Teen Sex: The Holy, Versus Humanistic, Approach
With all the harsh rhetoric of the culture wars, it’s easy to forget that secular humanists and conservative Christians share much common ground—even in the sensitive realm of parenting and education. After all, in one way or another, who doesn’t want their kids to be well-adjusted, honest, and hard-working?
In some areas, however—such as the teaching of evolution, school prayer, and church-state separation—major ideological differences separate these two camps. And perhaps the most pointed example of this contrast involves premarital sex, particularly as it relates to teens.
The conservative Christian view on teen premarital sex is simple and straightforward. It’s wrong; sinful. And the unyielding nature of this approach explains why such Christians lobby incessantly against public school sex education that goes beyond teaching (preaching?) abstinence, despite all the studies now demonstrating that “abstinence-only” programs serve not to decrease but increase the risk of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
For example, a September 2009 study in the Sexuality Research and Social Policy Journal reported that most abstinence programs fail to delay sexual initiation, while more comprehensive programs show a positive impact, including postponing sexual activity and increasing contraceptive use. Complementing these findings is a January 2007 study published in the American Journal of Public Health which concluded that declining teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. were primarily attributable to improved contraception (and not to abstinence-only education).
As opposed to conservative Christian beliefs about pre-marital sex, the secular humanist view—which is atheistic or, better, non-theistic—doesn’t start with “pre-ordained” assumptions about right and wrong but attempts to understand this basic libidinal drive holistically. By seeing sexuality not from the perspective of established religious dogma, but from a bio-socio-cultural vantage point, humanists endeavor to help young people better grasp the complex nature of sexual intimacy. To prompt them to consider the various ramifications—ethical and otherwise—of unrestrainedly letting loose their libido. And to have them question whether giving unmitigated expression to their erotic impulses is finally in their best interests.
These considerations don’t necessarily mean waiting until marriage to (relationally, at least) express their sexuality. But hopefully, such self-scrutiny does mean that should they choose to become sexually active, their decision won’t be purely emotional, or testosterone-driven; and that it won’t, recklessly, put their healthy development or overall well-being at risk either.