7/2/2003

FINISHING WHAT I START

Apologies for the lack of posting today–I had to deal with the sudden death of a young man in the parish. Yesterday I springboarded (sprungboard?) off of James Joyner with regards to the ever-increasing duration of adolescence. I noted in this post about how we Christians teach kids abstinence at about 12 or 13, but then apply societal pressure to keep them unmarried until they’re at least in their late twenties.

I don’t want to tell tales out of school, but I can tell you that many of us clergy have our doubts about the efficacy of abstinence education. We by no means fully expect that telling kids “Be abstinent!” when they’re 12 will prevent them from having sex until they’re 27 or so. I mean, it will work with a few; for others, it might hold them off until they’re 19 or 20, and some won’t listen at all. (Indeed, 12’s too late for a number of them–you would not believe how many 12-year-old girls have told me their boyfriends have pressured them for sex. 12-year-olds!)

Now, maybe you haven’t noticed this, but our culture is putting ever-increasing pressure on ever-younger kids (girls, for the most part) to be sexier and sexier. I mean, they make thongs for 10-year-olds, for cryin’ out loud. So it isn’t just a case of parents’ educational expectations delaying the age of marriage; there’s a squeeze from the other direction as well, with sexual activity becoming more common (and more expected) among ever-younger children. 52% of 17-year-old girls and 59% of boys say they’ve had sexual intercourse; one source claims an average age of 15.8 for first sexual intercourse among American teens. And, so far as I can tell, nobody’s tracking the average age for the onset of non-intercourse sexual activity. So Christian teens today are pulled in three directions simultaneously: as part of the church, they hear that their sexuality is reserved for marriage; as students, they’re told that their education is the most important thing that will ever happen in their lives (so don’t screw it up by getting pregnant or even–shudder–married); as teenagers in America, they’re told that everybody’s having sex, and so should they.

Notice that I haven’t even mentioned the Internet yet. Just like nobody’s tracking when kids begin non-intercourse sexual activity, nobody’s tracking how many kids have seen Internet porn, participated in cybersex with another teen or adult, been pressured to take nude pictures of themselves, etc., etc.

Pull something in that many directions at once and, unless it’s aeolotropic, it’s probably going to break, at its weakest point.

We Christians can tell you exactly where that is.

The implications for our ministry are clear. Firstly, we need to reinforce the message that premarital sexual activity is risky behavior. I’ve had great success pointing out to kids that it’s best not to have sex with somebody if you wouldn’t want to use their toothbrush–it’s amazing how real sexual intimacy becomes when you put it in those terms. Secondly, we need to get out Paul’s message in 1st Corinthians: “It is better to marry than to burn with passion.” But we don’t need to get that message out to kids. We need to get it out to parents, teachers, counselors, and the like, so they won’t find themselves in the ridiculous position of thinking that a 23-year-old is “throwing their life away” by getting married instead of getting a master’s degree.

We know that there’s no 100% effective abstinence program. It is fundamentally unfair of the church to present abstinence as our only solution to the problem of teenage sexuality without simultaneously addressing the problem of prolonged adolescence. Otherwise, we’re just setting kids up to fail, and to feel like they don’t belong in the church because we don’t understand what it’s like to be them.

Posted by Mark @ 8:25 pm | | Permalink
This post is filed under: Ministry & S-E-X

6 Comments

  1. There’s one part of the equation of adolescence that hasn’t been mentioned yet, and that’s the influence of better health care and nutrition in lowering the age of puberty. James Joyner said earlier that “it was perfectly normal for 13-year-old girls to be married and having babies,” but I don’t think that’s ever been a normal age. 15-16, yes, but not 13.

    I recall hearing several years ago about a study that noted the lowered age at which pubescent girls began to experience their period. The physicians/scientists laid the blame for this on better nutrition and health care. It kind of goes along with the fact that people are getting taller.

    Anyway, the lower age of puberty is another factor to throw into the soup.

    And one of the things that has always been somewhat troubling about the sexual crime laws was how arbitrary the distinction of ages was between a 17 and 18 year old. Clearly, there should be some threshhold, but I’ve heard of people being labeled sex offenders for their whole lives because they had sex with a 16 year old after they turned 18. Such was the case several times in Fort Worth, especially among Mexican Americans, who had different cultural views of age of consent, I guess.

    Comment by bryan — 7/2/2003 @ 9:46 pm

  2. And speaking of unfinished business, I still only count one of the deadly sins. Is this a weekly feature?

    Comment by bryan — 7/2/2003 @ 9:48 pm

  3. Strange. Better nutrition leads to earlier puberty, yet the only thing we ever hear about kids’ dietary habits is how dreadful they are.

    I agree, an 18-year-old who has sex with a 16-year-old should not be labeled for life as a sex offender. That’s one of the purposes behind Kansas’ “Romeo and Juliet” law that was at the center of this case. I think if there’s three years or less difference between the age of the perpetrator and the age of the perpetrated, some sort of reduced punishment ought to apply.

    But certainly an 18-year-old who has sex with, say, a 13-year-old should be subject to fairly intense punishment, opprobrium, and stigmatization.

    Now, as to the seven deadlies, these last two posts have exhausted much of what I was going to say about lust, but probably not all. I’ll get back to them eventually, but things at work are just too crazy right now.

    Comment by Mark — 7/2/2003 @ 10:19 pm

  4. Bryan: At least in the rural South, it was perfectly normal for girls to be married in the 12-13 year old range, especially poor girls. To use a famous example, the country singer Loretta Lynn:

    At 13, Lynn married Oliver Lynn, a.k.a. “Mooney.” At 14, she was pregnant, and Mooney took her to Custer, Washington, where she bore five more children before her 21st birthday. She was a grandmother at 29.

    Soure: here. Indeed, my paternal grandmother was married at 13 or 14.

    Comment by James Joyner — 7/2/2003 @ 10:28 pm

  5. OLD ADOLESCENTS II
    Mark Hasty finishes the discussion he started last night….

    Trackback by OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY — 7/2/2003 @ 10:30 pm

  6. Hmmm. Maybe normal wasn’t the word I was wanting. 13 is still at the low end of the spectrum, and I’d venture to guess that it was an uncommon occurrence, although not beyond the pale. I agree with your basic point, though, that girls were married at a much younger age than is considered proper today. Also, it was not uncommon for girls to marry well above their age. My paternal great-grandmother was married at 16 or 17 to a man who was 40. She was his second wife.

    And there’s always the infamous case of Jerry Lee Lewis and his cousin. I suspect that his case was one of the main things that shut down the practice for the most part.

    Comment by bryan — 7/2/2003 @ 10:34 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.