One of the most important choices we face in our lives is with whom we have sex. Considering the pros and cons of pre-marital sex, some people are making plans to be a virgin until their wedding day. One method that people are increasingly trying to hold on to their virginity is joining abstinence programs, as the recent increase in membership of various abstinence programs around the country evidences.
One of the most popular abstinence programs is called The Silver Ring Thing, a 10-year-old, Pittsburgh-based organization that puts on programs at various venues around the country that last for roughly three hours and provide entertainment and education through music, videos, discussion and counseling. The three-hour program ends with the participants accepting silver rings that are meant to symbolize their desire to abstain from sex until they are married.
Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit which challenged the federal funding of SRT as a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. A settlement agreement between the government and the ACLU states that "if the organization gets any future funding, the Department of Health and Human Services will ensure that its activities comply with federal rules prohibiting the use of federal money to support religious activities."
There is evidence to suggest that non-secular abstinence programs are superior to secular abstinence programs in reducing the amount of participants' sexual activity. Of course, there is no perfect way to record how many people are "cheating" on their abstinence pledges by being sexually active. For instance, some people believe intercourse is the only way to violate an abstinence pledge, while most abstinence programs consider any type of sexual activity a violation of an abstinence pledge.
Recent research by Northern Kentucky University suggests that such secular abstinence programs are not nearly as effective in promoting abstinence as non-secular abstinence programs. Richard Ross, spokesman for the grassroots abstinence effort True Love Waits, a non-secular abstinence program similar to SRT, argues that "True Love Waits work is more effective because it adds an element secular efforts lack: God. The addition of the supernatural gives the promise more power. Promising a notebook means almost nothing. Promising to God is extremely important to most young people."
Ross might be the type of shortsighted and narrow-minded Christian that gives the rest of us Christians a bad reputation, but I do partly agree with him. Ross nearly implies that people who do not worship God cannot make promises. I believe Ross is wrong in his assumptions about why teens in secular abstinence programs might not stay as committed to abstinence as teens in non-secular abstinence programs. I think it is safe to say that the majority of teenagers look for a sense of self-fulfillment. Some teens might be looking to the various abstinence programs for a sense of belonging, but as soon as the unity of their fellow abstinence pledges seems to fade, these teens try to find belonging through some other means, quite often a significant other, which can easily end in a violation of the abstinence pledge.
Therefore, I believe the occurrence of sexual activity before marriage is not due to a lack of belief in God, but rather a lack of belief in anything of significance. Now, certainly, sex before marriage is morally acceptable to some people, and such people who feel emotionally prepared and use protection should not be hindered in doing what they want. But many young, unprepared and uneducated people are pressured into sex before marriage, which, for some, results in struggles with abortion and sexually transmitted infections. SRT may not be the answer to protecting people who, being completely prepared for and knowledgeable about pre-marital sex and its potential consequences, would not want to have pre-marital sex; but I would say SRT is promising at minimum.
I must admit that the intentions of SRT do seem slightly suspicious. For instance, Denny Pattyn, the founder and president of SRT, argues, "SRT will enable the youth to avoid the emotional and physical harm that comes from sexual promiscuity promoted by groups like the ACLU and their allies." I realize that Christians often get a bad reputation, especially here at Brown, for appearing close-minded, but I think it's important to note that many Christians aren't as radical as Pattyn. Despite Pattyn, I still believe the main goal of SRT - to increase sexual abstinence among teenagers - is a very good goal and should be supported with federal funds. However, SRT should only employ secular abstinence programs. Federal funding should be used to protect uneducated teenagers, not to promote a particular religion.
People must always make choices for themselves. I believe sexual abstinence until marriage is a healthy choice that will result in more happiness than not remaining abstinent until marriage. However, it should be possible to convince people to make healthy, empowering choices regarding sexuality without bringing God into the equation.
Michael Ramos-Lynch '09 defines marriage as two people's realization that they are meant to be together forever in a healthy, supportive and loving relationship.
