expression, at least until they can engage in "the real thing."
This group usually understands that love is a necessary requirement for
interpersonal sexual expression, and they usually escalate sexual
expression as they develop increasing levels of love and affection.
The "Sex is great in its place" camp seem
to have a handle on the positive aspects of their sexuality while keeping
some limits on their personal sexual expressions. Many see nothing wrong
with self-pleasuring and in fact feel that it has beneficial aspects for
them, including keeping them virginal. Others see self-pleasuring as
sinful or at best questionable. Often, they
grow up in homes where love and affection is openly expressed, and where
they experience open channels of communication. A number of individuals in
this group hold off sexual intercourse until after marriage or later
stages of romance where love and commitment are perceived as permanent.
This group is acquainted with cultural norms and may make some attempt to
limit exposure to its entertainment and media.
The "Sex is God’s gift to humans" camp
see Biblical injunctions for sexual purity as old-fashioned or irrelevant
to their enjoyment of their God-given sexual drive. They are able to
separate feel-good genital release from any requirement for commitment,
loyalty, or bonding. Love is irrelevant unless it becomes a
requirement by the partner for having sex. Sex becomes just another form
of recreation such as skateboarding, basketball, or going to the movies.
To deny this form of recreation is seen as unnatural and unnecessary. In
an interesting variant on this theme, self-pleasuring is seen as a vile
sin while sex with any person (of the opposite sex) at any time and
circumstance is seen as a right and a gift from God. This group buys into
the prevailing culture’s hedonistic mores and norms.
The "Sex was good but now it’s
off-limits until marriage"
camp is made up of individuals who were once sexually active, usually
before conversion, but now find abstinence acceptable if not mandatory.
They are often outspoken critics of the declining morality of our culture,
and tend to be leaders in promoting an examination of sexual ethics among
their peers. Their stance on self-pleasuring varies from outright
rejection to embracing its perceived positive aspects.
In the descriptions presented above, I have attempted to
suggest the important influence that culture has on youth. I recognize
that behavior is always a function of a person in an environment, and for
adolescents, the youth culture, the Christian subculture, and the culture
at large exert a powerful influence on them and their behavior. Culture
imparts meanings to the sexual act, marriage, and interpersonal relations
which often conflict directly with Christian meanings. Adolescents can
deal with the incongruities in four ways. They can:
-
attempt to reconcile the incongruities as best they
can;
-
defer to cultural mores, or at least weigh the
cultural mores heavier;
-
defer to Biblical norms, or at least weigh the
Biblical norms heavier;
-
deny the importance of dealing with the perceived
incongruities by not recognizing them.
In this process, adolescents use cognitive thinking
processes that to adults seem "pre-logical" or even illogical.
For example, adolescents have a hard time taking others perspectives,
seeing their personal faults while at the same time criticizing others,
and predicting consequences of their actions. Adults often complain of a generation gap where their meanings make little
sense to the adolescent. In addition, adolescents rely on and use a
limited and sometimes distorted store of information of both Biblical
principles and human sexuality. Using "pre-logical" thinking
coupled with inadequate information results in serious shortcomings in
thinking and behavior.
The Biblical Norm for
Interpersonal Sexual Relations
The term, "premarital
sex", seems to not carry the weight with young people that it did in previous
generations. Further, some individuals will never be married, so the term
loses its significance for them. Also, the term does not appear in
scripture. The term is problematic for me in that it arbitrarily
emphasizes a point in time -- the marriage ceremony -- as the marker for
what is and is not appropriate. In fact, it is the establishment of the one-flesh
union through sexual intercourse following consent that is the most
important marker. Individuals must order their lives so that they
establish an authentic one-flesh union blessed by God once
in their life (unless widowed) (cf., Twelker, 1998). It is clear from
scripture that the sexual act is binding, joining (in the sense of
cementing) two people together into a union indissoluble except by death.
The words "cleave" or "join" come from the Greek word proskollao,
which has the meaning of "glue upon", "glue to",
"to join one's self to closely", "stick to",
"yoke" or "cement to".
Ideally, this one-flesh union will be established after
a marriage ceremony where witnesses come to celebrate with the couple, to
pledge their continual support and encouragement of the couple in
maintaining their fidelity, and to draw attention to the sanctity of the
marriage covenant. Because the requirements of the union demand that two
individuals of different genders love each other, and act freely,
deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge of the community as they
leave their parents and cleave to each other in permanent unconditional
commitment and loyalty (cf., (Bailey, 1952; Piper, 1960), the one-flesh
union should be established when the couple are financially and
emotionally ready to develop an autonomous family unit. In early cultures,
that meant being willing to allow nature to take its course in the
procreation of offspring that is one symbol of the union. In today’s
society, a couple often begins immediately to use contraception and
postpone the raising of children so educational or career goals may be
achieved. Regardless, the natural consequence of the one-flesh union will
be a life that is satisfying, with children that are desired and who are
given the best opportunity possible to grow up and perpetuate the morality
and responsibility their parents revealed. This is the basis upon which
society thrives. Unfortunately, we have the situation where children do
not know or are estranged from a parent, and where family conflict has a
high probability of producing yet another generation that will contribute
to the continuing disintegration of society.
As the Church deals with its youth, the clear message must
be simply this: the process of sexual intercourse is considered so
important by God that to engage in it produces an inevitable string of
consequences in each individual that permanently and mysteriously changes
their souls, their psyches and their priorities. Donald Joy (1986) states
the case this way:
Sexual intimacy has been designed by God to be the
ultimate disclosure of ourselves to the other, naked and unashamed. It
is the act God accepts as a sign that the couple are totally committed
to each other and transfer complete ownership of everything one is and
hopes to be into the hands of the other. Since our sexual identity is
at the core of our being…we can only fuse it with one other
exclusive being to form one whole human: the one-flesh union which we
protect in every society with public marriage.
That change is called the one-flesh union, and it is
crucial to realize that it comes in two forms. The authentic union
is blessed by God and may coexistent with the believer’s union with
Christ. As I previously stated, but deliberately reiterate here, the
authentic union is established by sexual intercourse following consent
when a couple (two persons of different genders) who love each other and
act freely, deliberately, responsibly, and with the knowledge of the
community, leave their parents and cleave to each other in permanent,
unconditional commitment, loyalty and fidelity. The counterfeit or alien union is not blessed by God and carries with it
none of the beautiful gifts given with the blessing of God, including the
energy and power and grace afforded by Almighty God to hold the bond
together. It is inconsistent with the union with Christ and in fact
jeopardizes any perceived union with Christ (Rom. 7: 4; I Cor. 6: 9-20; II
Cor. 11 1-2). Further, the alien union (in the absence of repentance and
forgiveness) jeopardizes a subsequent one-flesh union that may be thought
to be authentic by the partners. The alien union is established whenever a
couple have sexual intercourse but are unable or unwilling to leave
parents and cleave to each other in permanent commitment, fidelity and
loyalty. It is established when sexual intercourse is engaged in as a
recreational pursuit or as a way to fulfill individual needs or desires
without the intent of bonding permanently. These needs or desires include
using sex as a substitute for emotional needs, refusing to refrain from
sex because of insufficient ego strength, using sex to control or coerce a
partner, or using sex to provide sexual pleasure alone (Balswick and
Balswick, 1999). It is also established when mercenary acts of fornication
or adultery are involved and when persons of the same gender are sexually
bonded, with or without emotional bonding. In summary, the
establishment of counterfeit unions does irreparable harm to a person’s
ability to form deep, lifelong committed relationships.
To Have Sex or Not Have
Sex...That is the Question
Were the situation so simple. What constitutes sexual
intercourse? I spoke of sexual intercourse as a process on purpose. I use
it to emphasize the fact that it is more than penetration and orgasm.
Sexual intercourse is connection with another person that involves and
integrates several aspects of personhood: psychological aspects
(interest, desire, emotional arousal, and emotions), cognitive aspects
(assessment of partner’s interest and readiness, assessment of
appropriateness of intimacy, recognition of consequences, and knowledge
about sexual matters), interpersonal aspects (communication of
equality, differentiation, complementarity and unity), sensual aspects
(non-sexual contact including massage) and sexual aspects (genital
contact and pleasuring, arousal, and orgasm). Sexual
intercourse represents a process that has a beginning and an end. Usually,
the beginning is desire while the end may involve contemplation or
afterglow or further sensuality and even further sexual expression. Legal
courts cannot take such an integrative view. They view sexual intercourse
as penetration of a penis in a vagina where the presence of semen may be
taken as evidence that intercourse has occurred. Legal definitions have
little place in Christian ethics since a sexual product or achievement is
substituted for an integrative process. Where does this leave individuals
who are struggling with sexual choices?
Most individuals and young people in particular are prone
to think compartmentally and simplistically when it comes to sexual
ethics. They ask questions such as, "How far is too far?" In
essence, they search for a litmus test for virginity, and that test
usually involves avoiding vaginal penetration by the penis as the
technical definition of virginity. All other forms of psychological,
cognitive, interpersonal, sensual and sexual expressions, including orgasm
and ejaculation (as long as it is outside of the vagina) are often
considered permissible if not outright appropriate! This thinking borders
on absurdity in the sense that all of the meanings and sexual expressions
except one (vaginal penetration) separate those that are thought to be
virgins from those thought to be non-virgins.
The promiscuous youth
counterfeits the one-flesh union by engaging predominantly in a sexual set
of behaviors called intercourse while generally ignoring to one extent or
another the spiritual, psychological, cognitive, interpersonal, emotional,
and sensual aspects of personhood and sexuality. The legalistic, sexually
expressive Christian youth (especially in the later stages of
relationship) supposedly avoids counterfeiting the one-flesh union by
engaging in all but the one sexual behavior thought to be the crux of
virginity, namely vaginal intercourse. Unlike the promiscuous youth, these
individuals usually build relationship in the spiritual, psychological,
cognitive, interpersonal and emotional aspects of personhood and
sexuality.
In the first case of the promiscuous youth, it is clear
that a counterfeit union has been established (I Cor. 6:16).
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a
prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two shall
become one flesh.’
As mentioned above, this cannot be an authentic union
because the requirements of such a union are largely missing. It is an
counterfeit bond and cannot be blessed by God. In American culture, a prostitute
provides sex in exchange for money. However, in the Greek, the word
translated as "prostitute" does not refer exclusively to an
individual who takes money for sex. It may refer to any woman including
those who are inclined to act promiscuously.
In the second case, does the legalistic youth actually
avoid the establishment of the one-flesh union by avoiding vaginal
intercourse? Let us explore this question..
What Constitutes
Virginity?
As discussed elsewhere (Twelker, 1998), a
major Biblical theme is the covenant relationship between God and His
people. Covenant relationships date as far back as Adam and Eve, and
involved the shedding of blood as a symbol of the establishment of the
covenant (Exodus 24:3-8). The ultimate covenant relationship is
exemplified by the union between Christ and His Church made possible by
the shed blood on the cross (I Peter 1:19). In the fifth chapter of
Ephesians, we see that the one-flesh union bond between man and wife is
symbolic of the covenant relationship between Christ and His Church.
’For this reason a man will leave his
father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about
Christ and the church.
Murphy (2000) provides the rationale:
Even though intercourse is what
initializes the act of becoming one, it is God that does the joining
through this act. Intercourse is simply the catalyst, since the
joining is an act of God and not an act of man, though man chooses
whom he joins himself with and is therefore held responsible for the
covenant he forms through this act. This act of God in making the
couple one in conjunction with man's physical act is part of the
"mystery" of the one flesh relationship referred to in
Ephesians 5:32. We cannot explain exactly what takes place in the
spiritual realm as a result of the sexual act. It remains a mystery,
just as our oneness with Christ as a result of His death and
resurrection remains a mystery.
In Hebrew, the root of the word for
covenant, berith, literally means "a cut where blood
flows". The purpose was to create the ultimate binding
agreement, where two parties dedicate themselves to granting to each other
at all times loyalty, fidelity, protection, promotion and prosperity--with
no escape clause. To break the covenant would mean death. One ritual
involved the cutting of an arm and the mingling of the blood of each
individual. Often, the blood would be caught in a cup of wine which would
then be stirred and each individual would drink from the common cup.
Usually, a loaf of bread would be broken and each individual would eat a
piece. The remainder of the wine and the bread would then be shared with
witnesses. The parties to the blood covenant would perceive themselves as
being one identity with the other. Often, they would take a common last
name or take each other’s last names, using a hyphen between them. Each
individual would treat the wound in such a way that a scar would remain,
thus giving public evidence that a blood covenant was entered into. Since
the covenant was binding, there was a period of planning that preceded the
making of the covenant, usually one year.
A second blood covenant ritual involved
cutting or dividing animals in two The carcasses would then be used to
create a pathway of blood that the individuals would walk through in their
bare feet twice (cf., Jer. 34; Gen. 15). The first walk symbolized
death--the individual had died, his former identity had ended, and all his
possessions previously agreed upon now belonged to the other. The second
walk symbolized a new birth and a new agreed upon identity. The
seriousness of the blood covenant cannot be emphasized enough!
In Deuteronomy 22, we see the significance
of the shedding of blood during the couple’s first occasion of sexual
intercourse. If blood was not shed by the breaking of the hymen, as
evidenced by an examination of the "tokens of virginity," the
penalty was death by stoning since it was assumed that she was not a
virgin and could not participate in the sealing of the covenant. Blood was part of the establishment of the covenant between a man
and a woman, and this is symbolic of the blood of Christ that establishes
the new covenant with us (McGrath, 2000).
Murphy states the case this way:
Sexual intercourse is a covenant
activity. [In] the covenant ceremony...the two parties entering into
covenant cut themselves and mingled their blood. When a woman loses
her virginity she bleeds. This blood goes onto the man's penis. The
man is in her blood, with her flesh on either side of him, just as the
parties entering into covenant.
Each time that couple
comes together again in sex, they are reenacting their covenant. It
should stand as a constant reminder to them of the terms of that
covenant, just as partaking of communion stands as a reminder of our
covenant with Jesus (Murphy, 2000).
In Old Testament times, one could surmise
that the criteria for establishing virginity involved blood. Normally,
intercourse had to produce blood or the covenant could not be established.
If this criteria were used today, one could argue that the one-flesh union
would be established by the first act of vaginal sexual intercourse where
blood is produced by the breaking of the hymen during penetration.
Although other criteria such as ejaculation, orgasm, emotions, spiritual
or intellectual understandings, and feelings of bonding would be
irrelevant as evidence of the losing of one’s virginity, these elements
would normally be present since the one-flesh union (and intercourse
between bonded partners) involves each partner’s total personhood.
Unfortunately, this criteria
is not foolproof. Scholars point out that blood is but a symbol of the
covenant. If the woman was a widow, there would be no blood, but that
would not invalidate the covenant. In contemporary times, often the hymen
is stretched by tampons, and any show of blood may be minuscule or
nonexistent. The point is that sexual intercourse serves as the catalyst
for the uniting of the man and wife by an act of God. This is part of the
mystery of the one-flesh union referred to in Ephesians 5.
In summary, using the logic of
the blood covenant, the loss of a couple’s virginity appears to occur at
the first act of sexual intercourse, where the evidence involves the
breaking of the hymen. If the hymen is already broken through other
non-sexual means, the loss of the couple’s virginity still is a
consequence of sexual intercourse even though no blood is produced. When
this happens, a one-flesh union (counterfeit or authentic, depending on
the circumstances) is produced. In other words, the one-flesh union is a
type of blood covenant, where each individual dedicate themselves to
granting to each other at all times and for the duration of their lives,
loyalty, fidelity, protection, promotion and prosperity. The result of
breaking the covenant would involve death, because of the seriousness of
this bond.
For the sake of argument, let
us suppose that a young couple is in their first serious relationship.
Although they attempt to remain
virginal, they engage in every conceivable sexual act except vaginal
intercourse. The hymen remains intact and no blood is produced. However,
there is intense emotional bonding and feelings of closeness and love.
They wait for the day that they can be married at which point they can
take that one last step in their lovemaking, which has already taken them
into levels of intimacy that test the limits of carnal knowledge. For the
legalist, the answer would be that they remain virginal. This reminds me
of the predicament that Pharisees found themselves in. Jesus reminded us
that a person who lusts after a woman to participate in sexual intercourse
has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5: 28). Of
course, in this instance the man has no intention of bonding with her
permanently. Note that the adultery is mental ("in his heart"),
not physical. Therefore, the man (and of course his partner) are protected
from some of the physical and emotional consequences of the act. But Jesus
still considers it sinful. If the sin of adultery could be accomplished by
lusting with an intent to carry out the act, then could a one-flesh union
(authentic or counterfeit) also be established by an act of the mind and
will?
Lust is a strong craving, one that includes intention and
the planning of actions to realize the craving (Pilkington, 1983). This
strong craving can be morally neutral, morally good, or morally evil.
Simple fantasizing or thinking about sexual intercourse would not qualify
as strong craving (cf., James 1: 13-15) unless it were combined with
strong intentions and plans to carry out the act. If the strong craving
involves an evil desire or an evil object of the desire or an evil means
to obtain the desired object, then it becomes a morally evil craving.
David lusted for a woman, Bathsheba, who was married and off-limits to
him. If the strong craving involves a Godly desire or a righteous object
or a Godly means to obtain the object, then it becomes a morally good
craving. Jesus lusted after fellowship with his disciples, a morally good
craving.
In the Matthew passage, it is clear that the man has a
strong craving for sexual intercourse with a woman, which if carried out
would result in adultery. Hence, it is a morally evil strong craving. The
consequence of this morally evil strong craving, if carried out, would
result in establishing a counterfeit one-flesh union. The point is this:
Jesus considers this strong craving mental adultery, and mental adultery
is sinful even though it did not involve the physical act. If the strong
craving produces action, it then establishes a one-flesh union which would
be counterfeit because the strong craving is evil in that the object of
the desire is off-limits.
Could it be that Jesus is telling us that
virginity is as much a state of mind and volition as it is a condition of
the genitals? I believe that Jesus forces us to look beyond petty criteria
and legalisms. Sin involves more than behaviorally violating a list of
rules or criteria. It involves "missing the mark" and that can
include our distorted motives, questionable self concepts or identities,
our off-base desires, our perverted fantasy life, and our strong cravings
where the object of the desire, or the means to achieve the desire, or the
desire itself constitutes missing the target.
Virginity, in the "old days",
used to be considered normal, in the sense of being common, and a symbol
of wholesome virtue. That virtue related to the very essence of a woman’s
identity--she was a bearer of life. The hymen covered her most private,
intimate part of her body. Virginity is not just concerned with sexual
purity--that’s what our modern permissive culture would like its youth
to believe. Rather, virginity has more to do with the woman’s reserving
her whole self and life for her one beloved, and that decision involves
the heart, the will and the mind. Virginity is indeed a matter of motive,
of will and volition, of a sense of purpose and responsibility, and of
priorities. A brief moment of pleasure would never be traded for the
promise of preserving and then presenting the gift of her wholesome
goodness to her beloved.
In the same way, a young man kept himself
pure for his beloved. By this act of volition and purpose, he revealed
that he was no longer a child, ruled by impulses and egocentric motives,
but an adult, ruled by reason and responsibility. In essence, he revealed
that he was capable of self-regulation where his priorities were clear and
his ability to delay gratification was strong. He was ready to assume the
responsibilities for co-establishing a new family in the community.
For both the man and the woman, the desire
to be bound together in covenant is built into human nature. It is part of
our being made in God’s image--God too is a covenant planner and
covenant maker. This inborn desire for being in covenant is the largely
unrecognized part of what we call the sexual drive. When individuals
purposely make light of the decision to lose their virginity, they are
essentially jeopardizing not only their ability to form deep
relationships, they distort their ability to plan, make and keep a
covenant. Covenant-keeping involves loyalty, fidelity, protection,
promotion and prosperity directed toward the other--with no escape clause.
Little wonder individuals who have multiple marriages find it difficult to
keep commitments!
What constitutes virginity? If you think
like a Pharisee, virginity is keeping sexual organs apart. If we take
Jesus seriously, we have to admit that one’s uncontrolled strong
cravings and intentions that lead to the actual sexual behavior are of
paramount importance. It is a well known principle that thoughts lead to
action. I believe that God looks at the heart and the motives of a
couple in addition to their behaviors. Youth must be nurtured to
thoroughly examine their heart, their motives, their priorities, their
thinking patterns, and their strong cravings as it applies to these
matters of sexual ethics.
Some Guidelines for
Sexual Conduct
I want to examine several scenarios which are typical of
situations youth in our society find themselves:
-
Serial recreational sex among uncommitted couples;
-
Serial liaisons with developing emotional and sexual
intimacy;
-
Serial non-sexual friendships followed by a single
intimate relationship leading toward lifelong bonding.
Serial Recreational
or Casual Sex
This lifestyle is popular among youth,
including those in the Christian community. The early onset of puberty
coupled with societal pressures for continuing education and establishing
a career, increasing approval of a single lifestyle and postponed
marriage, and the constant bombardment of sex-saturated media, push youth
into the recreational sex option. From a Biblical perspective, each act of
sexual intercourse produces a counterfeit one-flesh union (cf., I Cor.
6:16). The Biblical injunction is clear: run away from this type of
lifestyle since no other sin so clearly affects the body as this one. In
this context, the term "body" is best thought of as one’s
whole personhood. The crux of the matter is that the believer has
established, in theory, a union with Christ and the establishment of an
counterfeit one-flesh union with a partner cannot coexist with that
union..
Don’t you realize that your bodies are actually
parts of Christ? Should a man take his body which belongs to Christ,
and join it to a prostitute? Never! (I Cor. 6: 15)
For the Christian, Paul has these sobering words:
Don’t you know that those who do wrong will have no
share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. (I Cor. 6: 9)
The consequence of continuing in this lifestyle is not
sharing in the Kingdom of God, but there is a way out of this dilemma.
There was a time when some of you were just like that,
but now your sins have been washed away, and you have been set apart
for God. You have been made right with God because of what the Lord
Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God have done for you. (I Cor. 6:
9-11)
The good news of the Gospel is that believers can adopt
new ways of thinking about their bodies and their lifestyles.
Or don’t you know that your body is the temple of
the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do
not belong to yourself, for God bought you with a high price. So you
must honor God with your body. (I Cor. 6: 19-20
So how then does the believer who has a history of
multiple sexual liaisons honor God with their body?
Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly
affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin
against your own body. (I Cor. 6: 18)
The problem is that sin has physical and mental
consequences regardless of the righteousness imputed to the believer on
the basis of Christ’s work on the Cross. What are these consequences?
For starters, recreational sex may cause the other partner to engage in
behaviors they feel are wrong (I Cor. 8). One or both partners may have
motives that are tantamount to using the other person for personal
gratification. They may engage in intercourse as a means of using power to
control the other partner. Many young people sin when they engage in
intimate sexual expressions for reasons that are largely non-sexual.
Dishonesty, deceit, use of others, coercive manipulation, control, and
unfaithfulness are just a few problems involved in inappropriate sexual
expression. Further, they may be endangering the other partner by exposing
them to sexually transmitted diseases, a very unloving (and hence sinful)
act. Many teens (and preteens) regret having recreational sex and
eventually find it hard to forgive themselves. Some suffer guilt and
shame, which is carried into adulthood in the form of self-punishment for
their past mistakes. Many are not able to allow themselves to enjoy sex.
Some will experience difficulty in establishing intimate and committed relationships
because they compartmentalize sex and love (Kuriansky, 1995). Many
of these physical and mental consequences are difficult to rectify since
the one-flesh union is a bond that affects all aspects of personhood.
Memories of these sexual liaisons are difficult or impossible to
eradicate, and they may haunt the individuals for the rest of their lives.
Some writers suggest that another
consequence is that the person who has sexual intercourse, thus creating
the one-flesh union, may never have sex with any other person for life,
unless all previous partners die. This even pertains to Christians who
divorce from one marriage (but cannot separate from the one-flesh union)
and want to remarry (begin a second one-flesh union.) Bill Tess (no date)
states that:
When a person has sexual intercourse with someone of
the opposite sex, they may never again have sexual intercourse with
another person, as long as the first person with whom they originally
had sex is alive. Any sexual activity between two people, is
adulterous if either has any former sex partners who are still alive.
Sexual activity in a marriage, remains adulterous and the participants
are justly called adulterers, as long as any other former sex partners
still live. All of a man's past, and present, female sex partners are
his wives. All of a woman's past, and present, male sex partners are
her husbands. Although former sex partners may not be culturally
recognized as husbands and wives, they are husbands and wives in the
eyes of God. As long as any of these husbands or wives are still
alive, sexual relationships with any-other person of the opposite sex
creates a new-adulterous marriage, which is forbidden by God in Exodus
20:14.
This thinking is based on Jesus’ words:
Since they are no longer two but one, let no one
separate them, for God has joined them together. (Matt. 19: 6)
Tess’ views are based on the commonly
held premise that sexual intercourse establishes a one-flesh union as
well as a marriage. However, I see the one-flesh union as established
by sexual intercourse while marriage as established by vow following
mutual consent. Also, Tess
does not differentiate between a counterfeit and an authentic union. I
believe that Jesus’ words about God joining the couple applies only to
an authentic bond. In instances of
recreational sex (and in other instances as we shall eventually see), God
does not join a couple in an unholy bond and cannot have anything to do
with that bond, for His character is holy and He cannot associate with
sin. I previously stated that at the first act of intercourse, a couple
forms a permanent covenant condition which the Bible calls the one-flesh
union. In the case of recreational sex, this union is not blessed and
energized by God, and is in fact a counterfeit union. It is counterfeit in
the same sense as a dollar bill can be counterfeit. It resembles the real
thing but fails to meet a number of standards. In other words, it lacks
the necessary qualities to be authentic. Further, the counterfeit is
rejected by authorities (and to carry the analogy even further), it will
get a person into trouble if used. The permanence of this counterfeit
union cannot result from God's blessing since it is withheld, so the
permanence results from the sexual and emotional bonding that affects the
couple in all aspects of their personhood, and is carried through to other
subsequent relationships. Although this union cannot be dissolved, it can
be forgiven upon the believer’s meaningful confession and genuine
repentance. The authentic union, on the other hand, is a permanent union
that is dissolvable only at death. It must be stressed that although
forgiveness takes care of the sin involved, and makes the person right
before God, it lacks the efficacy to dissolve or erase the consequences of
the union. Although prayer, time, and therapy can help reduce the
consequences, (e.g., pain, guilt and sexual dysfunction), the union
remains with the person and has the potential of disrupting a subsequent
union (authentic or counterfeit)
The only thing that releases the individual
from the union is death of the partner. Until one recognizes that the
counterfeit bond cannot possibly be blessed by God, and is in fact a very
different bond than the authentic bond, there will be confusion on the
interpretation of Biblical principles on marriage and the one-flesh union.
Consider the way scripture
depicts God’s relationship with Israel in chapter 16 of Ezekiel. This
relationship is described in marriage terms, where Israel prostitutes
herself and make sacrifices to idols she has created. In the Israel
marriage metaphor, God is pictured as the generous and faithful lover who
reestablishes the covenant after forgiving all she has done. In God’s
merciful judgment, restoration is possible (Isaiah 54: 7-8; Ezek. 16:
60-63).
Those in ministry to youth living this
recreational sex lifestyle may consider helping these youth understand these
points:
- Realize that this lifestyle distorts the
image of what God means the relationship of man and woman in one-flesh
union to be. In essence, the couple enters into a blood covenant relationship
where no loyalty, fidelity, protection, provision or prosperity is
intended. Within the meaning of the blood covenant, this constitutes a
death sentence! The remedy is to confess missing the mark (cf., I John 1:9) and God will cleanse from all unrighteousness. Confession involves understanding Biblical principles about the one-flesh union and agreeing with God about this lifestyle,
and about the sinfulness of one's attitudes and behavior.
- These youth should repent and turn their back on their lifestyle. They should adopt a permanent, alternative lifestyle that honors God. Forgiveness is an act of God that depends on both confession and repentance. Unless one repents, asking God for forgiveness is futile (cf., I John 1:9; Ezek. 33: 14-16; Luke 19: 8-9; 2 Peter 3:9; Heb. 10: 26-27). Then
these youth can accept God's forgiveness and above all, forgive themselves.
- Realize that even though one may have had multiple sexual partners, that lifestyle is no longer counted against them. Although not technically a virgin, they have an opportunity to "get it right." This means establishing a single, authentic one-flesh union blessed by God once in their life (unless widowed). To protect that union, they will become married once for life where they will work in God's power to love their spouse in mutual submission for the remainder of their life (cf., Eph. 5:21). Divorcing and attempting to desert the union is not within the realm of possibility since God considers the one-flesh union as a lifelong bond. To revert back
to one's old lifestyle will bring into question their union in Christ for faith without works is dead (James 2: 14-26).
- These youth should subject themselves completely to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and realize that their life journey will require sacrifice and setting of priorities that reflect Godliness. They will find themselves at odds with their culture and at times with their friends as they seek to walk with Jesus. They may miss some aspects of their old lifestyle. They should realize that Jesus knows their situation and will help them stay within the boundaries of God's plan for them by leading them to others who can encourage them and help them (I
Cor. 10: 13).
- Realize that their previous lifestyle emphasized sexual pleasure over emotional intimacy, and independence over concern for others. Encourage them to move toward understanding what true intimacy is, and where sex fits into the picture. As they relate to individuals of the opposite sex, they should work on interpersonal relations, communication, mutual intellectual pursuits, mutual spiritual development, and self-understanding. This assumes that these youth bond with fellow believers. A person cannot become intimate with those who do not share their faith (cf., Pearsall, 1995).
- Realize that intimacy in a marriage relationship finds its expression in behaviors that characterize three things: faithfulness, loyalty and compassion. A person in a covenant relationship will commit themselves to the best interest of their partner. This is true before marriage as well as after marriage.
Serial Liaisons with
Developing Emotional and Sexual Intimacy
A number of youth
mimic the permissiveness of the promiscuous youth but with an important
difference. They limit sexual expression to the later stages of romance
where degrees of affection and bonding are present. This is a very common
sexual norm in our culture today. These youth believe that when a couple
are in love, sexual expression is a normal and appropriate outgrowth of
affection. This lifestyle is usually characterized by multiple occasions
of "falling in love" that end with "falling out of
love" or a precipitous "dumping" by the partner, often with
highly emotional reunions and subsequent termination. Often, these serial
liaisons are characterized by significant feelings of loss with associated
grieving, worry, disappointment, jealousy, and depression.
Our society generally promotes this lifestyle and sees it
as a normal part of growing up. The Church often accepts this lifestyle,
sometimes reluctantly, while attempting to limit sexual expression to
non-intercourse behaviors. The Church’s prohibition seems to be largely
limited in its efficacy among a significant number of youth. Many parents
breath a silent sign of relief when their emotionally bonded, sexually
active children finally marry as if the marriage somehow legitimizes their
sexual behavior. Many youth seem able to maintain this lifestyle while
seriously attempting to live out some of the basic Christian disciplines.
Other youth find the tension between faith and culture too difficult to
handle, and they drop out of their faith communities. Sometimes, these
young people turn to substance abuse to relieve the pain and
disappointment in losing emotional intimacy.
It is easy to see why this lifestyle abounds. Marriage is
seen as standing in the way of education and career enhancement. As
compared with Hebrew youth in Christ’s time who married in their
mid-teens, youth today are holding off marriage until their mid- and late
twenties. Peer pressure and expectations also act to push youth into
pairing off as early as possible. There is a common conception that once
an individual leaves college, their chances of finding a mate diminish
significantly. Paul & White (1990) list eight functions of dating:
-
It offers an opportunity to recreate;
-
It is a source of status and achievement;
-
It help the adolescent to learn sociable behavior;
-
It helps the adolescent learn about intimacy and
meaningful relationships;
-
It provides companionship in an opposite sex
relationship;
-
It contributes to identify formation and development;
-
It is a means of mate sorting and selection; and
-
It can be a context for sexual experimentation and
exploration.
In my reviewing of literally hundreds of papers on the
experience of adolescence written by youth and adults, one of the most
common themes in their writings is the devastating consequences of this
lifestyle on school achievement and emotional stability. Wilson-Shockley
(1995) reports that 42 percent of adolescent in grades nine through twelve
who are in romantic relationships report strong negative emotions
including anxiety, anger, jealousy and depression. However, many would not
trade this lifestyle for a different one since they say that they learn
through these hard experiences.
There are several problems with this lifestyle. First,
strong bonds are developed, often in early adolescence, with little chance
(and even less desire) for timely marriage and parenthood. Second, youth
are not prepared to deal with these strong bonds inherent in their
lifestyle that often become emotionally devastating when the relationship
is wrenched apart.. Third, these youth are placed in an ethical dilemma
where they are unwilling to leave their parents and cleave to each other,
but are willing to engage in practically any sexual intimacy, with or
without vaginal intercourse.
For those youth who choose to remain technically virginal,
these sexual intimacies may include heavy petting, mutual masturbation,
and oral intercourse. If their motives are to experience as much sexual
pleasure as possible without losing their virginity, and without the need
to commit to a lifelong bonding, the couple may be technically virginal
but they may also be engaging in sinful behavior on totally different
grounds as explained above.
For those youth who go "all the way," one or
more one-flesh unions are established just as with the promiscuous youth
previously described, with all of the associated problems. The guidelines
presented for the recreational sex lifestyle are also appropriate for
youth in this situation.
The typical question I hear from youth in this lifestyle
is, "How far is too far?" I generally refrain from answering the
question directly since many youth already have a preconceived notion of
what they want to do. Further, the question represents a motivation that
is questionable to say the least. It has less to do with fostering
Godliness than with maximizing self-centered sensual and sexual pleasure
within preconceived limits. However, I do have several observations that
may be helpful for the individual in the lifestyle who are making sexual
decisions.
-
Individuals traverse different pathways to adolescence
and adulthood. Many of these pathways, as they interact with the
individual’s personality patterns and spiritual development, place
some individuals in greater jeopardy for making inappropriate sexual
decisions than others. Sensual and sexual expressions that are
problematic for some may be less problematic for others.
-
Sexual expressions can easily be postponed in early
stages of a relationship so that the nurturing of spiritual,
emotional, cognitive and interpersonal aspects of a relationship can
take center stage. The truth of the matter is that not one person in
recorded history has died as a result of postponing sexual
expressions! Despite how our society and the media portray sex as a
mandatory and obligatory part of life, its premature involvement in a
romance can derail the more significant aspects of emotional and
spiritual development within and between the partners.
-
Certain sexual expressions that are inappropriate at
early stages of romantic involvement may be more appropriate at later
stages. We were created for relationship, and the sexual drive pushes
us toward relationship. Deepening emotional intimacy brings with it
the desire for increasing sensual and sexual intimacy.
-
The Scriptures emphasize the role of development (I
Cor. 13:11-12). Ways of reasoning and thinking practiced in childhood,
and the resultant behaviors, evolve into different ways of reasoning
and thinking as the individual matures. This fact should serve as a
warning against early sexual involvement as the consequences of one’s
decisions may not be appreciated.
-
The Scriptures emphasize liberty under Lordship. This
entails searching the scriptures and rightly dividing the word of
truth (Acts 17:11; Prov. 2: 1-19). This means that youth must make a
conscious decision to obey God at all costs. Youth must be careful to
subject themselves completely to God’s Lordship so they will not be
found "neither cold nor hot" (Rev 3:15). They must
understand that the legalistic ways of thinking in childhood (which
play a legitimate role in early development) must eventually be
replaced with the principles of liberty and freedom in Christ, and
personal responsibility (Rom. 7: 4-6; I Cor. 8; I Cor. 10). This
emphasis is often very frightening to parents and church leaders who
often resort to legalistic rules and mandates that are not taken
seriously by many youth.
-
Within limits, the Scriptures allow for one behavior to be right for
one Christian while wrong for another (I Cor. 8; Rom. 14). Since peer
relationships are so important for young people, comparisons of peer’s
sexual expressions at similar stages of romantic development should be
made with a great degree of caution.
-
The Scriptural emphasis on the dominant role of sexual
intercourse in establishing the one-flesh union must be paramount in
the partners’ sexual ethics. The seriousness of producing a
counterfeit one-flesh union, and its implications in a believer’s
life, must be carefully considered. Youth must understand that while
forgiveness is possible, the consequences of bad ethical choices may
be difficult or impossible to eradicate.
-
The motives and reasons for sexual intimacy must be
considered. Even an innocent kiss for the wrong motive must be
examined. Reasons that involve using sex as a substitute for meeting
various emotional needs, having insufficient ego strength to say no,
using sex to coerce and control, and using sex for pleasure alone are
always unhealthy (cf., Balswick and Balswick, 1999, pp. 117-120)
-
The consequences of sexual intimacy should be
recognized. In my research, about 34 percent of youth who have sexual
intercourse found the bond with their partner subsequently weakened
while another 31 percent saw no change. Only 35 percent said that
their feelings grew stronger. These same
respondents reported that they were sorry they had intercourse (20
percent) or that they had both positive and negative feelings about
having intercourse (51
percent). Only 26 percent said they were glad after
intercourse. In theory, all sexual expressions in an authentic
one-flesh union would serve to strengthen the union and promote
positive emotions.
-
These youth should realize
that every expression of sex in one way or another affects the human
immune system. Sexual expressions within a one-flesh union serve to
strength the immune system while sexual expressions tainted by
feelings of stress, guilt, anxiety, fear, and anger serve to diminish
or weaken the immune system (Pearsall, 1995). A weakened immune system
has been implicated in a host of diseases from colds to cancer.
My last set of observation relates to a couple who are
deeply "in love", bonded, and perhaps engaged.
-
The decision to move to full sexual expression in a
covenant relationship before God without the benefit of a marriage
witnessed by the community is problematic to say the least. In the
presence of all of the prerequisites explained above (see "The
Biblical Norm for Interpersonal Sexual Relations"), the first
instance of sexual intercourse will establish an authentic one-flesh
union. If the prerequisites are not in place, a counterfeit union is
formed with its attendant problems.
- Since the Bible warns us to abstain from
all appearance of evil, the decision should be to abstain from sexual
intercourse before moving to the covenant relationship of the
one-flesh
union
and
marriage. If
this is not done, and the couple have sexual intercourse with the
intent to form an authentic one-flesh union (with the prerequisites in
place), then the couple should follow the establishment of that
one-flesh union with a public marriage ceremony as soon as possible.
If marriage is not acceptable to the couple, then they should expect
"static" from the Church and fellow believers who might
perceive the couple as living in fornication. Further, I would stress
that the decision not to marry must be carefully examined, since it
implies a lack of commitment and an escape route from a half-hearted
commitment. Wisdom and responsibility demands marriage first,
intercourse second.
-
A couple that is "deeply in love" and bonded
and who has sexual intercourse in a spontaneous passionate encounter
does not automatically form an authentic union when volition to freely
and deliberately form such a union in a responsible fashion is absent
or tentative. Volition includes the mutual decision to leave parents
and cleave to the partner in permanent, unconditional commitment and
loyalty. All requirements must be in place. Otherwise, the union will
be counterfeit, although over time, it has the potential to be
authenticated.
-
A bonded or engaged couple who forms a counterfeit
union that is not blessed by God places a great deal of stress on
their relationship. As discussed above, every act of sexual intimacy
is an act of immunity.
Serial
Non-sexual Relationships Followed by a Single Intimate Bonding
There is some interest in an alternative to the two
lifestyles described above. It is characterized by restricting dating
while expanding friendships, and reserving a serious relationship to a
single courtship before marriage. This lifestyle limits sexual expression
and values abstinence. It fosters the development of coping skills and
emotional, intellectual and spiritual intimacy. Essentially, proponents of
this lifestyle maintain that youth should not be romantically and
emotionally involved until after the commitment to marriage. Bailey
(1997-2000) points out that "the Bible says to ‘love the one you
marry’ (Eph. 5:28,33) rather than to ‘marry the one you love’."
It is Bailey’s contention that the only difference between dating
and marriage is that dating provides no protection, just vulnerability.
You relate, spend time together, give your hearts to
each other -- with no lifelong commitment, with no covenant! And then
we wonder why we get hurt! We must learn to relate according to
covenant -- marriage is the boundary that protects our 'sphere of
vulnerability'.
This lifestyle depends on two very significant priorities:
parents are held in high esteem and service to God is valued above
pleasure to self. With respect to the parental role, this lifestyle
usually involves more than a cooperative effort, although it may be
limited to that. Essentially, youth may go so far as to defer to their
parent’s best judgment in the selection of a mate. This deferment is
more than simply seeking advice, but it may involve leaving the final
decision to the parents if they choose to take it. With respect to the
second priority, youth have to understand that no matter how important
interpersonal relationships may seem to be in the total scheme of things,
service to God outweighs personal happiness. Bailey quotes Antoine de
Saint-Exupery’s classic statement about marital priorities, "Love
does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking together in the
same direction." Bailey points out that partners who find
opportunities in team ministry or visiting families where there is no
emotional involvement and no need to give a good appearance "can
truly judge how that person acts in a variety of circumstances, before
they even commence in their relationship" (Bailey, 1997-2000).
These two priorities serve to blunt the role of sex in
youthful relationship building. The question, "How far is too
far?" becomes largely irrelevant. The sexual play book appears to be
more from a Hebrew culture where courtship was the norm rather than from
an American culture where dating is seen as normal. In actuality, American
society used the courtship model before 1900. A young man would call upon
the young girl at her home, where the conditions of the encounter were
determined by the family. Often, both sets of parents would bargain with
the other about the merits of their children as marrying material. It didn‘t
take long for courting partners to begin to go out on "dates" in
public, increasingly on the man’s terms (Kass, 1997). "Going
steady" became the cultural norm, which is now expressed as early as
the middle school years.
The courtship model minimizes, but does not eliminate, the emotional devastation that many young people experience when their intimate relationship skids to a screeching halt. In most every case, the bond that appears to be wrenched apart was cemented with a long history of sexual intimacies, with and without vaginal intercourse. In some cases, the courtship model appears to be simply a variant of the dating model.
I realize that the courtship model is a hard sell, both
with youth and with parents. Our society has a long love affair with
dating. Psychologists and sociologists have studied the subject for some
time, and given the concept legitimacy. Christian authors have written
countless books and manuals on how to date Christianly. Where has all of
this attention gotten us? Examine the divorce rates, acquaintance rape
rates, teen pregnancy rates, and sexually transmitted disease rates, and
come to your own conclusions. The statistics apply to non-Christians and Christians alike!
Kass (1997) provides several good reasons why courtship is
probably doomed as a revived cultural norm:
...the sexual revolution, the ideology of feminism and
the changing educational and occupational status of women; the
desstigmatization of bastardy, divorce, infidelity and abortion; the
general erosion of shame and awe regarding sexual matters; widespread
morally neutral sex education in schools; the explosive increase in
the numbers of young people whose parents have been divorced; great
increases in geographic mobility, with loosened ties to extended
family; and, harder to describe precisely, a popular culture that
celebrates youth not as a stage en route to adulthood but as ‘the
time of our lives,’ imitable at all ages, and an ethos that lacks
transcendent aspirations and asks of us no devotion to family, God or
country, encouraging us simply to soak up the pleasures of the
present.
Adding to this list the disappearance of delayed
gratification from our vocabulary and the postponement of marriage to the
late twenties, it would appear that Kass is right on. This is not to say
that courtship has not returned in some religious circles where young men
are being told that they need the father’s permission to begin courtship
as a preliminary stage leading to marriage. But until congregations
wholeheartedly throw their support behind this monumental cultural shift,
the movement will attract few takers. Too many Christians have bought into
the current culture’s emphasis on dating as an occasion for learning
"critical life skills".
Fostering
Abstinence
In my research on the sexual attitudes and
behaviors of Christian college students, I examined the relationship of six factors on abstinence
(Twelker, 2002).
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
Guilt
as a Preventative
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.
Gary Reece
reminds us of the consequences of punitive,
neurotic guilt:
Guilt has
many effects. It changes how we feel about
ourselves, and it certainly has an effect
on how we feel about others and how we
behave around them. It distorts
perceptions and leads to faulty
attributions about how others feel about
us. It leads to deadness of feelings, saps
our energy and leads to self-punishing
behaviors. Often we spend our entire lives
trying to atone for some nameless feeling
of dread and guilt. One observation that
can easily be made about guilt is that it
is often out of proportion to whatever
event may have caused it. This is the
neurotic component of guilt (Reece, no
date)
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.
Further, as
Archibald Hart states,
To develop
a healthy guilt response, you must
challenge your irrational internalized
do's and don't, thus developing a more
rational and flexible conscience, a right
attitude to failure, and the courage to
take responsibility for mistakes without
engaging in self-punishment (Hart, 1989)
The
Effect of Religion
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, it
would be premature to jump to
conclusions. 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
reported by Campolo. 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, 45.0
percent gave petting while 44.5 percent
received petting. This appears to be
somewhat less than the figure reported by
Gates & Sonenstein (2000): they found
that 53 percent of the males in a national
survey had been masturbated by a female.
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.
Expectations
of Wanting to Marry a Virgin
There was a
strong 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 were 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), in an article entitled, Is
Masturbation a Sin?, presents a permissive Christian viewpoint
for consideration 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 findings 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 as well as youth
workers, the argument simply
does not have enough weight to make it
convincing.
Other factors
may be operative
here. The nature of the expectation
that is held by both the youth and the
parent should be examined. The following
factors might be kept in mind:
To be
maximally effective, the positively stated
expectation must be accompanied with
reasons for the expected behavior. Rather
than simply telling youth what behaviors
are expected, help them understand why the expected
behavior is important as this helps youth
internalize the reasons and behave
appropriately. Saying, "Because I
said so" is not an effective
strategy.
Youth
should be encouraged to transform the
expectation into a vow, one that is freely
given and not coerced or manipulated by
adults. Ideally, the idea should be
advanced by peers within the youth
culture, not by outsiders in power
positions. These vows should
be celebrated regularly with like-minded
youth.
Related to
this is the difference between the youth's
perception of parents' expectations and
the parents' actual stated expectations.
The youth's perceptions reflect what the
adolescent acts upon. Parents must not
only pay attention to what they
communicate, they must consistently check
their adolescent's perceptions of what
they communicate to ascertain that they
are consistent with their intentions.
Another
factor related to the efficacy of
expectations is self-determination skills.
Parents need to keep in mind that it makes
little sense to promote healthy sexual
expectations while withholding the skills
related to refusing to give in to a
partner's insistence on having sex.
In order
for expectations to become efficacious,
parents should genuinely appreciate
positive sexual behaviors and attitudes.
It is very important to reinforce and
acknowledge positive behaviors
consistently, especially in early
adolescence.
Parents
should recognize that youth become
increasingly peer-oriented as they mature.
Some discussions about expectations might
be done in the context of the youth's
social network These discussions could
provide opportunities for peers to confirm
healthy perspectives toward sex and to
provide mutual support for abstinence.
When
parents hold negative low expectations
toward their children, they should
recognize problematic responses provided
to their children.
Parents
should be especially aware of the problem
that communicating low expectations to
children may have more power to limit
youth's efforts at abstinence than
communicating high expectations has to
raise youth's potential behavior.
Parents
should be ready to foster positive
expectations as early as possible since
younger children are more susceptible to
expectancy effects than are older
children.
Influence
of Parents' Thinking
The
influence
of
parents’
thinking
appears
strongly
related
to
all
of
the
sexual
behaviors.
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.
Parent's
Marital Status
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
abstained
from
receiving petting and
sexual
intercourse
had
more
parents
who
stayed
married
whereas
youth
who
received petting and had
sexual
intercourse
had
more
parents
who
were
separated,
divorced
or
widowed.
Again,
the
differences
are
practically
significant.
However,
masturbation,
fantasizing
and
the
other
interpersonal
sexual
behaviors
were
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.
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.
In
summary,
the
expectation
of
wanting
to
marry
a
virgin
and
influence
of
parents
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.
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.
Interventions
should
focus
on
the
youth
in
minimizing
the
damage.
Relation
of
Masturbation
to
Other
Sexual
Behaviors
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.
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
behavior, such as level of
sexual drive, amount of conservatism and
close-mindedness 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
Reflections
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?
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
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.
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.
Gates,
Gary
J.
&
Sonenstein,
Freya
L.
(2000)
Heterosexual
Genital
Sexual
Activity
Among
Adolescent
Males:
1988
and
1995.
Family
Planning
Perspectives,
32
(6),
November/December.
Internet
resource
available
at
URL:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3229500.html
Hart,
Archibald D. (1989). Unlocking
The Mystery of Your Emotions. Dallas:
Fleming H. Revell Company / Word Publishing.
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.
Metzler,
Carol W. (et. al.) (1994). The Social
Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among
Adolescents. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine 17: 419-437.
Miller,
Brent C. & Moore, Kristen A.
(1990). Adolescent Sexual Behavior,
Pregnancy and Parenting: Research Through
the 1980’s. Journal of Marriage and
Family (November): 43.
Murphy, Richard (2000) God’s Purpose for Sexual
Intimacy. Internet resource available at URL http://maranathalife.com/marriage/mar-sex1.htm
Newcomer,
Susan & Udry, J. Richard (1987).
Parental Marital Status Effects on
Adolescent Sexual Behavior. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 49: 235-240.
Nouwen,
Henri
(1989)
In
the
Name
of
Jesus:
Reflections
on
Christian
Leadership.
New
York:
Crossroad/Herder
&
Herder.
Paul, E. L. & White, K. M. (1990) The development of
intimate relationships in late adolescence. Adolescence, 25, 375-400.
Pearsall, Paul (1995). A Healing Intimacy: The Power of
Loving Connections. New York: Crown Publications.
Penner,
Will
(2001)
Editorial
&
Other
Responses—Is
Masturbation
a
Sin?
Internet resource available at URL
http://www.youthspecialties.com/ywj/articles/sexuality/masturbation_editor.html
Pilkington, Larry (1983) The
Useage, Development and
Control of Epithumia in the New Testament. (M.Th. Thesis) Dallas: Dallas
Theological Seminary.
Piper, Otto (1960). The Biblical View of Sex and
Marriage. New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons
Reece,
Gary
(no
date).
Self
Esteem
and
Guilt.
Internet
resource
available
at
http://www.steps4recovery.org/guilt.html
Smith,
Carolyn A. (1997). Factors Associated with
Early Sexual Activity Among Urban
Adolescents. Social Work 42
(4): 334-346.
Tess, Bill (No Date)
`Til Death Do Us Part: What Churches
Fail To Teach About God's Standard For Sex. URL: http://www.flash.net/~billtess/
Twelker, Paul A. (1998) The Biblical Design for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and
Complementarity:
Chapter 4. The Two Shall Be One Flesh.
Deerfield: Trinity International University. Internet resource available at URL:
<http://kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/BDFMChap4.htm>
(last updated 20 April 1998).
Twelker,
Paul
A.
(2002)
Youth,
Sexual
Ethics,
and
the
One-Flesh
Union.
Paper
presented
at
American
Association
of
Christian
Counselors
Sexuality
Super
Conference,
Dallas,
Texas,
April
24-26,
2002.
Judith
Wallerstein,
Lewis,
Julia,
&
Blakeslee,
Sandra
(2000).
The
Unexpected
Legacy
of
Divorce.
New
York:
Hyperion
Wilson-Shockley, S. (1995). Gender differences in
adolescent depression: The contribution of negative affect. M.S.Thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
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). The Biblical Design
for Marriage: The Creation, Distortion and Redemption of Equality, Differentiation, Unity and
Complementarity: Chapter 7 Youth, Sexual Ethics, and the One-Flesh Union. Deerfield: Trinity International University. Internet resource available at URL:
<http://www.kamsandsinfo.com/Professional/BDFMChap7.htm
> (last updated February 09, 2008). Copyright ©
2002 Paul A. Twelker.
Revised: February 09, 2008 |
