Tag archives: Abstinence

Why avoid sexual risk?

by Family Research Council

June 3, 2014

Living in today’s culture, it seems as if one can’t escape the constant exposure to the world’s many sensual messages. One such message that has permeated almost every aspect of influence (our churches, schools, TV programs, etc.) is that sex before marriage is OK. Not just OK, but desirable. Today’s younger members of society — particularly teenagers — have been exposed to this message since they were children. Therefore, they are the most susceptible to its influence. After all, it’s just sex, right? How bad could it really be?

What my generation might not realize is that there actually are harmful (and sometimes devastating) consequences for choosing to have sex before marriage. However, today’s society goes so far as to glorify it. TV shows like 16 and Pregnant, Teen Mom 2, and Pregnant and Dating would like to tell me and my peers that there are few (or no) negative consequences for sex outside of marriage. It could serve to get you a glamorous spot on TV!

In a depraved and confused world that glorifies sex before marriage, is there really even still a place for sexual risk avoidance, aka abstinence? I believe there is. I think we can and should applaud the reality that young women are choosing to carry their pregnancy to term, rather than choosing an abortion. However, we do our sisters, daughters, and friends a disservice if we pretend that sex outside of marriage is the same as sex inside marriage.

I realize that not everyone reading this post is a teenager facing the pressure of having sex before marriage, but more than likely most everyone reading at least knows a teenager who is. Either directly or indirectly, most people are, in some way, affected by the choice to avoid the risk of extra-marital sex.

So my next question is, why choose abstinence?

One practical reason for choosing abstinence is the decreased risk of receiving a STD/STI. According to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Nearly half of all STIs (48%) occur in youth 15 to 24 years of age. Human Papillomavirus accounts for half of STI infections among adolescents.” One plausible explanation is that this particular age group is the most susceptible to participating in “casual sex” — and should, therefore, be made aware of the risks of sex before marriage.

Another practical reason to abstain from premarital sex is the reality that there is no guarantee that “protection” that is used will actually work. No protective measure has a 100% guarantee, so if you don’t want to risk having to deal with the consequences of the activity, don’t engage in the activity to begin with. Plain and simple.

However, there aren’t just “practical” reasons for choosing abstinence. While most people may not realize this, there are also psychological effects associated with engaging in premarital sex. According to Arina Grossu’s online publication “Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education,” “[s]exually active teenagers are more likely to be depressed and attempt suicide.” In the same article, Grossu cites a study that reveals the increase in negative psychological effects as the number of sexual partners also increases. In essence, those who engage in premarital sex are decreasing­ — not increasing — their likely overall happiness and well-being. Sure, random hook-ups may seem enjoyable in the moment, but the long-term effects far outweigh the temporary pleasure that is received.

Christians have even deeper, more compelling reasons to encourage sexual risk avoidance. More importantly than the practical and even the psychological reasons for choosing abstinence, there are spiritual reasons as well. What does God have to say about premarital sex? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:18-20, “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (English Standard Version). So, in the end, “choosing” abstinence isn’t a morally neutral choice: you either sin by having premarital sex, or you avoid sin by abstaining. Not only that, but God also indicates that sexual impurity isn’t simply a sin against any other person but, also a sin against one’s self… and fundamentally against God.

So, the question remains relevant: why choose abstinence? Not only do the physical and psychological health benefits of abstinence outweigh the “benefits” of premarital sex, but abstinence from sex outside of marriage is also a way to honor and obey the God who created sex in the first place. Our culture may turn sex upside down, but God promises to honor those who honor him.

Solitary Sisters Unite?

by Leanna Baumer

February 18, 2014

It’s the first day back to work following Valentine’s Day and the President’s Day holiday. For many women, today means eating the rest of the leftover candy hearts and cursing the selfishness of the single men who caused them to spend another holiday unromantically alone. But, what if the increasingly isolated situation of young women in the United States isn’t entirely the fault of self-absorbed perpetually adolescent 21st century males (as self-absorbed as they may be)? What if it’s partially the conduct of single females that’s driven up the average age of marriage and kept thousands of women apart from a spouse?

That’s the thesis of a new resource out from the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture: The Economics of Sex. This short video primer posits that women offering sex “cheaply” give men little incentive to offer the commitment of marriage in exchange. Supply and demand apply to the relationships between the sexes just as much as in any other category of our market-driven world, the Austin Institute scholars explain.

As any serially single woman can tell you, more women than men want to start a serious relationship in pursuit of marriage. But if most single females are willing to offer their bodies to men with few conditions, men won’t have to look far for pleasure with no expectations.

What’s a woman to do then? Realize the power that she possesses in controlling access to her body, suggests the research team. She and her sisters might collaborate to require serious commitment from men, ideally the threshold of marriage, before giving themselves physically. Were women to place a higher value on sex, we would likely see women getting more of the commitment they desire out of a relationship and many fewer solitary Valentines. 

College Gone Wild: Classes on How to Achieve Orgasm, Yet Neglects Abstinence

by Krystle Gabele

January 29, 2013

Every year, the Young America’s Foundation releases a list of outrageous course offerings at various colleges and universities across the country.  Aside from the courses that a student might take, they are also exposed to campus wide events that may stand contradictory to morals and have nothing to do with the reason why they are there in the first place:  To learn and gain the skill set necessary for their future.

Case in point, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is having an event, and this is one that will no doubt raise some eyebrows.  In April, students at this public university will have the opportunity to attend an event about the female orgasm (no, I am not making this up) from two sex educators.  This event is open to both genders, and while the goal of the class is to educate students to use the skills learned in a current relationship or for marriage, it is no doubt sending the wrong message.

Despite the disclaimer that they are trying to empower women, they are denigrating women by merely making them a sex symbol.  While they claim that the information from this lecture can be used in current relationships and in the future for marriage, there is no educating students about respecting women and the choices of abstinence.

Abstinence is not a dirty word, and in fact, it is time for academics to take some time to examine this, rather than orgasms.  FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) has released several studies that show that married couples have more satisfying sex than those who are unmarried.  There are also more benefits to being abstinent, as it cuts down on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), depression rates are lower in those who are abstinent, and the abortion rate decreases.

While college is for learning, it is a time to expand your horizons towards more academic approaches, like reading the classics, gaining experience in your major through internships and lectures, and debating the merits of studies.  It is definitely not a time to learn about orgasms.  Save that for marriage.

Permission to disagree, Ma’am.

by Family Research Council

November 28, 2012

There’s been a buzz amidst DC’s commenting community about why we still should (or shouldn’t) care about General Petraeus’s now un-secret extracurricular activities with Mrs. Paula Broadwell. People with stronger opinions, more information, and bigger microphones have already discussed and dissected the matter.

Some writers call to greater responsibility and higher standards, others to greater flexibility and understanding. Some are a bit more nuanced, like the Walter Russell Mead’s blog post, “America’s Addled Puritanism.” My goal is not to parse the entire discussion, but to suggest that it is appropriate and at least slightly refreshing that our highest intelligence officers still be held accountable for a breach of trust and integrity in their personal relationships.

But West Point graduate-turned-comedian Laura Cannon seems to disagree. In last week’s Washington Post op-ed, “No sex? Permission to speak freely, Sir.” Ms. Cannon notes the following:

West Pointers are human beings, even those with names such as David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell. I think I have the standing to make this declaration, because I’m a fellow graduate. West Point is long on molding military officers, but a bit short on humanity. Its mission statement stresses the intent to commit every graduate to a career of professional excellence and service, embodying the values of “duty, honor and country.” How does West Point do that?

Here’s how: Rules! Hundreds upon hundreds of rules that govern every facet of human conduct imaginable, including my favorite: no sex in the barracks.

The problem, as Ms. Cannon sees it, is that David Petraeus and Paula Broadwell have been persecuted primarily for being human. Since leaving military service Ms. Cannon has, according to her website www.warvirgin.com, left her Jesus-addiction behind and stepped where no veteran has before, by offering “a candid, irreverent look at the comically naughty, sexually-charged underbelly of the military…”

As a proud sister of a U.S. military-service academy graduate, I concede that Ms. Cannon’s angst regarding military academy life is worth engaging. Over the years, my brother has (much more respectfully) shared stories of the ways that he and other cadets would attempt to stay afloat amidst a sea of rules—rules that often seem irrelevant or even counter-productive to the stated goal of building up the next generation of leaders. For a more intellectual discussion of modern military academies (and a rousing disagreement in the comments section), I recommend Professor Bruce Fleming’s article in The Chronicle Review, “The Few, the Proud, the Infantilized.”

But one thing Prof. Fleming and Ms. Cannon both recommend is to lift the no-sex-on-campus ban. Ms. Cannon does so with a comic and irreverent tone. Mr. Fleming does so in a more academic and detached manner, suggesting the academy should have ‘no opinion’ on matters of sexuality.

But would such a ban-repeal, as Ms. Cannon suggests, allow cadets to be “more human”? It does, of course, depend on what we mean by human. Is it truly human to pursue any sexual impulse, whenever one wishes, with whomever one wishes?

This, it would seem, is premise of sexual revolution. In The Atlantic‘s thorough and engaging essay on the topic, Hanna Rosin explores the following:

The hookup culture that has largely replaced dating on college campuses has been viewed, in many quarters, as socially corrosive and ultimately toxic to women, who seemingly have little choice but to participate. Actually, it is an engine of female progress—one being harnessed and driven by women themselves.

So where has all this gotten us? Ms. Rosin seems a bit more optimistic than I, about the empowering nature of sexual license… especially for young women. But logically, if indiscriminate, few-feelings-attached hookups are normal to the human (American) college experience, it would make sense to extend such license, even to military academies and combat zones.

But what if sexual license is not the definition of authentic humanity? Failed contraception, broken hearts, and lingering pang of the morning-after all whisper that authentic humanity is not finally found in sexual liberty. And the social science—illustrated in unforeseen pregnancies and grueling divorce proceedings—loudly suggests that sexual license hasn’t delivered.

So if General Petraeus or Ms. Cannon (or anyone else, for that matter) begins to find that pleasure isn’t keeping its promise, I suggest that they meet a famous warrior king who learned a very difficult version of the same lesson (the story can be found in 2 Sam 11-12). King David made a “human” decision by chasing the lovely, married Bathsheba. The king faced devastating consequences. But he also knew great restoration. I suggest that, in confession and restoration (Ps. 51), King David rediscovered what it meant to be “truly human.”

A Little Courtship: A Revelation or Reinventing the Wheel?

by Family Research Council

November 9, 2012

Tracy Clark-Flory writes for Salon:

When my recent date showed up at my door, minimalist bouquet in hand, I imagine I looked like Id seen a ghost of courtship past. He took me out to a restaurant with actual reservations, not to a taqueria or dive bar. He planned it nearly a week, not minutes, in advance. He picked me up in a cab rather than having me meet him there and, on his way over, he called instead of texting to give me a heads up.

Dont be fooled by the articles title, Who needs casual sex! (BEWARE: some crudity!) Ms. Clark-Flory is quick, in post-modern feminist fashion, to insist that hooking up and courting are two equally valid love-life options. Her point is that being romanced, for a change, is niceshe phrases her reaction to her dates cutting off the evening before hes tempted past his resolve as a revelation.

Im relieved Ms. Clark-Flory has finally enjoyed a taste of what romantic relationship ought to look like, but I find what she writes about her past experiences simultaneously disheartening and unsurprising.

As I wrote four years ago in my essay In defense of casual sex, hookups can be a legitimate way of getting to know other people, as well as ourselves. And even when they arent, who cares: Women are just as entitled to meaningless flings as men. But, yes, as Ive gotten older, casual sex has lost some of the luster of freedom. It isnt that Ive forsaken the delights of no-strings flings, but rather that Ive tired of hookup cultures dictatorial reign over modern courtship. It doesnt feel so free when it doesnt feel like an intentional choice. [emphasis added]

Clark-Flory states that hooking up often seems less about a pursuit of pleasure than an avoidance of actual intimacy. Here, I think she misses the mark. I believe that many young women hooking up are hoping that somehow men looking only for sex will somehow accidentally fall in love with them. This is how love works for the bright, quirky heroines of the romantic comedies weve been fed since our early teens. This is not how love generally works. Many young women are actually desperately seeking intimacy and love; they just dont know where to look for it, who can give it to them, or what to give (or not to give) to obtain it.

Ms. Clark-Flory closes by writing that shes conflicted: I dont believe that ones sexuality can be broken like fine china, but I do think its special…I would never advocate a return to traditional gender roles, but courtship, actual effort, is refreshing no matter the sex of the courter. I disagree completely. I believe ones ability to relate to another sexually in a healthy, whole manner can really be broken. I dont think men even want to be courted. And I dont know if true courtshipnot merely effort, but romantic interaction driven by genuine mutual interest, with no expectation of sexual intimacyis even possible for those who eventually plan to consummate their relationship before any formal commitments or vows are made. Clark-Flory may, out of desire to appear impartial, chalk her taste for courtship up to age or the sense that sex has become an imperative. Id argue that courtship just serves men and women better.

A Cost Reduction Plan for Unplanned Pregnancies

by Sharon Barrett

October 25, 2012

One of the most unfortunate trends in our day is Politics Posing as Medical Science, as MARRI director Dr. Pat Fagan points out in a post on the MARRI blog. Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, helped author a study on the effects of birth control that was released just in advance of the presidential election. The study, titled Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception, was designed to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.

In other words, the Peipert study tries to suggest that the HHS contraceptive mandate is beneficial to society because, in the words of an NBC News report, offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

Dr. Fagan explains, however, that it is impossible to draw this conclusion from the Peipert study. First, the studys methodology is flawed. The authors did not use a control group, exaggerated the statistical effect of LARCs on the abortion rate, and tracked data that were not generalizable to a larger population over the long term (for example, they only reported on abortions and births, not on public health outcomes like STDs).

Second, by concentrating only on abortions and unplanned births, the study ignores the whole life cycle of women. As Dr. Fagan explains, as social science has tracked the consequences of contraceptive use for the long-term marital, family, parenting, and sexual habits of the women involved, negative outcomes have been found to be typical.

My prediction is that young women who use these methods…will have many more sexual partners, behavior that itself increases the likelihood of procuring an abortion. The program will also have high STD effects, likely have very significant effects on future marital stability, and in turn have significantly weakening effects on these womens future childrens life outcomes.

According to the NBC article, experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money. In 2011, the Guttmacher Institute calculated that unplanned pregnancies cost the United States $11 billion each year. Princeton University professor of economics James Trussell argues that using LARCs to reduce unplanned pregnancies will cut other, invisible costs as well for instance, by reducing the economic burden borne by on single teen mothers.

The best cost reduction plan, however, is not to flood the market with free birth control, but to encourage women and men who are sexually active to do so in the context of committed marriage. Not only is the married intact family our best insurance of economic prosperity, but growing up in an intact household reduces the likelihood of negative outcomes throughout a womans life including abortion and unplanned pregnancy.

Waiting: Whos Naive?

by Sharon Barrett

September 20, 2012

Among the articles streaming through my Facebook news feed last week, one essay caught some wind resistance. In this opinion piece, Fox News contributor Steven Crowder describes why Waiting till the wedding night getting married the right way is worth it.

When a friend of mine shared the link to Crowders piece, several of her Facebook friends reacted in disbelief. One young man questioned the wisdom of waiting: What if you find out youre sexually incompatible, or one partner has a weird kink that ruins the marriage?

When I joined the conversation to point out that kinks and quirks shouldnt undermine ones commitment to a spouse, another young man responded by comparing marriage to a (very costly) consumer decision: Does it make sense to buy a car without a test drive? A third suggested Mr. Crowder may be excused for his opinion, as he is understandably a bit euphoric after his wedding night (for of course, with no previous sexual experience, he neednt be taken seriously). All agreed that, like Mr. Crowder and his new bride, my friend and I are naive.

But are we naive? Are we, the young men and women who choose chastity over short-term pleasure and hold out for lifelong marriage over one-night flings, waiting for naught?

My colleague at MARRI, Maria Reig Teetor, had a chance to test this hypothesis recently, when a date asked her the now-common question (Your place or mine?). But she didnt. No, thank you, she replied. I dont do that.

Astonished, the man called her later, trying to figure out why she had said no. Hadnt she had a nice time? Werent they getting along?

Of course they were; but as Maria explains, she had many reasons not to go home with him. Sleeping with a stranger creates a false emotional bond. Building a relationship on sex short-circuits a couples communication and their ability to fix problems in the relationship. Without the dignity of a marriage commitment, human sexuality meant to be an expression of self-giving is reduced to an animal act.

For these reasons, Maria is confident in her choice to wait:

No, I will not sleep with you, as my sexuality is not there to give, just out of mutual understanding, affection or desire. But to preserve for one person who is going to acknowledge it for its final purpose, the surrender and the total self-giving out of love and for love.

Who is naive Maria, or her date who was puzzled by her refusal to sleep with him because he expected every girl to do so? My friend and I, or her friends who see a spouse as an investment like a new Ford or Chevy? Steven Crowder, or the world that mocked him for waiting till the wedding night to share intimacy with his bride and her alone? You decide.

Young womens sexuality needs rescuing

by Betsy Huff

August 9, 2012

In an article entitled Have We Stopped Protecting Our Girls, Candi Finch describes how Western culture has lost its focus on protecting the purity and well-being of young women against an increasingly over sexualized culture. Finch stresses the importance of parents protecting the sexuality of their daughters by modeling what a loving and healthy marriage looks like, by setting standards for relationships, and by guarding them from the influences of a sexually saturated media.

Finche references a book Uncovered written by two OB/GYNs, Joe McIlhaney and Freda Bush. The authors make professional and scientific observations about the harmful effects produced by a society that promotes (even encourages) unhindered and hedonistic sexuality with whomever, wherever, whenever. These negative consequences can be seen in unwed pregnancy rates, an increase in women having sexual intercourse at a younger age with multiple partners, increasing cohabitation rates, and decreasing marriage rates (see the Marriage and Religion Research Institutes Mapping America research on sexuality for more information.)

After taking a brief look at the first couple chapters of the book Uncovered, what struck me the most was the doctors emphasis on what young women, particularly high school girls, said they desired for their future. A strong majority reported that a happy and healthy family was a priority, they desired several children, and they wanted to be married to only one person for the rest of their lives. But as Mcllhaney and Bush point out, The new sexual norms for young people dont lead to the outcomes that young women consistently say they want, as measured by virtually any indicator of health and well-being.

Young girls are proclaiming what women really want— a life of emotional health, physical health, and thriving relationships that last. As a society, as parents, and as a church we should be helping them see the link between obeying the prescriptive calls of Scripture to a holy life and the fruit of that holiness, which is the expression of God-made and God-given sexuality in the sacred context of marriage. As Uncovered says, We want to sound the alarm, not in order to limit young womens sexual lives and futures, but in order to enhance them—indeed, to rescue them.

Just Say No: Why Abstinence Is the Way to Go

by Family Research Council

July 30, 2012

On July 6, 2012, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a pro-abstinence staff report called A Better Approach to Teenage Pregnancy Prevention: Sexual Risk Avoidance. This report details how Sexual Risk Avoidance (SRA), abstinence, truly lowers the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and unintended teenage pregnancies as opposed to comprehensive sex education (CSE), which only focuses on reducing these risks. Truthfully, SRA paves the way for healthy teen development, because it is based on adolescent behavioral theory, relies upon effectual techniques of public health prevention programs, emphasizes the importance of parental guidance and support, and teaches personal skills teens need to avoid dangerous sexual risks. In the end, the report successfully drives home a pro-abstinence message by concluding with 22 peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate that teens have benefitted from SRA programs. To advance these efforts, the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act is seeking to promote abstinence by appropriating $15 million more for abstinence education programs and $80 million less for President Obamas Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.

Todays push for abstinence education truly reflects how taxpayer-funded comprehensive sex education has devastated our society. Based on the idea that teens are predisposed to have premarital sex, CSE motivates teens to make decisions about sexual behavior without parental guidance and to use contraception and condoms. Although CSE does discuss abstinence, it more so emphasizes safe-sex practices. Instead of encouraging teens to avoid the risks associated with premarital sex, it encourages them to become promiscuous and increase their chance of getting STIs. While Americans have become aware of these demoralizing effects, the Obama administration has been heavily promoting CSE through programs like Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, the Personal Responsibility Education Program, the Pregnancy Assistance Fund, and Aban Ava Youth Program. For example, the Obama administration demanded for the Aban Ava Youth Program, CSE geared towards African-American children, to be replicated, even though it had large shortcomings after it was implemented.

Because sex education has had such devastating consequences on our society, more young Americans have realized that abstinence is the way to go. In fact, a CDC survey released last year shows that 75% of American 15-17 year olds are abstaining from premarital sex. Thus, this recent pro-abstinence congressional report could not have been released at a better time than now. In support of the parent-child relationship, this report promotes federal policy as a means of helping parents inform their kids about the dangers of risky sexual behavior. Although both the report and the Abstinence Education Reallocation Act are a step in the right direction, we must always remember that more government appropriations cannot solve our societal problems. Instead, parents need to step up and educate their children about the risks of sexual promiscuity and the benefits of abstinence. A resurgence of stronger American families, rather than continuous government intervention, will truly counteract premarital sex as a societal norm.

Former Model Leads Campaign against Cosmopolitan

by Krystle Gabele

January 16, 2012

While I was in the line at the grocery store recently, I happened to glance over at the magazine rack when I noticed the recent copy of Cosmopolitan Magazine. The model on the cover looked young, and in fact, she did not look old enough to be on the cover. It was Dakota Fanning, who is only 17 years of age, and the headings around the cover provided the usual standard of sex advice.

I was disgusted by this display. I turned around only to see a little girl pick up a copy of the magazine only to run back to her mother and say how pretty the model was. The mother of the girl also looked disgusted by the magazine and told the little girl to put back the magazine.

Fox News has focused on this recently, and they were shocked by this recent image as well. In fact, Rachelle Friberg, a media expert who was interviewed by Fox, said:

Cosmopolitan is going overboard by putting an underage girl on its cover surrounded by such article titles. It is one thing to educate young women about sex and their bodies, but putting a young, underage girl on the cover of a magazine that had long been known to push the limits is sending the wrong message.

Cosmopolitan, of course, defended its decision to have Fanning as the magazines cover model. Of course, their decision generated controversy, and there is no doubt that teenagers, who are fans of Fanning are lining up to buy the issue and being exposed to Cosmopolitans agenda of promoting immodest behaviors and promiscuity.

Today, I was glad to read that a former model is calling out Cosmopolitan for its practices and is calling for the magazine to be marketed as an adult-only publication, which would require the magazine to be sold in packaging that would not show the cover. Nicole Weider is leading this effort and has a petition urging the FTC to help protect our youth from vulgarity. The petition has almost 21,000 signatures, and there is no doubt that will garner more signatures from those who agree the magazine has gone too far.

Does Cosmopolitan realize the impact that these behaviors have on young women? In 2010, the American Psychological Association released, Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls. This report highlighted how publications, like Cosmopolitan, have a negative impact on young womens mental health.

One of the dominant themes about sexuality reported across these studies and across magazines is that presenting oneself as sexually desirable and thereby gaining the attention of men is and should be the focal goal for women.

The evidence from this research is not shocking. Its sad that publications, such as Cosmopolitan feel the need to consistently market women as sex symbols. The editors of Cosmopolitan dont even offer the perspectives of those who want to abstain from sex until marriage, which is even more depressing.

Family Research Council has released a report, Why Wait: The Benefits of Abstinence Until Marriage, that provided evidence that those who abstain from premarital sex tend to have happier and healthier marriages. The report also highlighted the emotional impact that premarital sex has on young women.

A 2005 study of youth in grades 7-11 found that engaging in premarital sex often leads to depression. Compared to girls who abstain, girls who engage in premarital sex are two to three times more likely to be depressed one year later.eens who engage in premarital sex are also likely to experience regret, guilt, lowered self-respect, fear of commitment and fears about pregnancy and STDs.In addition, they are more likely to commit suicide.

With research like this, Ms. Weiders petition is needed to protect young women from being exposed to Cosmopolitans agenda. Yes, it has been said that sex sells, but the real selling point is what a woman offers in terms of grace and intelligence.

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Archives