Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned

From my inbox, an email from a high school student named Jeremy:

“Dear Matt, first I want to say I really like your blog. One of my teachers actually mentioned it in class once after you wrote something (she didn’t mention it in a good way lol) and I went and looked you up so I’ve been following you ever since. I know you get so much email so I don’t expect you to see this but in case you do I wanted to get your opinion about something. You write a lot about relationships and everything so I’m wondering if you think abstinence should be encouraged in school?

Reason I’m asking is because we are doing our sex ed lessons in health class now and the topic has come up. Yesterday my health teacher was talking about safe sex and someone mentioned abstinence and she said it wasn’t realistic. She said it was an out dated way of thinking and the people who push for it are out of touch because they were probably kids a long time ago. She said sometimes sex can be more casual and isn’t always a part of something serious. Then she asked how many people in the class are sexually active because she said it was important for people not to be ashamed. Almost all the guys in class raised their hands but I didn’t. They were all talking about how sex doesn’t have to be something for marriage or long term relationships. I always wanted to wait for marriage and I hope it’s not weird for me to say that. They said in class that we should be more accepting of sexual expression that doesn’t conform to older ideas. But I still always wanted to wait for marriage. But at this point I feel like an outcast or something.

I read something you wrote about dating once and it seemed like you were saying that people should wait for marriage [to have sex]. What do you thinkabout what my teacher said? Am I weird for not really wanting to go out and hook up with girls and stuff and instead wait for marriage?”

Dear Jeremy,

Yes, it’s weird for you to want to wait until marriage. In spite of the hyper-sexualization of our culture; in spite of society’s decaying moral sensibility; in spite of all of the messages that bombard you every day through every available medium; in spite of the pressure from your classmates; in spite of the bullying from that fool of a “health teacher,” you STILL stand tall and resolve to save yourself for your future wife.

Man, that is weird. It’s also awesome, inspiring, courageous, and extraordinary. Not to mention, Jeremy, you’re doing the RIGHT thing. You’ve got more character than most adults in this country, and you should be commended for it.

Speaking of adults without character, please ignore everything your “health teacher” says on this subject. I have to put quotes around her title because it doesn’t sound like she’s doing much in the way of teaching, and whatever she’s blabbering about has very little to do with “health.” She seems to think there’s a “safe” way for emotionally immature juveniles to have casual sex. Maybe she’ll follow up this performance by advocating “safe drunk driving.”

Dude, I had to go outside and breathe a little before I even attempted to write back. There is so much I want to say about this woman and the nonsense she spews. In any other context, an adult would probably find themselves on a statewide registry if they went up to a bunch of kids and asked about their sex lives. But this was “educational,” so it’s cool. The most charitable possible interpretation I can muster is that she’s an overgrown gossipy teenager who thinks she’s at a slumber party. “OMG you guys! So who here has had sex??? Let’s play truth or dare!!!!” A less charitable translation of her actions would lead me to the conclusion that she was actively attempting to pressure and humiliate people like you. And not just you, Jeremy. You said every guy in the class raised their hands? Yeah, a lot of them were lying, because that’s just the sort of thing dudes lie about.

So, Mrs. Health Teacher has singlehandedly declared sexual morality dead, has she? With one scoff and wave of her wand she’s buried thousands of years of insight into the topic? Anyone who advocates such things must be “old” and “out dated”?

Hmmm. Well, this tattooed 27 year old former DJ happens to be on your side, man.

God forgive me, I’m not old fashioned at all. I don’t think you are, either. Truth only seems old fashioned nowadays because we’ve grown so accustomed to deceit and manipulation. But Truth is eternal, so it can never be old or new. It never ‘was’ or ‘will be.’ It just ‘is.’ It always ‘is.’ Truth never grows old, and if you believe in it and try to live by it, you will always be, in some ways — the only ways that matter — the youngest, freshest, most energetic rebel on the block.

So here’s the point, Jeremy:

Our culture tells a lot of lies about sex. Your teacher is one of the liars.

There’s plenty of ignorance on the subject. Plenty of confusion. But it’s the lies I hate. The lies that come from people who know better. The people who have made mistakes and now encourage others to make them, too.

You could ask any married person who slept with other people before meeting their spouse (I wouldn’t recommend actually asking this, I’m just trying to illustrate a point here): are you happy about it? Are you glad that you gave yourself to someone other than the person you now love eternally? If you could go back to those times, would you stop yourself?

Was it worth it?

Really, was it worth it?

Do you wish you could say that your spouse is the only person who has experienced these intimate, sacred moments with you? Are you proud that there are other men or women in the world who have seen this side of you? Are you satisfied that what you give to your spouse is now secondhand?

If they tell you they feel happy or neutral about the fact that they gave themselves to someone other than their spouse, you’re dealing with someone in a very dysfunctional marriage. Any honest person in a healthy relationship would tell you they’d erase those moments from their lives if they could. They can’t, of course. Nobody can. We can’t live in the past and harp on our mistakes, but this all leads to an important point: the myth of “casual sex” persists, even though many of us — millions and millions — have seen it for what it is. Marriage as an institution is in rough shape, but people still do get married in this country. That means millions have had to look at their spouse and say — probably silently in their own heads, deep in their subconscious — “I have nothing new to give to you.”

It’s a tragedy, really. It’s a shame. You deal with it and you move on, but “casual sex” has taken its chunk and you’ll never get it back.

Yet few will speak against the predators and perverts in media, Hollywood, and Academia who promote this “casual sex” deception. There should be armies of people opposing it, but instead there is only a small, fringe group of cultural insurgents; the ones we point and laugh at and accuse of having a “boring” and “outdated” view of sexuality.

This is another lie. Casual sex proponents are the ones who have turned sex into something trivial, banal, utilitarian, pointless, joyless, one-dimensional, lifeless, lonely, and disappointing. How could the ones who hold it as sacred also be the ones who make it “boring”? No, it’s mainstream culture that’s made sex boring. It’s mainstream culture that is, in fact, afraid of sex. That’s why we spend so much energy shielding ourselves from every natural aspect of it, other than the physical sensation itself.

And the ones who believe it to be so much more than that are the ones who make it “boring”? THEY are the ones who are afraid of it? They embrace all of it, every part of it, and they are the ones who “hate sex”?

Ridiculous. Casual sex is a lie. It’s a lie that rests on lies and breeds lies and turns people into liars.

We’re told that we are sexually “liberated” if we throw ourselves at strangers and give ourselves over to people who couldn’t possibly care less about us. This is yet another lie. If modern attitudes about sex have “liberated” us, what, precisely, have we been freed from? Security? Commitment? Trust? What, we’ve broken the Shackles of Purity and Love and run gleefully into the Meadows of Pornography and Herpes? Because that’s all that our sexual liberation has wrought. A lot of confusion, a lot of porn, a lot of disease, a lot of emotionally desperate, psychologically battered, spiritually broken people wandering around, searching for another stranger who’s willing to go in for a few more rounds of sterile, shallow, pointless sex.

Let freedom ring, right?

Libertas, madam Health Teacher!

It’s quite interesting, though. Casual sex has liberated us, yet casual sex produces so many regrets. The landscape is rife with people who have felt the sting of our “hook-up culture.” But where are the people who regret abstinence and monogamy? Sure, some people, while married, think they regret having not “played the field.” Then they play it. And then they learn what regret really feels like.

Even the term “casual sex” is insane. It’s an oxymoron. Denim is casual. Restaurants can be casual. Casual: without serious intention, careless or offhand, informal. A high-five is casual. Sex can only be viewed in this same vein once we have dehumanized ourselves enough to see human sexuality as something no more significant than a pair of jean shorts.

Describing sex as “casual” is like describing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel as a “nice little doodle.” That’s what I can’t stand — the people who diminish and cheapen sex are the ones who get to pass themselves off as “sexually enlightened.”

It doesn’t surprise me that your crackpot health teacher pulled out the “sexual expression” line. She teaches in our schools yet she doesn’t even understand the words she speaks. To “express” means to SAY something. It means you are indicating something of meaning. When you “express yourself” you are conveying a message about your thoughts, feelings, and character. So shouldn’t we, rather than encouraging sexual expression for the sake of it, encourage MEANINGFUL and POSITIVE sexual expression? In the context of commitment and loyalty, sex expresses something. It expresses: “I love you. I give myself to you.” But what does casual sex express? “Use me and I’ll use you.”

That’s an expression, alright. An awfully sad, pitiful expression. You’re right to have no interest in going down this road.

It sounds like you want to express a different message: self-respect and maturity; honesty and integrity; patience.

And, when the time comes, you’ll express love. Then, you’ll be able to say that you only ever expressed this sort of love to the one person who deserves it. And you’ll both be better for it.

So, in summation, your health teacher is full of it.

You’re on the right path. You’re a rebel. Keep going.

Thanks for writing,



Find me on Facebook.
Twitter: @MattWalshRadio

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2,930 Responses to Abstinence is unrealistic and old fashioned

  1. Anna says:

    This is a great article!! Love it!!!

  2. molly says:

    Have sex when you want, married or not, follow your beliefs. But I am offended you say I am dishonest or delusional, or my marriage is “dysfuctional” if I don’t regret past sexual relationships that were before my marriage. Those people were important to me, I think fondly of them, and they all taught me things about myself and what I wanted from life. I had very loving committed relationships with most of the people I was sexually involved in, and in some cases, it was a good thing we did have sex—if we had waited until marriage then we would have discovered that we were stuck in a marriage with no chemistry. And say what you want, YOU are delusional if you don’t think a healthy sexual attraction is important to a marriage.

    • Rob says:

      “YOU are delusional if you don’t think a healthy sexual attraction is important to a marriage.”

      Molly- he didn’t say that. Good grief. You couldn’t have taken him more out of context had you tried.

      • Molly says:

        “If they tell you they feel happy or neutral about the fact that they gave themselves to someone other than their spouse, you’re dealing with someone in a very dysfunctional marriage. Any honest person in a healthy relationship would tell you they’d erase those moments from their lives if they could”

        There’s my context.

      • Steve says:


        Molly did not by any means communicate that she thinks Matt said, “YOU are delusional if you don’t think a healthy sexual attraction is important to a marriage.” If you take her statements in context, you’ll notice that line was directed at the author.


        I couldn’t agree with you more, based on this post from Matt I am either not honest, or in a dysfunctional marriage. My wife and I agree we are neither of those things.

        • Yeah, and it’s far from the silliest thing there is on this reprehensible blog. I was directed here by a friend and was genuinely interested – I’m always up for debate and discussion of different views, but I’ve looked around this blog a bit and all I see is polemic, gargantuan logical fallacies, and crass moralising. Everything I’ve looked at has been shot through with logical errors from start to finish and it all seems like nothing more than ranting and raving and personally attacking anyone who doesn’t think that forcing other people to follow your personal feelings is a good idea. I’ve seen some poor quality stuff in my time but this bloke takes the biscuit. Someone should tell him that he’s making Christianity look stupid.

    • Isaac says:

      A couple of things:
      1. Anything you might possibly need to learn about yourself over the course of your life, you can learn without having sex with things. You can also learn all of the valuable and useful information necessary for loving a person without having sex with them. I mean sure, you wouldn’t buy a car without driving it first, because driving is the only real use for a car. But people and relationships don’t exist primarily as receptacles for our sex. At best, that’s just part of, and an expression of, love, not the whole point.
      2. You cannot, by definition, have had a “very committed” relationship with someone you’ve already discarded. At least not without being very creative with the word “committed.”

    • Molly, I’d say you’re the one who is delusional if you think chemistry is the most important or only thing there is to a successful marriage. Let’s face it passion can and all too often does wear off…then where does that leave a couple? In the cheating zone? or perennially frustrated? If a couple doesn’t have more of a foundation than sexual attraction, then that marriage is doomed to deep unhappiness and have the very real chance of breaking up. I know. Sadly, I speak from experience on that one.

  3. Caitlin says:

    You basically voiced my unspoken thoughts on the matter! I LOVE this article!

  4. Paul says:

    This article is, at the very least, borderline offensive. The teacher isn’t right, if the scenario went down as it is told, but neither are you. Abstinence has no place in schools. It doesn’t work. Young people do not listen to it. Safe sex education has proven to be much more effective in preventing teen pregnancy and teen STIs.

    • Tim Hartman says:

      Sorry Paul. You have no idea what you are talking about. Save your righteous indignation for someone who doesn’t have a clue.

      • Austin says:

        Actually, assuming Paul is saying “Abstinence-ONLY education doesn’t work.” he’s spot on.

        Teaching that abstinence as an option is fine (in fact, I’d say that any sex education program that doesn’t teach that is reckless). After all, the only way to COMPLETELY guarantee no pregnancy/STDs. But abstinence ONLY sex education isn’t sex education at all.

        As has already been said, Abstinence-only sex education is like a drivers ed course that teaches you that you should never drive.

      • Paul says:

        I’m sorry, but you are wrong. Teaching abstinence does not delay the onset of sexual activity. http://www.gse.upenn.edu/node/477

        • Mike says:

          But they are not teaching abstinence of any kind. There’s a big difference between abstinence only, abstinence as an option or a goal, and casting it as an outdated fantasy that can not be adhered to by modern teenagers.

          I agree that abstinence-only doesn’t work. But this teacher cast it off entirely and tried to make any kid who thought about it feel dumb and unnatural. There is no excuse for that.

    • Brent says:

      “It doesn’t work” – you mean it’s not the only 100% effective way to prevent early pregnancy and transmission of STIs? I believe it “works” just fine.
      To say that young people do not listen to it is also narrowed thinking. There are plenty of young people that are happy to hear that they are not stupid for NOT wanting to have sex yet. Abstinence should be presented to students as an option, along with positive safe sex messages and allow them to choose their path. Dismissing it out of hand is a mistake.

      • T says:

        Paul, you actually said, “Abstinence has no place in our schools.” At least consider retracting that sentence. You probably many something else, right?

        • Austin says:

          I have to believe he was saying that abstinence-only education has no place. I cannot imagine ANYONE taking the position that abstinence has no place in schools… But maybe he actually IS the full-blown kook you guys are making him out to be…

    • Isaac says:

      I’m pretty sure that abstinence works fine every single time it’s actually tried. This young person listened to it, and thanks God every day that he did.

      Also, the point of the article wasn’t even that abstinence should be taught in schools. I’m not as cynical as you are about the intelligence and receptiveness students, but I have no doubt that sex education works better than abstinence at preventing STDs in young people who are already determined to have sex. For the rest of them, abstinence is proven to result in better relationships, marriages, families, and incidentally, the more utilitarian things you mentioned as well (STD and teen-pregnancy prevention.) That’s the sociology talking. And so MORE students would be BETTER off if, at the very least, the facts of abstinence were presented alongside safe-sex information in schools.

    • Nick says:

      Paul, I listened to it many years ago. It did work. Also, as a sexual health teacher I can tell you that condoms are less effective at preventing infections & pregnancy than abstinence. Since science appears to be foreign to you let me explain it this way: if you wear gloves when you try to colour inside the lines you stand a greater chance of marking up your hands than you would if you never picked up a marker. Was that simple enough to understand for you?

    • Andrew Franklin says:

      Hey Paul, I grew up overseas in another culture and moved here for college, so I guess I’m kind of an outsider looking in. So, to give you credit, safe sex education may be more effective in preventing teen pregnancy and teen STIs right now, but the point that Matt is making is that the way that this culture views sex as “casual” is what is causing all of the teen sex to begin with.

      We’re looking at a short term verses long term solution here. Abstinence has every right to be taught, and should be emphasized whenever possible because there are thousand of broken hearts and thousands of very messed up people because schools and parents and Hollywood and the western culture as a whole is teaching kids that sex is ‘casual’ and when you don’t even try to teach abstinence you take that one step further to teach them that its EXPECTED of them. So handing them a condom might make you feel like you’re doing a good thing, but in reality you are fanning the flames of the fires that threatens to consume this nation.

      I can’t tell you how much my heart breaks when I meet teen after teen and even adults who have been destroyed by this sex culture, people who have been lied to, cheated on, and even bought because its hammered into every young guy’s head that there must be something wrong with them if they don’t try to sleep with half the girls they meet; and every young girl is taught not to respect themselves, but to doll themselves up and show some skin to gain all the wrong kind of attention, to be ‘preyed’ on just because if they don’t, then somethings wrong with them too.

      If you think I’m wrong, then I challenge you, take a closer look at the people around you, all the guys visually undressing every pretty girl that walks by like they’re cattle or something, and if that’s not enough to convince you, go and work with teens at a summer camp or somewhere where you really get to spend time investing in their lives, cause when they open up their hearts to you you’ll see how broken, sick, and infected this culture has become.

    • Sadie says:

      Abstinence does work. I am 21 and still a virgin and look I was never a pregnant teen and I have no STDs. It doesn’t work because it isn’t taught. It is actually taught against. That was a big point in his article.

    • Curtis says:

      The question becomes “why does abstinence not work?” There’s several reasons it won’t work in schools, considering the deteriorating state of the family unit, youth wanting to feel accepted by people who’s opinions shouldn’t even matter as they don’t get the acceptance they need at home, lack of moral teaching and “feel good” ideology taking its place, the list goes on. Premarital sex isn’t the problem, it’s the symptom of a sickness that’s infected society.

    • Curtis says:

      Unfortunately, truth is offensive. People just need to get over it.

      • Austin says:

        Unfortunately this isn’t truth. It’s just a poorly formed opinion, based on fear of punishment from a sky wizard.

        • kuabci says:

          Fortunately, this isn’t truth. It’s just a poorly formed opinion, based on an insanely overinflated ego and fear of actually having to admit you might actually be wrong.

        • Curtis says:

          Wait, so truth is dependent on what you want it to be? I’d like to see that hold up in a scientific community. Science itself relies on the notion that there are predefined absolutes that exist regardless of whether we believe them or not. And the fact you keep using the same “sky wizard” argument is showing a stifled creativity. You got any new material or do you just want to repeat yourself over and over again as if it’s actually convincing?

        • Austin says:

          I’ve spent a lifetime of being repetitiously beat over the head with talk of your sky wizard, I’m just turning the tables.

          Truth vs opinion. Truth is objective. Opinion is subjective. The idea that sex without marriage (a totally made-up institution is somehow inherently bad is ABSOLUTELY subjective, without a shred of proof.

        • Curtis says:

          Unfortunately, that’s irrelevant to the comment you made. I said that “truth offends” and you rejected that notion. How is truth not offensive? Every single thing that could be said will offend somebody, somewhere. If what is said is true, then as I stated, the truth is offensive. When you initially replied, you did so by stating the notion that truth is NOT offensive. In what sound philosophical sense is it possible for truth to be non-offensive? I’m asking you about your specific words and the claims they imply.

        • Austin says:

          What I said was that this blog entry is not the truth, idiot.

          By your standard, EVERYTHING is “offensive”. Just because it’s offensive doesn’t make it true.

        • Curtis says:

          Ooooh namecalling now. What fun! I never said “it’s true because it’s offensive,” so namecalling might not be a good defense for you. What I said was that truth will be offensive to some. Just because it offends you doesn’t make it untrue. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that marriage as a cornerstone of society, is garbage and trivial, I’d be more inclined to believe you. However, I see the opposite happening. Marriage in the modern world is being turned into something trivial through rampant divorces, anybody marrying anyone they want for whatever reason they want, etc. And is the world improving as a result? If you think it is, enjoy your crumbling society. I believe in cause and effect. I see the effect of corrupt politics from every side, broken households, prisons filled with people who simply wish they had a dad to discipline them as a child. These things have a cause, part of which traces to the culture poison of “marriage and family don’t matter,” “live how you want,” and “believe in anything you want (read with subtext, regardless of whether it’s true).” Society has rejected moral absolutes, and society looks like crap. Coincidence? Probably not.

        • Austin says:

          I don’t think you understand how this works. People making truth claims are the ones responsible to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” their claims. You’re the one saying that sex without marriage is always bad. Prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Otherwise, you’re just talking nonsense. I never said marriage is a bad thing, so you’re still slaying a strawman. I just said that your claim that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and harmful is false. Also the idea that sex within a marriage is always good/moral/proper is another absurdity. Prove your claims. If you can’t prove your truth claims, then you’re the one who’s failed the argument, because the onus is on the one making the claim to prove it. Not on others to disprove it.

        • Curtis says:

          Can you prove that it’s good any more than I can prove that it’s bad? We’re both making claims, but you’re pretending that you’re not making truth claims.

  5. Rob says:

    Nice article. As a now 40 year old man who dated a good bit in high school and college (1 serious 2 year long relationship in high school, and one serious 1 year long relationship while in college) but didn’t have sex until I married my wife (married 15+ years now) – I am so glad I waited. I’m so glad I waited to have sex with one woman- my wife. Yes, she waited too- and she had several long term relationships in college. It was so worth it – in so many, many ways.

  6. Cristy says:

    I was brought up being taught to wait for sex until marriage. When so many of my teenage friends were sexually active at age 15 I knew then, even with their constant asking when I was going to take the big plunge, that I was not ready. Unfortunately at the age of 21 I decided to give my purity to someone I thought I loved and who loved me. Now married to my wonderful husband who kept himself pure, I regret with all my heart that I didn’t not save myself for this wonderful man that God has given me. I cannot give to him the one gift you can only give to one person. He knew before we were married about my past but his complete acceptance and love can never take away the regret that I feel. I wish there were more teenagers out there Jeremy who felt like you. Stay strong!

    2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

  7. McKenzie says:

    What gets me is that this Jeremy is expressing the same sort of response that I keep seeing from the gay and lesbian community. So many of us Christians are accused of Bible thumping and bullying homosexual kids and are regularly blamed for those kids’ emotional problems, and yet I don’t see how what this teacher (and so many like her) is doing is any different. She is telling Jeremy that there is something wrong with him because he wants to wait for marriage to have sex. Isn’t that what we are supposedly telling all the gay kids? And do you see anyone beating her over the head for it? If the gay rights activists are going to whine about us respecting homosexuals and their beliefs, then they should have the decency to return the favor and respect the opinions and beliefs of people like Jeremy.

    • Pamela says:

      Whoa! First off thus has NOTHING to do with gay kids or gay lesbian right. It’s only people such as you who are trying to make it into being about homosexuals. Did you even read Matt’s answer to Jeremy? He did speak out against the teacher and her message. He did not speak out against sex education. Only against her saying casual sex is okay and that sustaining from having sex is wrong. And I’m sure that uf the parents and school board had been aware of her teaching this they would have put a stop to it. And most of us have tried to keep this as the subject of the blog above yet twits such as yourself keep trying to bring homosexuality into it and off the actual subject. So please, any future comments keep to th he subject actually being discussed and keep your bigoted opinions on homosexuality out of it.

      • Curtis says:

        1) You should realize that when you call somebody a bigot, you reject the notion that they have beliefs different from your own and in turn become a bigot. Be careful about that.
        2) Read carefully: The person you replied to was talking about how one group treats another. Group A demands that Group B treats each other with respect, dignity and understanding but doesn’t offer Group B that same treatment they want. I’ve observed this trend with some (not all but some) homosexual groups, feminist groups, environmentalists, even other religious groups like some Muslims and the Westboro Baptists. I repeat, he did not make this about homosexuals. He made this discussion about a broken ideology that demands to be respected and idolized while offering no respect for anyone who might disagree. They demand tolerance but punish anything and everything that opposes them. They expect to be heard but will hear nobody else.

        • Mikayla says:

          Thank you thank you thank you!! I feel this way so often. I believe everyone has free choice. But if I speak my beliefs it’s a horrible thing. Just like you speak yours, I will speak mine. I agree Curtis 🙂

  8. Oliver C says:

    You can say this article is correct, you can say its wrong that’s what all these comments state, but the fact is who are you to judge anyone based on their decisions? Sex is a glorious thing, It’s sensual loving, and it’s the closest you will ever get to anyone. Yes when I get married I will probably love having sex with the person that I marry but How can you say that I have to regret my past in order for it to be a good marriage. You say that anyone who wouldn’t go back and take back all the people they slept with is in a dysfunctional marriage, but that’s messed up. Really you’re gonna take one tiny fact about someone you know nothing about and make one of the biggest judgements ever. Jeremy if you read this comment, which I hope you do, what you are doing is Inspirational, Courageous and all of that definitely. Yes it’s against the social norm, but if it’s what you want to do then do it. But honestly don’t let this guy tell you that is what is right! There is no right, yes there are laws in this world but there is NO RIGHT to anything especially when it comes to Opinion based subjects. I’ll tell you honestly I love every girl that I have ever slept with, I was in a relationship at the same time of course. But that’s my decision, I think that sexual attraction is a huge part of a relationship but you may not think that way. THAT”S FINE! And for you to take advice from someone who calls your sex ed teacher an idiot, I hope you don’t. Your teacher is only going off the basis of over 75% of the teenagers in this country. To compare them educating their students on Safe sex to Safe Drunk Driving is terrible. One act is wonderful and gives life to some of the most beautiful people in this world including You, Me, and the writer of the above article. I’m not from a relationship, my mother wasn’t married and I am a wonderfully talented person who knows a lot more than a normal person my age. And the other is one of the worst actions that anyone in this country could do. That comment alone is a basic example of why you should never follow this writer again. Only the deepest sympathy to the writer of this article by the way because I can’t wait for your retort to my above comment because I’d like to hear what you’ve got to say to that.

    I am not ABSTINENT, have not been since I was 17, and dang it I am proud of it but Jeremy you are and You should be dang proud of it too!

    • Curtis says:

      Can you prove that it’s a matter of opinion, and that facts of mental, emotional and physical health bear no consequence on one’s sexual choices?

      • Austin says:

        Can you prove that sex outside of marriage is mentally and emotionally damaging to all who engage in it?

        Can you prove that sex within marriage bears to mental, emotional, or physical health consequences?

        More false dilemmas!

        • Curtis says:

          When unable to answer a question, ask more, is your apparent tactic. Go ahead, ask if I can prove the damages it causes, when no matter what I tell you about my life experiences and those of numerous peers and elders who did the same, you’ll just write it off since ignoring the actual events in other people’s lives would justify everything you think and do. Just tell me this and answer honestly: Do you believe what you do because you like everything about it? Cuz if that’s the case, you’re probably believing a lot of lies. Truth doesn’t care if we like it or not, Truth is Truth despite our feelings.

        • Austin says:

          I’m merely illustrating the point, you can ask absurd questions about proof of a negative, but the fact is, there’s no proving a negative.

          You have no proof of YOUR claims, yet you demand proof of other claims. Hypocrite much?

    • notsocrazy says:

      “There is no right!” ? Really? Are you sure about that? Are you saying that there is no such thing as morality? Would you say, in fact, that rape is wrong, and helping the poor is right? Or do neither of those things have moral value?

      • Austin says:

        Certainly there is such thing as morality. Who said there’s no such thing as morality?

        Just that as long as both parties are consenting adults, there’s nothing immoral about it.

        You people are REALLY good at cooking up false dichotomies, but the fact remains. Whether or not you and your partner choose to have sex before marriage is NOT a moral dilemma. Rape, sex with a minor, etc, etc. All of those would be immoral. Sex with another consenting adult, regardless of whether you get married first, is NOT a moral question of morality.

        • Curtis says:

          According to what credible, absolute knowledge is your morality more valid than waiting until marriage?

        • Austin says:

          “Credible absolute knowledge”? What is that even supposed to mean?

          In order to claim morality, you have to be able to articulate why doing something differently would be immoral. If it doesn’t harm another person against their will, you can’t reasonable claim it’s immoral.

          As long as two consenting adults are doing it, it’s not harming anybody against their will, and is, therefore, not immoral. Unless you can articulate otherwise, you have no argument.

          The burden of proof is on YOU to prove why it’s IMMORAL. Because if it’s not provably immoral, then it’s perfectly moral.

        • Curtis says:

          Simple as this: Just because people think that it doesn’t hurt them, in that given moment, in that instant, does NOT mean that long term damage will not be done. For example, getting involved in an orgy full of consenting adults would probably feel pretty good. However, exposure to so many people, who’s backgrounds you may not know, is a high risk for infections that even the carrier may not have known they had. Congratulations, you consented to feeling good, now here’s a disease you have to live with. Now who’s going to pay for the medical treatment of the disease? either the individual who’s infected, an insurance company who’s premiums raise and lower based on what they need to be paying for, or some government program funded by my tax dollars. Well, if that latter situation is what it is, now I am paying for other people’s behavior. How is that moral OR fair?

        • Angie says:

          Austin, you do know where babies come from, I presume, and so where sex is concerned it doesn’t just concern 2 consenting adults, a 3rd life is potentially directly affected. No birth control works 100% of the time. STIs also can lead to fertility problems so every additional sexual partner you have potentially could hurt your chances of having children with the person you decide to be with forever, meaning that person you love also may miss out on the chance to have children with you. Sex is not just the power to have fun, it is the power to create HUMAN LIFE. That is why it is a moral issue.

        • Austin says:

          Hypothetical “possible” people don’t get to make that determination. There are plenty of married people who shouldn’t be having children either, so again, marriage is not a reasonable determining factor for whether or not people should be allowed to have sex.

        • Curtis says:

          The overbearing question, however, is very simple. What gives you, a person as broken and fallen as the next, any right to make a claim about what shows a person to be capable of being in a sexual relationship? The difference between a Christian who says to wait until marriage and you is this: The Christian roots their belief and their claim in something above the will of us simple minded, selfish and broken mortals. To say all it takes is two consenting adults is to state a moral absolute, but on what authority outside of your own wants is this based? Christians will tell you that their Creator set a standard for them to benefit them. You, on the other hand, set a standard for yourself that lets you do what you want, and damn the consequences.

        • Austin says:

          I’m NOT the one trying to make determinations about which people should be able to have sex. YOU are. I’m saying consenting adults can make their own decisions.

          You’re the one who presumes to tell everybody else how to run their lives. That’s a whole lot of audacity. Especially when you’re getting your direction from an imaginary sky wizard and the voices in your head. 😉

        • Curtis says:

          You’re saying all it takes is two consenting adults, while simultaneously conveying the hidden message “damn the consequences,” as I’ve already mentioned. That IS making a claim about who can do it, but instead of admitting that you just want to yell at someone else for disagreeing with you. And while we’re on the topic of an “imaginary sky wizard,” you’ve now added in a claim about what truth and reality actually is. Can you back up this claim that there is no God, and IF there is indeed no God, what makes your morality any more valid than mine if we’ve both just made it up? Are you better than me that you get to decide what people SHOULD believe and I can’t? Because when you ridicule someone’s beliefs or make claims that my morality is garbage, that’s exactly what you’re doing. What gives you the authority to do this?

        • Austin says:

          I never said “damn the consequences”. You’re inventing things. The consequences will be for those consenting adults to bear. Their choices, their lives, their consequences to deal with. The only people who have any business making those choices are the adults. Not you, not your religion, not the government, not your magic sky wizard.

          You’re welcome to believe in whatever you want, including fairy tales. You’re an adult, you can believe in whatever you want. You’re an adult, you can let those believes guide YOUR actions.

          If you don’t believe should have sex before marriage, then DON’T. I’m not going to tell you you should. That’s up to you. Just don’t try and force your beliefs on others, and try to run their lives for them.

          Do you seriously not see the difference between your approach and mine? I’m saying adults should be allowed to do and believe what they want, as long as they don’t hurt other people.

          You’re the one who is saying that YOUR beliefs allow you to tell everybody else how to run their own lives.

        • Curtis says:

          Ok, so you intend that Government shouldn’t bear the consequences, meaning we should do away with welfare and benefits to single moms? (again I remind you that Government money comes from MY paycheck, meaning if Government pays for the consequences of their actions, I pay for it too) You might not have SAID “damn the consequences” yourself, but it’s largely implied by your words. That’s your problem here. You’re saying words without taking the time to think of the subtext that comes with them. Certain ideas lead to certain ends. I’m just taking your words, and the ideas that stem from them, to their logical conclusion.

        • Austin says:

          Single moms happen even with married couples. Most of the single moms I know actually WERE married when they got pregnant. You’re creating false dilemmas. I support welfare reforms. You’re not the only person paying taxes.

          The problem is that government is taking your tax money in the first place. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Them stealing your money, and then using that money to tell other people how to run their lives is the problem.

          The discussion shouldn’t be over what ways to run other people’s lives, it should be about stopping the theft in the first place.

          My position has CONSISTENTLY been that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, and deal with the consequences of said actions, for better or worse. The world doesn’t need you, or anybody else, to run everybody’s lives for them.

        • kuabci says:

          Wait wait wait… sooo you’re talking about right and wrong now? (Not to mention talking in total circles, barely relevant anymore.) But who are YOU to decide what’s right and what’s wrong? Isn’t it all relative?… And who are YOU to decide how everyone should run their lives (you’re certainly trying to tell a lot of people here what to do and how to do it), while at the same time insisting that they don’t need anyone to tell them how to run their own lives? Don’t look now, but your hypocrisy is showing. 😉 😉 😉

        • Austin says:

          Nope, once again, my position is totally consistent. What I’ve said from the beginning is that there’s no justification for interfering with what two consenting adults want to do.

          Taking something from somebody by force isn’t two consenting adults. I’m telling you that you have no right to tell other people how to run their lives, provided they’re doing anything to another person against their will.

          Government (or anybody else) taking money or property, through violence and/or threat thereof doesn’t fit the bill of “two consenting adults” now, does it?

          Try again. You’re getting colder…

        • Curtis says:

          Ok, so I’m not the only one noticing the double talk. Thank you.

        • Curtis says:

          You seem to keep thinking I want to run people’s lives. I’m not. I’m simply stating that there must be moral absolutes, decided OUTSIDE of your opinion AND mine. I’m willing to admit that I can’t decide what’s moral and what’s not, but in your refusal to admit that you’re being quite dishonest about what you’re actually saying: You’re trying to declare what’s moral while telling me I cannot declare what’s moral. Which brings us full circle to what I asked you several posts ago: What makes your morality more valid than mine that you can say it’s better than my moral code? You can shout all you want about “consent consent consent” but just because people agree to something doesn’t make it GOOD. I’m talking about encouraging people to do what is good and right, not filling up a petty desire for their own gratification. And you’re saying that most of the single mothers “you know” came from married families? Well guess what. Your experience doesn’t equal blatant statistics. Out of wedlock births in America have rocketed upwards in recent decades, and your personal experience in your tiny, insignificant social circle doesn’t change that fact.

          Point being: You want to make claims about what’s moral? Do so with something other than your opinion. That’s all you have to tell me that I’m wrong. At least believing in what you call a magical sky wizard admits that we humans are flawed, selfish creatures who need redemption. Reject that notion all you want, but society is crumbling, and at the same time society is rejecting this “magical sky wizard.” I don’t know if you believe in cause and effect, as your posts seem to go both ways, but you really need to think about this. Do you believe what you believe because you LIKE how it is? If that’s true, you’re probably believing lies. I’m not a Christian because I like everything it says. I believe in it because it makes sense compared to your double talk and condescending attitude. You seem to want to preach tolerance and peace, but when it comes time to accept someone’s beliefs outside of your own, all you can think is “opression” and “bigotry.” Unfortunately, such sentiments are a double edged sword. I’m willing to admit that there IS absolute truth and morality that will remain true whether I like it or not. You on the other hand want reality to conform to your opinions and desires, and anyone who suggests otherwise is intolerant, so you turn around and treat them with less tolerance than you claim they have. I hope your opinions keep you warm when truth comes crashing down, because I can guarantee you that whatever IS true, whether it’s what I believe or not, it will hurt when you realize it.

        • Austin says:

          TL:DR. Bottom line is, the difference between you and me is that you DO want your opinions to run other people’s lives. My opinion is to let people run their own lives, because you can’t mandate ‘morality’. Especially when it’s something as subjective as whether or not you need to get a piece of paper from the government before you’re allowed to have sex.

          Did you know that the F word actually stands for “Fornicating Under Consent of the King?” That’s where the word came from. We don’t like in that world anymore (Thank the magical sky wizard!).

          Adults don’t need the consent of anybody but each other in order to engage in sexual activities of their choosing.

          It wasn’t too long ago that your type were keeping oral sex illegal… Hell, it still IS technically illegal in several states!

        • Curtis says:

          Don’t assume that legality equals morality.

        • Curtis says:

          Side note: You said you support welfare reforms. Sorry, we don’t agree on this. I support NO welfare. ANY welfare basically says that my money can be taken and given to whoever the almighty government declares more needing/deserving. You’re saying you think it’s wrong that government takes my money to redistribute it, which I agree with, but again the question arises: WHY is it wrong? I believe it’s wrong because I work for what I earn to support myself, and The Bible teaches that men and women who are productive will be blessed. What, outside of your own personally crafted opinion and ideology makes you believe you’re right? After all, if we’re talking “absolutes” it has to come from something outside of the self, since absolutes must be defined whether we like it or not. However, if we’re talking relativism, there IS no right or wrong outside of “might makes right.”

        • kuabci says:

          No no, you’re absolutely making moral determinations for everyone else, YOU are making judgment calls for every consenting adult and telling them how they should run their lives.

          And make no mistake, you’re definitely taking directions from an outside source (or, “voices in your head” as you oh so respectfully put it). The difference is that your wizard doesn’t live in the sky. *surprised face* *smiley face* *winky face* (As if an emoticon makes it all better. You can hardly stand your own cleverness, can you?)

        • Randy says:

          I would toss this in, having followed this thread along for nearly 2 months (!) now, and very interested in the various angles and debate, such as it is. Marriage is not accepted by all, of course, but it is presented by many throughout history as perhaps the best we can do as an answer for the sexual problems that plague mankind. If you think I am just speaking aimlessly, well, I’m afraid I cannot convince you otherwise. But we all have the capacity to ask the classical “summum bonum” type questions — greatest good or in this case, what is truly Good with regard to sexual relationality and, closely related, what best seems to reflect what we can discern after observing centuries of commonalities in this behaviour. Marriage has never been universally scoffed at, but it has certainly fallen on hard times in various times and places and degree — not because folks said it was bad, I would submit. No one really suggested that sincerely. But because, well, it is just plain hard and goes against what we want so badly, aka “freedom” in these matters. And so begins the debate afresh. The journalist GK Chesterton waged it in public prominent papers in his day and of course it is a common question among all age groups and times: “Are there any legitimate ‘rules’ regarding sexuality?” That is the question, of course. And I am just trying to say that marriage has been presented variously throughout history in virtually every culture as the best answer to which we can aspire if we are to reach beyond our grasp and be more than we know our lesser selves would call us to be.
          I do not mind being scoffed at as I believe I am merely attempting to describe what is actually true.
          [By marriage I mean sexual exclusivity with a sexuality complementary spouse, sanctioned and supported meaningfully by the community, and some reasonable approximation of sexual abstinence until marriage, all with the intrinsic ethos of promoting family as fundamental to human strength and continuance.]

        • Austin says:

          Curtis, you don’t know what my idea of “Welfare reform” consists of, so it’s a bit silly that you assume my ideas are wrong. You’re doing your best to disagree with whatever I say.

          I think that “Welfare” should be based on a voluntary system where people give to those in need, because it’s the right and kind thing to do. Not because that money is taken through violent aggression of a 3rd party.

          I really think you ought to read about the non-aggression principle, and you’ll be able to understand a moral code that doesn’t rely on an outside directive. Violent aggression against, or theft of property of, another human is inherently immoral.

          If you’re not preventing somebody from aggressing against another person, you aren’t pushing for morality, you’re pushing for your religious ideas. Which is another form of violent aggression, which is inherently illegitimate.

        • Curtis says:

          Again, you avoid the question. You’re saying something is inherently immoral, but cannot tell me WHY it is immoral. Who says it’s immoral? Humans? Humans approve of a lot of questionable things as it is, so why should I trust some person to decide that? Get back to the question and tell me why this is immoral and what gives you the authority to claim it so. Without some kind of authority, you actually ARE making a claim about running people’s lives. If someone wants to steal, who are you to tell them they can’t? Are you going to tell me that slave ownership is also moral if it’s not violent? What if someone breaks into your house and holds your family at gunpoint? Do you respond with your moral-high-ground of non-aggression while your loved ones are shot? If so, then have fun living in your dream world.

          And congratulations, you’re now using the words charity and welfare interchangibly. I typically keep in mind to keep words separate as they often mean different things, but if you want to make things the same for the sake of argument, go ahead.

  9. Laur says:

    Thank you for everything you say to Jeremy! I think you are right on the mark. It is possible to wait until marriage no matter what anyone says. It is possible to have meaningful, long lasting relationships without sex. I’ve been married over 11 years now, not really all that long, but we were each other’s first. We were so grateful to have waited for each other and do not have a stale relationship. As a secondary teacher, I see so many kids, girls especially, who suffer psychologically after sex with their boyfriend of the moment. It is like they are creating a “horcrux” (like Harry Potter’s Lord Voldemort) each time they give themselves to another boy. They are giving another piece of their soul to someone else, breaking it into so many pieces. Sex is too intimate to be shared with just anyone, it is becoming “one flesh” with the other person.

  10. Kristin says:

    So, I guess everyone has their own opinion. I was raised that you should wait for marriage. I didn’t. I don’t regret it and I certainly don’t appreciate someone making the assumption that I regret it now. But, it is your opinion and you can blog about what you want. My opinion is that some people who choose to wait, may be proposed to by someone one who really just wants to finally have sex. You see a lot of religious people marrying off really young and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s because their boyfriends are so horny, they can’t wait any longer, they then propose to the girl they’ve been dating for a few months/ a year. Not necessarily long enough to truly know that person you supposedly want to spend the rest of your life with, in my opinion.

    • Susan says:

      I keep seeing that on this blog, that people get married “just to have sex.” I grew up in a Christian community and I rarely ever saw that. Maybe it does happen occasionally, but I think people here are exaggerating it because it fits their mindset that abstinence is somehow a dangerous thing. Yes, religious people do tend to marry younger, but that is different than doing it “just to have sex.”

  11. Maria says:

    If you can’t figure out if you’re attracted to someone without dropping your pants and rockin the head-board, I feel so sad for you. I have had 3 or 4 serious relationships and the ones that made me the happiest were the ones that sex played only a tiny part in the whole relationship. On the flip side, I’ve ended relationships almost soley based on the fact I felt very used for sex by my boyfriend at the time. Sex is meant to be in the bounds of marriage, and even if you don’t believe that, why would you wanna risk the chance of pregnancy with someone who will most likely leave you to raise a baby on your own? Not to mention STDs, which WILL change your life. It’s the most vunerable thing 2 people can do, why do it with someone who couldn’t care less about you?

    • Lila says:

      I’m pretty sure STI’s (that’s what they are called you know) in most scenarios WON’T change your life. For most STI’s a bout of medication comparable to the meds you get for strep throat will clear it up. I had Chlamydia at 18 and it did not negatively impact my life in any way. In fact, I consider it a positive thing! How else would I know my fiance was sleeping around when he gave zero indication?

      • kuabci says:

        Not to aggravate a touchy issue, but if you and your fiancé had both been waiting until marriage, there’s no way *either* of you would have been infected with a disease, and he also wouldn’t have been sleeping around. It’s about a total cultural mindset, really.

      • kuabci says:

        Not to aggravate a touchy issue, but if you and your fiancé had both been waiting until marriage, there’s no way *either* of you would have been infected with a disease, and he also wouldn’t have been sleeping around. It’s about a total cultural mindset, really.

        • Austin says:

          Uh huh… You realize that she would have had NO WAY of knowing that her fiance was lying and cheating on her, right? So she wouldn’t have found out until AFTER marriage that she was marrying a cheater… *eyeroll*

        • kuabci says:

          Uh huh… You realize that if he had been waiting for marriage and were actually able to control his sexual urges she definitely would have been able to have total confidence in his honesty and fidelity, right? (Aside: why would she have found out he was cheating just because they finally were married?…) What could possibly be difficult to understand about that? *eyeroll*

        • Austin says:

          You realize that she doesn’t have any control over what HE does, right? If SHE had been waiting for marriage, he still would have been cheating, and she wouldn’t have found out before they got married.

          That’s not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?

        • kuabci says:

          You realize that if THEY had decided together that they would wait, or society generally (and sex-ed teachers specifically) had offered abstinence as at least a non-laughable or actually humanly possible option it might not even be an issue, right? Also, you don’t know what he WOULD have done if they had made different decisions and had different standards, which was exactly my point. And again, I don’t know how getting married would suddenly reveal to her that he had been cheating.

          That’s not a difficult concept to grasp, is it?

        • Austin says:

          She doesn’t have control over HIS decisions. You’re assuming that SHE could have done something to control HIS behaviors, and that’s just simply absurd.

          You can play through all sorts of hypotheticals of how things might have been different if they were different, but you’re not dealing with reality.

          The reality is that guys who are engaged and are out screwing other women aren’t going to be suddenly encouraged become celibate if their fiance won’t put out. Don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing…

  12. CR says:

    I need to say thank you. I am a 19 year old virgin who hopes to wait for marriage. The opportunity has come up more than once for me to have sex, and I’m so glad I decided against it. I have yet to meet someone my age who feels the same way as me (and believes me), so it’s nice to know that there are others out there. I have faith that one day God will guide me to the right man who will respect this choice. Thanks again Matt, Jeremy, and anyone else who posted a reassuring comment!

    • Joy says:

      At 44 I may be old for this discussion, but my children are entering this realm. May I say that my husband and I both waited for marriage and are glad we did. It was hard to wait especially once we were engaged. But it was a commitment we had both made first to ourselves and God then to each other. A book that I found helpful was “Why Wait” by Josh McDowel. It documents the physical, emotional, and social reasons to wait for marriage from a scientific viewpoint as well as spiritual reasons from a Biblical viewpoint.

      As for schools, they need to teach both abstinence and birth control. Why teach birth control? To reasons: 1. some students are going to have sex and need to know how to minimize the physical consequences of their actions. (Studies show that when abstinence is encouraged in school students wait longer to engage in sexual activity. A delay in sexual activity allows for more maturity which helps young people deal with the social consequences.) 2. even those who wait will eventually need to know about birth control when they get married.

  13. Brad Scott says:

    Well said

  14. Michelle says:

    I appreciate everything you have said in this blog post. I often wonder if my marriage would have made it through the good times and the bad if we brought the baggage of other sexual encounters. I would have wondered if someone was ‘better” or he was thinking of someone else.. It would have underminded our marriage and commitment. We have one measurement of awesome–it is each other. Praise god for that! Most of my pre-marriage sexually active friends do not value marriage near as much. Some have been married multiple times already.

  15. Gina says:

    Okay, disregarding how horrid this teacher’s advice was, the fact that she–a grown woman–asked minors if they were sexually active is grounds for dismissal. I am disgusted by how inappropriate that is.

  16. Annette says:

    I am 47 years old and have been married twice. I didn’t wait for marriage either time and I think it clouded my judgement. I am now in a relationship in which I have told the man involved that sex belongs within the context of marriage and gave him the opportunity to bail with no hard feelings if he didn’t think he could agree with that. It has been over a month since I told him that and we are still together and closer than ever.

  17. Andrea says:

    My husband and I dated in high school and college, and we did wait for marriage to have sex (though in six years of dating we crossed more lines than we should have). We had a period of on-again-off-again during our college years that was painful and took a lot of overcoming. How much worse would it have been if we’d had sex, gotten pregnant and married young?

    My own parents did that very thing. The result for them was divorce followed by years of pain, anger, and resentment that bled into their subsequent marriages and even into my generation, causing problems for my siblings and me in our own relationships.

    After twelve years, I can say that marriage is challenging enough without all the complications that accompany sleeping around before hand.

    Abstinence before marriage is certainly an old idea, but only the best ideas truly endure.

  18. Kathleen says:

    Well said, Maria. You should be in the schools talking to our young people. You have a no-nonsense, logical way of bringing your points across.

  19. Rebecca says:

    I think abstinence only education works, but it must be taught at home. The government schools are not the place to teach our children about their sexuality. And the concept of keeping yourself pure until marriage needs to be addressed before someone is in their teens. By the time you are a teenager, you’ve already thought long and hard about your plans for your future and have made decisions that are hard to reverse mentally even when given new information. I taught my children in increments that I felt they could understand as they were growing up, always focusing on putting others first. Even if school teachers wanted to teach abstinence, they don’t have enough time with individual children to know them well enough to know when they’re ready to learn something. But since this is a moral issue, it should be dealt with by parents, not school teachers.

  20. Rachelle H says:

    I love your articles and the fact that you have moral standards, you aim to educate, and you remain strong against adversity when it comes to your beliefs. I can say I thank God for his forgiveness and outside of my beautiful children I truly wish I met my soulmate first. That I entrusted in God to close all of the wrong doors leaving only the right one open. Instead I led my own broken path of heartache which inadvertently brought heartache to my children as they became a victim of circumstance, “father abandons children.” I am forever grateful for Gods hand in selecting my amazing husband and am appreciative that he did not view me as broken. I absolutely recommend abstinence based not only on “being safe, maintaining a higher sense of morality and admiration of oneself,” but also due to the fact that emotional intelligence is still in the developmental phase making it extremely difficult for adolescent to understand, cope with and/or respond to the emotional connection created with intimacy. Great Post!

  21. This is the only blog I’ve ever read where the article is horrifically stupid and the comments have helped restore my faith in humanity. It’s nearly always the other way round.

    Please keep up the good work being rational and not being misogynistic moralising loons, people. People like Matt Walsh need to be shown that hate-filled polemic like this won’t just pass by. I’d do what I normally do, and stay subscribed and try to have sensible, reasonable conversation about the matters myself, but I’m struggling with depression right now and there’s just so much hate and misogyny and kicking-down at the poor in this lunatic’s ravings that it would be more than I could take.

    I really appreciate that those who are mentally stronger than me right now are still able to fly the flag against oppression and hatred, and I wanted to say thanks to you guys before I check out of this part of the blogosphere and head off somewhere less distressing, like the KKK homepage or something.

    • kuabci says:

      Oh, PLEASE. This blog in no way resembles hatred, and the only people who think so are those who disagree and refuse to allow a differing worldview, or perhaps those who feel guilt on a certain level, whether subconscious or otherwise.

      I’m sorry, I don’t have a lot more to say in response, because the comment was so hypocritical and inane in the first place, but I just thought it should be challenged anyway. Enjoy the KKK homepage, I promise your polemics won’t be missed here.

    • kuabci says:

      Oh, PLEASE. This blog in no way resembles hatred, and the only people who think so are those who disagree and refuse to allow a differing worldview, or perhaps those who feel guilt on a certain level, whether subconscious or otherwise.

      I’m sorry, I don’t have a lot more to say in response, because the comment was so hypocritical and inane in the first place, but I just thought it should be challenged anyway. Enjoy the KKK homepage, I assure you your polemics won’t be missed here.

  22. Laura says:

    It’s amusing when 20-somethings think they know everything. Ah, I remember those days of knowing everything. Things were so black and white. It’s absolutely fine to feel these things for yourself. To proclaim other people’s marriages dysfunctional based upon your own morality is arrogant and ridiculous.

  23. Rebekah says:

    There were so many good points in here, I couldn’t pick which ones to repost! Thank you for having the courage to speak truth, Matt!

  24. Mary says:

    I think that he is simply stating his opinion…and plus, since this is his blog he kind of gets to do that. I for one COMPLETELY agree with him, because of my own experiences. I do regret being with other people before my husband. I wish I could say that he is the only one that has experienced that side of me. Its irrelevant since my son will be homeschooled, but I dont believe “sex-ed” should be taught in schools at all. That should be up to the parents.

  25. Ike Ashley says:

    Look, I’m 24 years old, STD free with no kids. I have my bachelors and I’ll be working towards my masters soon. I’ve also had a ton of pre-marital sex and guess what, I feel no guilt. Why? Because I’m a responsible adult. I can’t say Jesus helped, because I’m not at all affiliated to any religion. I’m just a responsible freaking adult. I’m not married to anyone because I think its an incredibly important step to take. Why? Because I’m a responsible adult. Instead of arguing about abstinence ,argue about responsibility. Take precaution before you deal with things that may have lifelong consequences, if abstinence is your thing buddy (Jeremy) go for it but trust me, listening to this religious twat of an author won’t help you go far, in fact I feel like he hides behind his religion to make sure he doesn’t snap.

  26. chandell says:

    highpriesttamazaki is traditional master she can bless
    an amulet for
    you or cast a spell to help you enjoy the rich life filled
    with love
    and happiness.
    (1) If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want magic ring
    (7) You want to have your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10)What help in whatever you doing e.g like in
    knowing whelther you
    making the right decision and to know whelther you fell in love with
    the rigth one. (11) If you need a Job in just one week
    (12) Get lucky numbers for lottery
    Establish an unbreakable bond between the two of
    you or ask questions on whelther you are mking the
    rigth decisons in your life at the moment of your life! you can also
    contact me on tamazaki9@gmail.com without no charges

  27. chandell says:

    highpriesttamazaki is traditional master she can bless
    an amulet for
    you or cast a spell to help you enjoy the rich life filled
    with love
    and happiness.
    (1) If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams.
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want magic ring
    (7) You want to have your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) Herbal care
    (10)What help in whatever you doing e.g like in
    knowing whelther you
    making the right decision and to know whelther you fell in love with
    the rigth one. (11) If you need a Job in just one week
    (12) Get lucky numbers for lottery
    Establish an unbreakable bond between the two of
    you or ask questions on whelther you are mking the
    rigth decisons in your life at the moment of your life! you can also
    contact me on tamazaki9@gmail.com without no charges……..

  28. Pingback: Fidelity Men Denim Shorts

  29. thank you, Matt! You have spoken truth with a fresh, non-boring perspective! I have been so disturbed by current news stories of our new comprehensive Health (sex) education class that I have chosen this very topic in one of my doctoral classes. please keep being such a great mentor to our youth!
    Leigh Anne W. Haygood

  30. Pingback: Matt Walsh on the Unrealism of Casual Sex | John C. Wright's Journal

  31. idrive2u says:

    Dear Jeremy,
    I was in your shoes once. I totally understand how you must feel like an outcast. Matt’s right, guys lie, there’s no way those dudes are all sexually active. You aren’t a freak for being a virgin or wanting to wait till you get married to have sex.

    But Matt Walsh is also a liar. I don’t think he means to be, I think he means to be helpful and protect you from pain, but regardless of his intention what he’s telling you about sex and life is a lie. Sex and relationships are joyful, but they are also difficult and painful, always. Sex is a hard thing for EVERYONE. If you wait to only have sex with one person it may be a positive thing, but it could also end up being a negative thing. If you choose not to wait it WILL NOT be the end of the world. Is it a risk? Yes. Can it be done safely? Yes. Are there any guarantees when it comes to relationships, sex, and marriage? No. None at all. You are unique and so too will be your sex life and psychological reaction to it. The best advice I can give you is READ as much as you can about these things. Read everything both religious and secular and make up your own mind, don’t take Matt ‘s or my word for it.

    Matt bases his view of human sexuality on the bible. Depending on what part you’re reading the bible has some good things to say about sex. It also has some really bad ideas about sex. The thing with Matt is that when you ask him questions about sex he doesn’t THINK CRITICALLY about his own sexual experiences, he ASSUMES that he knows what everyone else feels about their own sex lives and he doesn’t consider the MOUNTAINS of honest research done just over the last hundred years has taught humanity more about sex than we ever knew before and contradicts his conclusions. As far as the bible goes, I know this is hard to believe Jeremy, but the bible is flat wrong about some things, do your own research on that, but understand that Matt has already made up his mind that no matter what the bible says its always right.

    Jeremy, Matt has come to his conclusions about sexuality based on what is written in the bible and what he learned in the Christian sub-culture. Here’s the thing, if Matt came to your church and taught a human sexuality class based on what he wrote here how many people do you think would be comfortable disagreeing with him in front of everyone else? Matt is part of a group of people who believe that their view of sex comes straight from GOD so true disagreement isn’t allowed. That same atmosphere you felt in your health class, where it wasn’t safe to tell the teacher what you thought was right, that’s the type of place where Matt formed his views on sexuality. I think you know all too well now that places like that are not full of people who want to find out what the truth is, but who want other people to sit quietly while they are TOLD what the truth is.

    Here’s what I recommend. Find yourself a safe place to get online or go to a library and start searching for the answers to the specific questions you have about sex. Learn all you can about these things and then make up your own mind. If you have someone you feel like you can talk to freely about these things then do that. Sex is hard for everyone, but the more you learn the better you will be prepared to deal with it.

    • Randy says:

      Dear idrive2u,
      I have enjoyed following the comment thread on this post for quite a while now and only rarely can indulge the enjoyment of replying. I am a somewhat gray-haired, virgin when married, married 25 years to same woman, but I beg your trust that I do not say that with some ill self-righteous approach. Just what it is in full-disclosure. Further, I grew up in a sectarian Christian Bible-believing church and embraced that approach to life as capital t Truth with eternal implications. I finished an MA in theology at an accredited institution and have continued this journey of faith within what I understand to be classical understanding until I am now near fifty. All I ask is that you receive those comments as full-disclosure and allow me the respect of not poking fun or what-have-you. If you do, well that’s OK, I’m just asking (the amount of name-calling and snide remarks on all sides in this thread is disconcerting.)
      I have no illusions about convincing you, or you me, though I was fascinated by your comments and have had a life-long fascination with the “unbelieving” or “secular” or similar category of understanding life. I am fascinated by it and want to be open. The only comment I think I have in return to you, though, has to do with the assumptions we bring. I think you may be (probably not, but possibly) ignoring the simple fact that we all bring unexamined assumptions to the table, Matt no more nor less than you or me on balance, most likely. You have your reasons for thinking the bible a crock, I have my reasons for thinking otherwise, and both can be traced to assumptions.
      No doubt you know that is elementary and I do not presume to be a logician. Just saying that I think you and I easily overspeak, and I think you did so in your reply. Calling Matt a liar, though done in a ‘reasonable’ way, would be a first, if mild example.
      I’ve said enough — love the dialogue, glad for any pushback.

  32. Pingback: Re: Abstinence is unrealistic and old-fashioned | Dear Matt Walsh

  33. Nina says:

    I am 32 and have never had sex. I also am waiting for marriage. It makes me sad that this is such an unusual statement. Sad – not so much for myself, but for those who didn’t value themselves enough to wait. I am too valuable to give myself in that way to anyone other than the person who mutually vows to spend the rest of his life with me. Sex is a beautiful gift from God and can only be enjoyed to it’s fullest extent (without guilt, shame, disease, regret, insecurity or fear of lack of committment) within the boundaries God set for it. I am too valuable for anything less than that and you are too.

  34. Pingback: “The” Talk | Minnowspeaks Weblog

  35. Pingback: Abstinence is Unrealistic and Old Fashioned | Lost Little Lutheran

  36. Squeaky says:

    I’m sorry but I disagree. If I wouldn’t have had premarital sex I wouldn’t have my daughter who I love more than anything. I don’t have any regrets about losing my virginity at 17. I don’t have any regrets at all. That being said I don’t believe in marriage, it ruins relationships. I don’t plan on getting married ever. I may find a life partner and settle down. But I won’t get married. If I’m in a good relationship with somebody, why fix something that isn’t broken?

  37. Squeaky says:

    And I also wouldn’t sleep with a guy who doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing. I don’t do virgins. They suck in bed.

  38. madisen says:

    Who is this Jeremy? Hello Jeremy, i am a female who doesnt think it outdated and unrealilistic to wait to have sex. Lets get married! Stay strong kid!

Comments are closed.