All we hear of is Safe-Sex!  What's happened to Loving-Sex?

All we hear of is Safe-Sex!  What's happened to Loving-Sex?

A decade ago sex was presented as fun and recreational. Sex has now moved on to become something dangerous!  In the agony letters section of a recent newspaper, a sub-headline read: “I had sex yesterday. Am I going to die?”  The question had been posted by a 12-year-old. As one eminent clergyman said: "Promiscuity used to be considered sinful; it is fast becoming suicidal!" Some would cheer "Hurrah for AIDS! It will make people sexually more responsible again. The fear of AIDS will restore a sense of morality!"

But that is not what is happening. Instead of reviving a positive attitude to the chaste living out of our sexuality, “safe-sex” campaigns are doing little more than re-enforcing the negative values of sexual licence. I've yet to find the words "love", "marriage", "commitment", never mind "chastity", in any of those responses in advice columns in the digital platforms or printed media.

The words chastity or abstinence, it would seem, have no place in pregnancy prevention or AIDS awareness adverts. I wonder why? Why can't the campaigns bluntly promote the fact that the safest sex is NO sex outside of a loving marriage commitment. Campaigns are not afraid to be blunt to the point of vulgarity in so many of their slogans! I believe the time is long overdue for us to really promote chastity; to rehabilitate it and make it fashionable by means of, if need be, a church sponsored chastity campaign on a large scale. We cannot afford to leave it to Government Health Departments and the condom manufacturers and hormonal pill producers with vested interests, to direct the sexual values of young people today. They have financial considerations at stake; for us it is the salvation of souls together with the ability of our youth to be good spouses and parents one day. 

‘Safe-sex’ is responsible for the demotion of LOVE!  Again, a decade ago, the deciding factor whether to get sexually involved was the question: "Will it be good fun for both?" If yes, then it was O.K. to proceed. Nowadays, as a result of HIV/AIDS, the criteria for deciding has been reduced to the minimal question: "Is it safe?" That is, is it AIDS-proof and is it child-proof? If yes, then there is no need to hesitate. Unfortunately, the question: “Is it sinful?” is a non-issue. But at least the question: “Is it loving or not?” should still feature! For isn't that what the very first consideration for engaging in a sexual relationship should be?

The media have succeeded in brainwashing even many churched youth into believing, that as long as it is “safe”, promiscuity is not sinful. “Sex is only a sin if you don’t use a condom”, declared a teenager to me! Another consequence of the safe-sex-syndrome is that pregnancy has come to be regarded as an illness almost as serious as AIDS, and a baby has subconsciously become a sexually transmitted disease. I once came across a handbook used for the training of medics, where fertility was listed as one of the ailments they might have to treat. This “unhealthy condition” was to be remedied by the administration of various kinds of contraceptives and even the recommendation of sterilisation. It is tragic to witness how fertility is no longer appreciated as a wonderful God-given gift but rather as a dreadful calamity.

It is gravely irresponsible for “Comprehensive Sexuality Education”(CSE) programmes to present sex in such a way as to make it appear a form of entertainment to which everyone is entitled, even at an age when other matters of equal or less importance in life are considered beyond the maturity of the self-same youth being addressed. To taunt teenagers with the idea of easily available and carefree sexual indulgence (with the sole proviso being of taking "precautions"), and hope that healthy loving stable relationships will still prevail, is like allowing a thirteen year old free access to your car keys and imagine no accident will ever befall him. I know more young people who have been hurt by precocious sexual relationships than by motor accidents. Why? Simply because parents are more responsible with their car keys than they are with the sexual education of their children. We used to deplore the extent of delinquency among adolescents: now I think delinquent parents are the chief problem. Parents for whom being sexually responsible means making sure their teenagers don't cause a pregnancy, fall pregnant, or catch a nasty STI. Their children still become the sad victims of their and society's permissive values. In addition to their parent's laissez-faire approach, the media-crats advocate that in order to be normal and healthy, young people must engage in sexual activity. Am I exaggerating? Let me take just one quote from among examples found on teenage advice sites: "Regular sex helps to keep your levels of circulating sex hormones high”. “If you don't use it, you'll lose it." I wish that this were true – it would make my vow of virginal chastity so easy. The truth is that over-using it, diminishes it. Just look up the consequences of porn addicts’ libido within a few years. Saving it rather safeguards it for the long-term.

Other notions promulgated alongside "safe-sex", are that there is something wrong with you if you are not sexually active from your teens.  “You can wait for love but it is impossible to wait for sex”, they proclaim. Otherwise you are a prude, or "tight-assed", or worse.  Responsible parents and dedicated youth ministers have the monumental task of finding anti-dotes to these potent messages which pervade our airwaves, websites and glossy magazines!

There can be no doubt that safe-sex campaigns are directly promoting permissiveness as much as they may be combating HIV/AIDS or unwanted pregnancies. And permissive values breed promiscuity, not love and goodness and health. Is it any wonder the rape statistics keep rising? And promiscuity leaves a trail of devastation in the ability of young people to form life-long committed relationships. Even safe-sex breaks hearts! Meanwhile no one gets hurt by chastity, which is the most effective weapon against AIDS, as well as the most economic. Promiscuity's consequences are costly, not just to the individuals, but to the whole society. So why can't AIDS awareness and prevention campaigners bring themselves to promote chastity? Is it really unrealistic to expect young people to say NO to sex before marriage? That reveals a very condescending attitude to the moral aptitude of young people. Young people do love a challenge. If we begin to present chastity as a heroic virtue again, or even just as "cool", rather than as a far-fetched option for mad monks, they will go all out for it.

We need to break the age-old perception of the church and sex. It is sad that the general impression is that has the church keeps saying: “sex is dirty”, so “keep it for marriage”.  We need to help young people rediscover the joy and beauty of sex – and spread the ‘subversive’ news that contrary to popular media opinion, the best sex CAN be found within the boundaries of a loving marriage.

Francois Dufour sdb