A new addition to the HEART is our Forum-check it out

A new addition to the HEART is our Forum-check it out

Table 51. The Relationship Between Approved Sexual Behaviors for Males When the Partners Are Strangers, and Parental Marital Status

Table 52 reveals that when partners are dating, youth from intact families are more apt to approve of boys making out or petting (59 percent) than youth from non-intact families (41 percent; χ² = 11.73, p = .003).  On the other hand, when partners are dating, youth from intact families are less apt to approve of oral sex and intercourse for boys as compared with youth from non-intact families (8 percent vs.18 percent).  These percentages are very similar to those obtained for girls' approved behaviors. 

Table 52. The Relationship Between Approved Sexual Behaviors for Males When the Partners Are Dating, and Parental Marital Status

Table 53 reveals that when partners are going with each other, the same pattern described above for girls also applies for boys ( χ² = 9.54, p = .008).  Youth from intact families are more apt to approve of boys making out or petting (70 percent) than youth from non-intact families (52 percent).  On the other hand, youth from intact families are less apt to approve of oral sex and intercourse for boys as compared with youth from non-intact families (16 percent vs. 27 percent).

Table 53. The Relationship Between Approved Sexual Behaviors for Males When the Partners Are Going Together, and Parental Marital Status

As shown in Tables 54 and 55, there are non-significant relationships between sexual attitudes about boys' sexual behaviors and parental marital status for partners in love and planning marriage (χ² = 2.60, p = .273 and χ²  = 3.42, p = .181, respectively).

Table 54. The Relationship Between Approved Sexual Behaviors for Males When the Partners Are In Love, and Parental Marital Status

Table 55. The Relationship Between Approved Sexual Behaviors for Males When the Partners Are Planning Marriage, and Parental Marital Status

Reflections

I have a word of warning when it comes to interpreting these data.  Do not place too much importance on sexual attitudes as though they have a one-to-one relationship with real-time moral behavior.  Many individuals simply assume that attitudes lead to behavior.  However, Ichheiser (1970) distinguishes between “views in principles” and “views in fact.”  Views in principle are those views that are held about an issue but have no serious implications for one’s actions.  Views in fact are those that actually determine one’s actions.   The problem, according to Ichheiser, is that people rarely are able to state their views in fact.  They are usually capable of only stating their views in principles.   

A related warning is that since many people assume that an individual’s conscious opinions and evaluations are the major cause of their actions, they fail to account for other factors that work against (or for) the individual following their beliefs or opinions.  Three factors that are seen in sequential fashion in moral development include: 1) fear of parental punishment and rejection; 2) peer pressure, and social praise or blame; and 3) maintenance of abstract moral principles.  Other factors might include moral passion, empathy, guilt, remorse or Godly sorrow, sense of honor (whether rational or irrational), and moral introspection.   

The discrepancy between how youth think and how youth behave has been discussed at great lengths.  This should come as no surprise.  Writers such as David Elkind have attributed this discrepancy between thought and action to youths not being fully able to exercise their newly-developed skills in formal operational thought.  The youth in this study come across as espousing what might be termed traditional values in a number of areas including gender roles, cohabitation, and limits to sexual behavior in relationships.  One could argue that perhaps these are not really values at all, but simply attitudes or opinions that do not have the commitment behind them that guides behavior.  We hear a lot of rhetoric about the erosion of values in our society.  Perhaps what we are facing is a Christian subculture that is not being guided by any values at all, just whims and attitudes and opinions.  This argument can be substantiated by the observation that youth today are being affected by myths or false expectations about what their same-sex peers are doing (such as having sex) as well as what peer are thinking about them (such as shock at their being sexually active).  These data suggest that opinions and attitudes that are based largely on myths and false perceptions must be corrected before values can be fostered that guide abstinence behavior.

How do youth internalize moral values in a way that assure their implementation?  Hogan (1973) suggests two psychological dynamics that work toward implementation: sensitivity to social expectations, and concern for the welfare of those with whom the youth interacts.  In the report on sexual behaviors (Twelker, 2002), discussion centered on how positive expectations (for example, expectations for marrying a virgin) exhibited a powerful effect on abstinence.  However, not all youth develop these expectations and use them to enhance abstinence.  Further, the expectations that youth develop are not necessarily positive or life-enhancing—they can also be negative or dysfunctional. The second dynamic, concern for others with whom the youth interacts, would seem even more difficult to develop.  Egocentrism, which develops as adolescents begin using formal operational thought, plays a huge role here.  For a time, self-centeredness takes center stage in an adolescent’s life.  Perspective-taking and empathy eventually will be developed, but not at the beginning.   

In that same report (Twelker, 2002), it was also mentioned that sexual ideology is one of the most important factors in determining sexual expressions (cf., DeLamater and MacCorquodale (1979).  It was argued that ideology is a force that dominant institutions use to legitimize the status quo through the communication of values, of worldview, and of symbol systems.  It was suggested that ideology forms the basis of self-control.  But a number of institutions with their particular worldviews compete for youths’ attention.  It would be simplistic to view this competition as an all-or-none game.  Rather, the youth most likely selects parts and pieces from many if not all of the competing worldviews.  Herein lies the problem.  How a youth exercises self control relates to the meanings of the values and the worldview adopted.  If the youth envisions sex as simple recreation or tension relief without the need for commitment, self-control takes on a very different meaning than that suggested by scripture.  Using a condom might qualify as self-control in that it shows both one’s sensitivity to societal expectations as well as one’s concern for others.  If the youth envisions sex as the occasion for establishing an authentic one-flesh union, then self-control takes on a very different form that illustrates Christian thinking and behavior.  

If my premise that sexual attitudes per se do not necessarily have all that much relevance to sexual behaviors, and they are but one factor among many that relate to moral implementation, then the questions remains: what are the implications for parents and church leaders, with respect to forming Godly values and worldviews in their children and adolescents?  Should the parent simply stop trying to instill moral attitudes in their children?  Heaven forbid!  Sexual attitudes are the building blocks that teach children to live with authority.  That naturally leads to the youth being able to live with other people in healthy, functional ways.  And that life skill is the basis for a third skill, living with oneself.  Living with oneself implies living in compliance with internalized ethical principles.  This skill is at the heart of autonomy, in the sense that the adolescent acts with self-control and self-regulation.  But the communicating of moral attitudes go hand-in-hand with parenting style.  Autonomous (self-regulated) youth who have close relationships with their parents report fewer conflicts with their parents, turn to their parents for advice, and report that they would like to model their lives after their parents.  On the other hand, youth who are not autonomous and self-regulating are more likely to be rebellious, negative, and highly involved with their peer group.  Parents of autonomous youth enable in the sense that they accept adolescents, they help adolescents develop their own ideas through questions, and they tolerate different opinions.  Parents of non-autonomous youth respond negatively to adolescents’ expressions of independence, and they cut off discussion of adolescents’ opinions.   But there is more.  Parents must foster increasingly abstract thinking in youth.  They must make sure that beliefs become increasingly rooted in general principles that have ideological relevance.  And finally, they must reject the notion that all youth have to do is copy their values (or those of other authority figures) without making sure that they are increasingly rooted in the youth’s own value system.  And parents must recognize that the autonomy I am talking about here means having a set of principles about what is right and wrong, and having priorities about what is important and what is not.  This autonomy must be rooted in the Church's teaching of a correct, coherent, biblical worldview with respect to sexuality that results in youth accepting the importance of thinking and acting Christianly in a postmodern world.  And I have argued that this ideology must include the primacy of the one-flesh union concept.

There is another very interesting finding that relates to the remarkable consistency that was revealed: males were much more likely than females to permit or encourage intercourse at all stages of a relationship, for both males and females.  However, as the relationship progresses, females become perceptively more permissive so that by the time the couple is planning marriage, the percentage of females agreeing with the males rises to about 46 percent of the male percentage.  At the stranger level, less than 10 percent of the females agreed with the males about allowing intercourse.  This might suggest that the female holds the key to abstinence by communicating in an assertive manner her values to the male, and bringing him to agreement on abstinence.

When it comes to sex education, parents seem to be falling short of the ideal.  About 38 percent of the youth said that their parent did not teach them about sex.  Males were consistent in their assessment of the difficulty in talking with parents: over 65 percent found it hard to talk with either parent.  Females found it much harder to talk with father (85 percent) than with mother (47 percent).  If youth were able to talk with their parents, and vice versa, without getting bent out of shape, youth might have an opportunity to better understand their parents’ expectations while parents would have a better understanding of the pressures facing youth today. This could naturally lead to the formation of a family accountability relationship where the parents would be the first line of support for their children's abstinence.  Of course, this assumes that parents are serious about holding the line on abstinence.  Unfortunately, data were not collected from parents in the present study.  However, youths' ratings of their parents’ disapproval of sexual behaviors were not all that different from their own, although parents were seen are slightly more disapproving in all categories.  One thing is clear, however: youths' perceptions about the inadequacy of parental sex education bring into question their perceptions about what their parents expect.  

There is a general undertone of pessimism among many parents in their own confidence and ability to teach their children about sex, and distinguishing right from wrong, and they look to outside resources to fill that void.  A Gallup Poll in 1987 found that 85 percent of parents feel that sex education should be taught in the schools (West Virginia Department of Education, 1987).  A recent poll of 1,245 adults by Zogby International commissioned by conservative Christian groups found that most parents want schools to teach their children sex education but disapprove of the more explicit guidance commonly used in sex-education classes, such as masturbation, sexual fantasies, and homosexuality (Schemo, 2003).  Seventy-four percent of parents approve or strongly approve of abstinence-centered sex education, while 61.1 percent of parents disapprove or strongly disapprove of "comprehensive" or "safe-sex" education.  

Since schools in the public sector are not perceived as able to lay good moral foundations, (let alone keep the peace in the classroom,) parents are turning to independent schools, especially church-related schools to teach values.  Either way, parents are bound to be disappointed.  The public school will teach sex education, but often too late, and when it is taught, it largely assumes that all youth are sexually active.  The church-related school is often out of touch with its youth to the point that it acts as though most youth are sexually naive, and its best to keep them that way.  In abstinence-only classes, the issue of contraception can't even be discussed.   

Abstinence Programs

A number of secular programs, often school-based, have begun across the country in recent years to promote abstinence.  Typically, the program asks a teen to pledge abstinence until marriage.  Recently, a highly publicized report taken from the federally-funded National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.by Hannah Bruckner of Yale University and Peter Bearman of Columbia University has thrown doubt on these programs. These researchers analyzed data from interviews of 20,000 teen-age virgins in grades 7 through 12 in 1994 and 1995. Follow-up interviews were done in 1997 with 14,000 individuals.  

The researchers estimated that close to 10 percent of adolescent boys and 16 percent of adolescent girls have taken virginity pledges.  Those that gave pledges were more religious and more oriented toward school.  Further, the subsequent decision to abstain from intercourse seemed related to factors other than the giving of a pledge.  When 30 percent or more of the teens in a program gave pledges, they were no more likely to delay intercourse than non-pledgers.  On the other hand, when only one teen took the pledge, it did not have the desired abstinence effect.  Apparently, holding to the pledge required peer support.  Also, among teens 18 and older, pledges made little difference. The most significant impact occurred among 16- and 17-year-olds.

The pledges delayed intercourse by about 18 months.  Among black females, for example, the median age of first sexual encounter for those who took a virginity pledge was 18.6, compared with 16.3 for those who did not take a pledge. The delay for males was similar.  Among 15-year-olds, 90 percent of the pledgers remained virgins while 82 percent of the non-pledgers were virgins.  At 16, 79 percent of the pledgers were still virgin while 68 percent of non-pledgers had abstained. At age 17, 65 percent of the pledgers had not initiated sex while half of the non-pledgers had initiated sex.

The researchers also found that the pledgers had fewer sexual partners, got married earlier, and were less likely to use condoms.  Of those males who pledged abstinence, 59 percent used a condom during sex while only 40 percent of male pledgers used a condom.  The pledgers also contracted sexually transmitted diseases (chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis) as often (2.8% vs. 3.5% for whites not pledging; 18.1% vs. 20.3% for blacks not pledging; 6.7% vs 8.6% for Hispanics not pledging; 10.5% vs. 5.6% of Asians not pledging.)   These differences were not judged to be statistically significant.  Those infected were less likely to know they were infected. 

It should be noted that not all abstinence programs are equal.  Richard Ross, one of the founders of the True Love Waits movement and professor of student ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, points out that most programs offer a limited number of class sessions led by a stranger, who asks that teens sign a vow of abstinence in their notebooks at the end of the program.  The True Love Waits program involves weeks of study and discussion before signing of pledge cards, often in public ceremonies with family and close friends.  Support continues after the pledge though church youth leaders and peers.  Finally, Ross notes that the pledges are made “to God Himself rather than a notebook”.  Jimmy Hester, a spokesman for True Love Waits, minimized the importance of the pledge alone.  He claims that the important element missing from other programs is a commitment to God.  The True Love Waits pledge reads, "Believing that true love waits, I make a commitment to God, myself, my family, my friends, my future mate, and my future children to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship."  To enhance its program, the True Love Waits movement is planning to challenge local health organizations, businesses, educational institutions, government and churches to form a coalition to provide a consistent abstinence message and support to students (Curry, 2004; Bearman and Bruckner, 2001). 

Certain national groups such as The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) may tend to view such studies in a negative light, maintaining that abstinence programs do not work.  Clearly, abstinence programs seem to work in the short run by postponing sexual intercourse, but the data include the somber truth that many youth eventually discard the pledge and engage in intercourse before marriage.  And when they do, they often fail to use protection and end up contracting STDs at the same rate as non-abstainers.  This suggests that most of these teens are not waiting to have sex with the one they eventually want to marry, a possibility suggested by data in the present study.  One of the chief contentions of these national groups is that sex education does not drive teens to experiment earlier, but enables them to think critically about sexual choices.  Obviously, abstinence education and the pressing for an abstinence pledge is usually inconsistent with one segment of sex education that focuses on contraception and perhaps STDs.  These national groups are also critical of the abstinence pledges in that the higher the number of teens taking the pledge in a program, the less effect it has.  Clearly, more attention has to be paid to what factors make for a strong and long-lasting pledge of abstinence.  Peter Bearman went into the study thinking that the pledges made no difference.  "We didn't expect to see any effect from these pledges, but it was just the opposite...The average delay among pledgers is 18 months. That is significant. And that is a pure pledge effect."  By that, the authors mean that "pledging works because it embeds kids in a community and makes them feel different."  Although this may be true for some teens, the remarks by Richard Ross and Jimmy Hester suggests that more is at work here than peer pressure or community expectations.  Indeed, the present study suggests that the strength of the faith commitment, guilt as a preventative factor, intactness of the family, and parental influence have a strong relationship to abstinence as well as pastoral and peer support. 

Abstinence groups such as True Love Waits are not at all interested in changing their programs to include information on contraception.  Data from the Bearman and Bruckner study are not convincing for these folk.  Critics of abstinence-only education see the findings as evidence that adolescents benefit from sex education.  I would suggest that if the goal is for teens to wait until marriage to engage in sexual intercourse, then it does not follow logically that withholding information on contraception or STDs is dysfunctional to that goal.  The practical failure rates of contraceptive methods can lend rationale support to abstinence.  Further, the fact that contraception does not protect adequately and completely against STDs lends further support to the teaching of all relevant facts about sexuality to teens.   

This position is supported by recent changes in thinking by a number of physicians who collaborated on an abstinence program,   Prescriptions for Parents: A Physicians' Guide to Adolescence and Sex (Morse, 2003).   The program points out that even when there was a significant decline in the teen birth rate and sexual activity rate in the 1990’s, the incidence of STDs increased.  Today, one-quarter of all new HIV cases occur in those aged 21 and younger.  Herpes and the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is linked to cervical cancer, are infecting more and more teens.  More than one in five teenagers and adults in the United States has genital herpes, and HPV affects 24 million Americans.  The Medical Institute of Sexual Health (MISH) estimates that 33 percent of all women are infected with HPV.  The people most at risk for this disease are college and high school students.  Estimates of HPV on college campuses are staggering: Sharon Kennedy, a nurse practitioner, estimates that about 70 percent of the college population at Colorado State University is positive for HPV. The University of California at Berkeley found that almost half of its female students were infected with HPV.  In a clinical study at the University of Washington, Winer et. al. (2003) found that the cumulative first-time infection incidence was 32.3 percent (95% confidence interval: 28.0 to 37.1).  Infection in virgins was rare, but any type of nonpenetrative sexual contact increased the risk of infection.  HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact, and does not depend on the exchange of bodily fluids so condoms, whether used correctly or incorrectly, do not always protect against these STDs.  A single sexual contact with a person infected with HPV, whether external genital warts are visible or not, carries about a 60 percent chance of transmission (Cantu & Farish, N.D.).  There is no such thing as safe sex.  The only guaranteed method of stopping this public health epidemic is sexual abstinence until entering into a lifelong, monogamous marriage with an uninfected partner.  Considering that one in fifty American women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, and that almost all cervical cancer in the United States is caused by HPV, to withhold information from adolescents on STDs and the inefficacy of contraceptive methods in combating these epidemics, is shortsighted if not inexcusable. 

Some Concluding Thoughts

There are those who say that it is time that parents assume full responsibility for teaching and nurturing their children about sex.  Some of these people feel that the school might serve as a backup, but not the initiator of or prime disseminator of sex education.  For this strategy to succeed, parents must be comfortable with their own sexuality, well-versed in sexual ethical decision-making strategies, and comfortable in initiating sex education with their children.  If parents did a good job, then whatever the school did could be complementary. Unfortunately, we cannot assume that parents will be in a position to act as teachers and nurturers without some assistance in the form of sex education, sexual counseling, or in some cases, sexual therapy.   

I wish I had an answer to this dilemma.  For some Christian families, public school options that teach comprehensive sex education will not be satisfactory since it will include information on masturbation, contraception and homosexuality.  For other Christian families, the favored abstinence program will fall short if contraception is not included since a significant portion of the teens will become sexually active.  Further, many programs will fail to show how many precoital sexual behaviors in addition to sexual intercourse carry the risk of STDs.  I am firmly persuaded that Christian parents must not cease trying to be salt and light to people in their community, and this includes speaking out for an appropriate. age-graded sex education curriculum.  On the other hand, parents must accept primary responsibility for educating their children about sexuality, and do whatever it takes to make this education effective.  Sex education should begin when the infant is in the cradle, when she cannot understand a word being said.  This will help desensitize parents and will provide then with valuable practice in "talking sex" later.  Also, the various components of sex education throughout the child-rearing years should be initiated about two years earlier than the time thought appropriate.  Most sex education has already be done on the street and in the locker room before parents get around to it.

Where does the church fit into all of this?  First, it must get its act together when it comes to a theology of sexuality.  The primacy of the one-flesh union concept must be affirmed, and thought must be given to the place of singleness as well as marriage in a Christian's life.  Second, the "do nots" and "thou shalt nots" must be replaced by a reasonable and effective approach to sexual ethical decision-making where the virtues of holiness, love, wisdom and ideals and the relationships of self with God, with others, with oneself, and with created order are considered (cf., Forlines, 2001).   Third, the pastor and youth pastor must not be allowed to replace parents as primary opinion-leaders and change-agents.  God created the family to function in this capacity, and the church should support parents to function as God planned.  The emphasis on experience-oriented worship and teaching, whose effectiveness seems directly related to the charisma of the leader, must be evolved into relationship-oriented groups, such as small multi-family accountability groups.  Fourth, the church must recognize the strong role that the culture and post-modern thought is playing in socializing its youth.  Rather than treating its youth as though they were pilgrims in a post-modern world, it must recognize that for the most part, youth have bought into post-modern thought to the point that they are practitioners and purveyors of post-modernism.  

And what about the church-related college?  What should be its role in these matters?  Apart from the obvious interventions in the classroom, it seems to me that the church-related college must attend to parent relations and parental involvement.  Now I am not talking about fostering inappropriate involvement, or rather enmeshment, that emotionally stifles youth and their legitimate quest for autonomy.  What I am referring to is, first of all, the information that is being shared with parents about matters of sexual attitudes and behaviors of college students.  Colleges must communicate honestly about these realities, and in ways that move them toward problem-solving.  The "head-in-the-sand" approach just won't do anymore.  And then, parents must be encouraged to partner with the college in the pursuit of the common interest of promoting healthy sexuality and abstinence.   Student development offices, along with academics, should decide those areas where parents can become involved in constructive ways, and then discuss these matters openly with parents through educational venues.  These efforts could involve the use of electronically-enhanced educational programs,  such as the Internet, teleconferencing, chat rooms and message boards.  It is time that faculty as well as student development begin to share their critical insights with parents.  This educational involvement could extend from the admissions process through commencement to help parents become effective partners in their children's development while away at college.

References

Bearman, Peter S. and Hannah Brückner (2001) . “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and the Transition to First Intercourse.” American Journal of Sociology. 106, 4 859-912.

Curry, Erin (2004) Leaders: True Love Waits 'different' from other programs. Internet resource available at URL: http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17818

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

Ichheiser, G. (1970). Appearances and reality.  San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 217-232. 

Morse, Jodie (2003). An Rx for Teen Sex. Internet resource available at URL: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/subscriber/0,10987,1101021007-356071,00.html

Schemo, Diana Jean (2003).  Explicit Sex Education Is Opposed By Most Parents in Survey. New York: The New York Times ( February 13, 2003 ).  Internet resource available at URL: www.nytimes.com/2003/02/13/education/13SEX.html?ex=1066449600&en=ad33fe9711b8bc7f&ei=5070

Twelker, Paul A. (2002) Youth, Abstinence and the One-Flesh Union. Paper presented at the  American Association of Christian Counselors 2002 Super Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 24-26, 2002.  Internet resource available at URL: <http://www.tiu.edu/psychology/Twelker/AACC_Paper.htm > (

Yvette C. Cantu and Heather E. Farish (N.D.). The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Epidemic: Condoms Don’t Work. Family Research Council, Boulder Colorado.   Internet resource available at URL:  http://www.ccv.org/images/HPV-Epidemic.PDF.

Winer, R. L., Lee, S. K., Hughes, J. P., Adam, D. E., Kiviat, N. B., and Koutsky, L. A. (2003)  Genital human papillomavirus infection: incidence and risk factors in a cohort of female university students. Am J Epidemiol, 157(3), 218-226.