By Philip D. Harvey
Sunday, May 12, 2002; Page B07
The abstinence-only sex education programs in our public schools call for "abstinence until marriage." The federal government spent $115 million on this message last year, and the Bush administration is proposing significant increases for the current year. Sexual abstinence until marriage is now official government policy.
The average age of marriage in the United States today is 27 for men and 26 for women. The abstinence-only program therefore asks our young people to renounce sexual activity throughout much of the early part of adult life.
Age 26 or 27 is an average. There are millions of Americans who do not marry until age 30, 35 or later. I myself did not marry until age 40. Had anyone suggested to me that I should remain sexually abstinent until that time, I would have found the idea preposterous.
Those who insist that sex education in our high schools be confined to exhortations to abstain from sexual activity might say they don't really mean abstinence until age 27 or age 30. What they really mean is abstinence during the younger years.
The problem with this approach is that it is dishonest. If those who assert that sex must be postponed until marriage really mean that sex should be postponed only until age 19 or 20 or 21, they should say so, and their message would be taken more seriously. They do not because their convictions dictate that sex outside marriage -- at any age -- is wrong and, if wrong, cannot be recognized. They may understand that it is unrealistic to expect abstinence until age 27, but they cannot permit themselves to alter their message to take that into account.
I wonder if those who seriously advocate abstinence until marriage would prefer to see the marriage age come down. It is in those cultures where marriage takes place at particularly early ages that abstinence until marriage is realistic. The average age of marriage in Bangladesh, for example, is 18. Under such circumstances abstinence until marriage is at least feasible.
But in modern industrialized societies, where women have educational opportunities and more than half attend college, marriage in the teenage years will likely become increasingly rare. If we agree, as I think most Americans do, that equal educational and occupational opportunities for women are a good thing, that our society is enhanced and enriched by these developments, then I think we must accept the fact that marriage in the middle or late twenties is the modern societal norm. If that is so, the expectation of sexual abstinence until marriage is utterly unrealistic.
I would argue also that such an expectation, when translated into a policy (such as federally funded sex education calling for such a restriction), is wrong. It is wrong to expect young people to be sexually abstinent until they are more than half way through their twenties. Sexual relations are an important component of human happiness, and there is no moral purpose served by abstaining from sex if two people are mature and responsible. Why should they be deprived of sex?
It is worth noting too that many of the reasons young Americans do not marry at age 17 or 18 or 19 are reasons compatible with much of America's traditional cultural agenda. Our youth are less inclined than they were some decades ago to marry hastily, perhaps to the wrong person. Instead, most young Americans wish to be sure that they have found the appropriate mate so that they may create an honorable and viable union. It is difficult to argue with such motivation. Even the practice of cohabitation prior to marriage, now very common in the United States, may be both a sensible and a moral practice, which makes the resulting marriage more likely to be happy and to endure.
In today's United States, a policy of abstinence until marriage is anachronistic. Abstinence until adulthood and then responsible, protected sex is the message we should convey.
Philip D. Harvey is a writer and businessman.
Labels: Adultery, Interesting, Sex
Two Iranian sisters convicted of adultery face being stoned to death after the supreme court upheld the death sentences against them, the Etemad newspaper Monday quoted their lawyer as saying.
The two were found guilty of adultery -- a capital crime in Islamic Iran -- after the husband of one sister presented video evidence showing them in the company of other men while he was away.
"Branch 23 of the supreme court has confirmed the stoning sentence," said their lawyer, Jabbar Solati.
The penal court of Tehran province had already sentenced the sisters identified only as Zohreh, 27, and Azar (no age given) to stoning, the daily said.
Solati explained that the two sisters had initially been tried for "illegal relations" and received 99 lashes. However in a second trial they were convicted of "adultery."
The pair admitted they were in the video presented by the husband but argued that there was no adultery as none of the footage showed them engaged in a sexual act with other men.
"There is no legal evidence whereby the judge could have the knowledge for issuing a stoning sentence," Solati said, adding that he had appealed to the state prosecutor.
"The two sisters have been tried twice for one crime," Solati protested.
Under Iran's Islamic law adultery is theoretically punishable by stoning, although in late 2002 judiciary head Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi issued a writ suspending such executions.
However in July 2007, Jafar Kiani was stoned to death for adultery in a village in the northwestern province of Qazvin in a rare execution by stoning that provoked a wave of international outrage.
Capital offences in Iran include murder, rape, armed robbery, serious drug trafficking and adultery. Iran currently makes more use of the death penalty -- almost always by hanging -- than any other country apart from China.
Zohreh's husband -- who accused his wife and her sister in January 2007 of having extra-marital affairs -- had planted a camera in his house in a bid to catch them in the act.
"She did not treat me well and her actions made me feel she did not want to live with me any more," said the husband, who was not named.
"To make sure I planted a camera in the house... When I watched the tape two days after, I found out that she and her sister brought over men after I left and had relationships with them," he said.
Zohreh said she had an edgy relationship with her husband because of the strict limits he imposed on her life.
"I was a teacher and loved my job but my husband did not let me work... he was always suspicious of me and thought our differences were because I had an affair," she was quoted as saying by the daily.
"I do not approve the confessions that I made in the investigation phase and I deny what I said," she said.
Etemad reported that the husband of the other sister, Azar, had not filed any complaint against her.
