| Sexetera: a realistic approach to a taboo subject
by Jackie Tao
Staff Writer
FILE PHOTO Is eloping in wedding chapel like this a solution to premarital sex turmoil?
|
This might be a forbidden topic. But a good “perspective” should challenge its readers and push sensitive buttons. At Calvin College, there are many of these buttons, and premarital sex is one of the most untouchable. But it really shouldn’t be. The heavy-laden moral judgment imposed on this issue has complicated an otherwise simple reality. What should be treated with rationality and love are instead chained by fear and ignorance. The traditional view on sex in this community has given young people only two choices: either to live completely under the strict law or to rebel against it and be morally rejected by public opinion.
The unspoken rule on this campus equates sex without marriage to driving without a license. Students who have lost their virginity either live with guilt or refuse to approach the issue with moral reasoning, fearing that they may be condemned by public judgment. Feelings of rejection and rebellion give them all the reasons for more deviant behaviors. Instead of having one or two partners, they start having casual sex with random people. What once was a normal adolescent impulsiveness becomes habitual indulgences. On the other hand, the ones who are more resistant to sexual temptation stay abstinent, though very anxiously, until the day they finally get married and receive the sacred endorsement from society to authorize their tasting of the fruit.
Desires for sex for these more disciplined, however, are unfortunately still there. Thus, for guys especially, pornography and masturbation—low and destructive forms of fulfilling a legitimate desire—become common practice. For those more self-controlled who don’t even masturbate, the question is, then, what goes on in their minds? Are vivid images of sexual intercourse more justified than the action itself?
In my opinion, it is one’s right and freedom to choose when to have sex, before or after marriage. I am not arguing for premarital sex over sex in a marriage, because it is honorable to preserve virginity for the person one’s married to. As many have said, it is the best gift a girl or guy can give to her husband or his wife. All I am saying is that we have to be realistic about ourselves and our capacities. While we respect people who resist and persevere in their desires, we should not condemn those who don’t. The reason is simple: we are cursed with many desires and wants. Those desires consume us like fire. Whereas some of us are able to withstand the scorch, many of us are incapable, the same way as being blind or deaf, of suppressing these desires without going insane.
The best solution is, therefore, a system in which people can make reasonable choices. Like eating, where neither binging nor anorexia is healthy, having sex accords the same logic. I by no means agree with casual, irresponsible or forced sex. At the same time I have no problem with a couple having protected sex when they have mutual agreement and have thought about the consequences. The important thing is that they should be free to make their choice and to think for themselves, without fearing and worrying too much about social contempt. Freedom and security allow people to think and make the best decisions. Fear and guilt paralyze reasoning and induce impulsivity.
Doubtlessly, there is the Bible, with clear passages against sex outside of marriage. But these passages were written in a different tradition at a different time for a different audience. They are among doctrines that have been reinterpreted and restated to fit what people want to hear. It is unproductive to get into a hermeneutical debate about how biblical passages should be interpreted because the understanding of the Bible varies from time to time, culture to culture, denomination to denomination. No one can say he or she has the final answer to these complex moral questions. It is ultimately a collective agreement that defines what a community believes is right and wrong. Thus no one can say that the psychological and physical distortion caused by suppression of natural sexual desires is preferable to having sex before marriage. Nor should any one consider hasty and irresponsible marriages for the sake of “authorized” sex more sanctioned than sex without the socially-constructed stamp.
The one thing that does not alter and stands universally is respect and love for other human beings. With regard to premarital sex, our leading doctrine should be to decide what is the best possible outcome for a person’s well being, not what is the most pleasing to the public opinion. For some people, the best decision may be to stay abstinent until married, whereas for others it would require a different undertaking. Maybe they are not quite ready to get into a life-time commitment. But that in no way disqualifies their right to fulfill their innate, normal desires, as long as it is done on a safe and non-damaging way. We should treat both with decency and understanding, founded on the fundamental belief that these fellow human beings are imperfect and fragile creatures like ourselves. Acceptance should triumph over rejection, sympathy over disdain. Only by practicing benevolence and grace toward others can we truly reach the highest degree of civilization and democracy.
|
