Tik Tok has opened up young people to the infamous mum and dad - sex talk.
A few years ago I cited Jefferson Bethke:
"I recently read an article called "Why Young Christians Aren't Waiting Anymore," and the statistics were that 88 percent of non-Christians (young) adults have had sex, while (young) Christians were 80 percent. There is only an 8 percent difference, which is really staggering when you think about it."
For some years now, Christian leaders have at last been doing some "straight talking" about the issues of sex, particularly young people and sex. The Song of Songs chapter 6, describing the wife dancing for her husband: "exceedingly visually generous to her husband," while the husband is verbally generous as he pays her compliments of her body and then - "proceeds forward." He claims that it's in the Bible and is "an example of marital freedom."
In effect, it acknowledges this "insatiable sexual drive within the human DNA" and addresses it within the context of Christian marriage (as does the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7). By so doing, he also recognises there is a negative side to sex outside of the marriage bed.
Real questions
Many US sit-coms are revealing. Teen relationships are complicated and none-more-so than illustrated in the US sitcom "The life of American Teenagers". These are some questions one of the main characters asked which, according to Jefferson Bethke (above), includes Christian young people.
In the sit-com mentioned, this particular character, a 16 year old girl, offered herself to the boy of her dreams, a young man of 17, who had meanwhile fathered a baby to her sister. The young fellow refused, in that he was trying to resurrect a relationship with her older sister.
The context was that this 16 year old girl was desperate to experience sex for herself (a virgin), and the reason was to: "find out what it's all about"! In her conversation with this 17 year old, she raised these questions (paraphrasing) -
"Why it is that my friends will put at risk teen pregnancy or disease or herpes or HIV to have sex;
"Why is that my friends will put their terrific (high school) relationships at risk to have sex?
"Why is it that committed young adults who are into 24 month relationship will have sex outside that relationship when offered;
"Why is it that married people will put everything at risk - career, children, spouse, finances, security, grand-parenting - to have sex outside of their marriage?
"What is it about sex that is so overpowering that drives people to have sex?"
Her questions reveal a great deal
This certainly provides part of the answer to this 16 year old's questions, that is, the DNA natural sexual appetite. But her questions go further, in that there is a destructive element to sex – health, relationships, marriages, careers ...
We see this in the Bible with Abraham's wife Sara giving the handmaiden to have a child (Ishmael) and the historical consequences of that situation are still with us today (Arabs and Jews). Sexual sin is replete throughout the Old Testament, perhaps David and Bathsheba is the classic example where her husband Uriah was sent to the front of the battle to cover up the adultery and pregnancy.
From a sociological viewpoint, as far as he can see 'some' humans will have sex when it is available, whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist or Aboriginal (lots of Aboriginal legends about couples running away together from their various tribes and arranged marriages).
There are also lots of stories written about the Kings and Queens of Olde England and France – eg the back stories in The Three Musketeers – and the name Fitz means the illegitimate child - so Fitzroy is the illegitimate child of a king – Roy = King, hence Royal, so they did it too – a whole lot, proving they too are human.
Then there are people with another type of personality whose heads rule their hearts (or hormones, in this case) and they are what we 'see' as more rational – and those people can be all of those other faiths and religions too, or none.
Again, it is one of those traits of human nature, and possibly another where there is a genetic dichotomy – ie approx half the population will act one way according to a stimulus, and the other half the other way. (Like shyness, and people who leave or stay after a war or bushfire – other examples of dichotomy in personality, although not examples of sex).
'Commitment' is a forgotten ideal
By the statistics of Jefferson Bethke, the idea of commitment has somehow missed the link to sex and fidelity in recent generations. Moreover, "commitment" is cross-cultural.
Many people without Christian commitment from many different world religions have been totally monogamous all their married lives. Likewise, I know Christians who have misbehaved and remain committed Christians (as it were).
As an aside (perhaps not), the Catholic monasteries instituted vows of celibacy for their monks so that the extensive property of the Church would not be subdivided and re-subdivided among the children of the said monks. This had nothing to do with sex, but sexual activity was legend.
Moreover, there is specific New Testament teaching on sexual restraint and the advantages of monogamy. In my view, this helps explain the questions raised by the 16 year old girl, in that the Scriptures reveal that following the Lord's life-directions brings positive relationship outcomes and none more so, than in our human drive for sex.
The Bible indeed, brings sexual freedom into a marriage whereas outside of God's best practice - there is this constant search for "grass that is greener on the other side (of the fence)" - it's like tomorrow, it never arrives.
As a young Christian Minister at seminary 39 years ago, my mentor the late Reverend F P McMaster MBE gave me a copy of a document he himself prepared: "Preparation for Marriage". It was part of his parish ministry (Canberra Baptist Church for 29 years) and as a Military Chaplain at Duntroon (Defence Academy).
This booklet's emphasis from start to finish focuses on the word "commitment". It's focus is entirely Biblical and of sound doctrine.