In regards to the whole "every time you have sex, you think about everyone else you've had sex with" lie, I was just talking about this with my sister the other day. I was complaining about all the lies we were told in high school abstinence only "sex ed", and this was one of them that it had only recently dawned on me was totally untrue. I mean, really, is this true for anyone? And why do they feel they have to come up with all these elaborate lies to justify their stance on sex? Surely, if their position has merit, they should be able to just stick to the truth and let people decide for themselves without all the fearmongering.

Well, I think of sex with the men before SO right now only in terms of accumulated experience. More along the lines of X has worked for me in the past, have SO do that now, or, I hate Y and won't let SO even try that. And vise versa: Z worked before on the ex, I'll try it now and see the reaction.

But I can't say I've ever consciously thought of a previous lay as I'm having sex with my current SO. Really, sex takes enough concentration that if other men's faces started popping into my head they'd do nothing but distract me, I'd be a no-go for that night.

I think what the speaker was trying to do was say that if you have sex, you'll be so guilty about it later, that you won't enjoy it. Which is probably true for people who are convinced premarital sex is dirty and wrong. Which I don't believe, and don't feel guilty about nor do I regret, so it doesn't even enter my mind when I'm expressing love and affection for the current SO.

Alright... Frankenstein Flower sounds kinda cool... I'll see if I can apply some of my talent to the concept... (I think I already have an idea!)

And, of course, I know that I wasn't thinking about anyone other than my boyfriend the last time we were engaged in sins of the flesh. In fact, I think the only time I've ever compared a current partner to a past partner was when I was "get[ting] over someone by getting under someone else".

Not to mention that if you teach impressionable young people that, as you say, "sex sticks people together", isn't it likely that they'll fall into the "if you love me, you'll..." trap later on and try to use sex to salvage a dying relationship?

My mom used to use the "sex binds people together" argument on me, specifically citing the "one flesh" statement in Genesis, until it occurred to me that Genesis was written a very long time ago, before (as I know now but didn't necessarily know for sure then) the concept of "soul" had gotten completely hammered out by Mediterranean cultures, and so isn't it possible, by some stretch of the imagination, the phrase "they shall become one flesh" refers to having children? Makes sense to me. Practical, true, and doesn't require ethical or hermeneutical backflips. I don't think she ever tried that angle with me again.
(Disclosure: I don't read Hebrew. I could be totally wrong. But most fundies don't read Hebrew either, so I think it can still be useful.)

I mean, really, is this true for anyone?

Maybe some people, I suppose. But why do they assume it's true for *everyone*? You'd think it was quite the reverse, really; it certainly has been for me, and it seems many of the people in this thread. Where else in human endeavour is there an activity which people think the best experience is to be found with a person who has never participated in that activity before?

("Hello, this is Captain Smithers speaking. We will be cruising at ten thousand feet and reaching Paris at midnight local time. Incidentally, this is my first time ever flying an airliner, and I know you're glad I saved myself for this moment and didn't fly any smaller planes... though I must admit, I was caught by my parents in the simulator a couple of times, but after some prayer and fasting that's all behind me.")

isn't it likely that they'll fall into the "if you love me, you'll..." trap later on and try to use sex to salvage a dying relationship?

I have seen this sort of thinking actually cause enthusiastic churchy teenagers to hurry into sex, because they JUST KNEW that their SO was their ONE TRUE LOVE, but they couldn't get married for the next five years or so until they were out of college, so clearly it would stick them together now until then and for the rest of their lives. Of course they knew nothing about safe sex or birth control.

Like you, Lauren, I attended a Christian fundie school from grade 7 on, and got all the astoundingly awful metaphors for premarital sex. Nearly a decade later (and almost that long being an atheist), I still have guilty thoughts float up from the bottom of my subconscious occasionally.

MikeT: very good point about possibly using sex to salvage a relationship. Perhaps it also manifests as a need to salvage sexual relationships when they should be abandoned. I think there was some of that for me in my first sexual relationship with a guy who was not exactly a "keeper."

The big problem I see with people who grow up in the "sex-is-a-mortal-sin-unless-you-are-married" community (no matter the religious affiliation) is the way that the messages are ingrained while ideas about life, self-worth, morality, etc, are at their most malleable. Most healthy, reasonable adults would be able to see these lies for what they are, or at least know they're a bit fishy (though the mega-church attendees may prove me wrong). Teens and preteens are very impressionable, so even when we come to our own conclusions later in life, our whole thought process is still geared towards guilt and regret. For me, this is why comprehensive sex ed in public schools is so important. At least kids will be able to see that there's an alternative, which is what I never got.

As for thinking of former partners while with the current partner, I've only had a problem with thinking of people who are superficial crushes, but even then only rarely.

x364173: I've seen the opposite problem--many of my classmates got married immediately after high school graduation because they couldn't have sex until they were married. Several are now divorced. Not really good news in either case.

Okay, stepping off soapbox now. :)

RedPersephone: Oh, good grief, I'd forgotten about this: I sat through a sermon when I was a (timid and virginal) student where the preacher thundered: "There are all sorts of excuses as to why people sleep together before marriage. And that's all they are. Excuses! Here's one I hear all the time: 'We wanted to make sure we were sexually compatible.' Well, I would have thought it was a pretty simple matter of biology!"

And yeah, quite a number of people who had been struggling to get to their college graduation without any orgasms got married unwisely like a shot to the first willing person who was a member of their own church but not of their own sex. (The ones who didn't immediately become atheists or agnostics or Wiccans or Anglo-Catholics and start being a bit happier about their sexuality, anyway.)

How could he possibly think of 200 women while having sex with one? I don't think about anything when Mr. KMP and I are having sex! If ever I am thinking about something, that usually means I'm worried about something (like how I'm going to get a paper in on time), and can't get into the mood in the first place, but certainly never about other people I've slept with.

I think that one of the most dangerous things about "no sex outside of marriage" thinking is that it puts sex and marriage on the same level.

I spent my high school years as the outsider trying to fit in a close-knit Baptist youth group, and it served its purposes and helped me in a lot of ways at the time. Out of respect for the friends I made there and the experiences I had, I can't write the whole thing off.

However, like RedPersephone, I saw a lot of these high school couples getting married as soon as they graduated, and couldn't help but wonder how much of the marriage was based on "Our partnership is strong enough to last a lifetime, let's do this thing together," vs. "OMG I need into your pants ASAP!!!"

But I think the worst part is that kids in these environments aren't allowed to ask themselves what it is that's driving them into these big decisions. I want to know that I'm with my partner because our relationship is healthy and makes us each better people, not because I can't keep my hands to myself anymore.

re Maggie: I love the "one flesh" argument. I may have to steal that from you if it ever comes up.

x364173: though I must admit, I was caught by my parents in the simulator a couple of times, but after some prayer and fasting that's all behind me.

You now owe me a new keyboard! Hahaha...

Thanks for the comments everyone! And I got featured on the main page. Thank you Jessica! XD

I went to a public high school in California, where our ninth grade "sex education" was a one-day presentation from True Loves Waits.

They glued two paper hearts together and then, after the glue dried, tried to pull the hearts apart. Alas, the hearts tore into shreds, all because of the dirty, dirty, corrupting sex glue.

The instructor also passed out little cups of frosting and asked us how much frosting we could eat just on its own (my answer: a whole lot). The point was supposed to be that frosting is sex, cake is a marriage, you really don't want to separate the frosting from the cake.

That year every one of our senior cheerleaders graduated pregnant.

my parents were pretty liberal and didn't expect me to preserve my hymen or any of that nonsense, but my mom did try a variation of the "flower" thing on me. in retrospect i feel really sad for her that she maybe felt like that--that she lost some irretrievable part of herself with every guy she ever slept with. i feel the exact opposite. not like i'm going for gold in the slut olympics or anything or trying to fuck as many people as possible, but i think that all my accumulated sexual experience adds up to make me a much better person. the good, the bad, the ugly--it all has made me so much more aware of what i like and what i don't and how to treat people and how to know behave based on what i'm looking for at a particular time (is this totally a one-night stand or do i want to date this person, etc).

i tend to think of sexual experience, as with most experiences as painting on a canvas that starts out blank.

i went to a public school but in a town full of fundies and i went to church camp and all that. i know a lot of kids who ended up getting married way before they were ready basically so they could have sex. it's a damn shame they had to grow up like that.

Lauren: yay!

I must admit, I'd have difficulty thinking of 200 previous sex partners during sex. The Penguin Atlas of Human Sexual Behavior (2000) says that the average sex act in the UK lasts twenty minutes. That means each previous sex partner gets six seconds: I'd need a metronome. Actually, my memory isn't that wonderful-- maybe I should make a Powerpoint presentation and project it onto the ceiling.

A professor of mine in seminary said that a religion's no good unless it tells you what to do with your pots and pans and genitals.

Eh, you had to be there.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear y'all recognizing the anti-sex message comes from the fundamental/conservative side of Christianity. Not that I'm preaching every Sunday that we should go out and have random mindless sex; but there are liberal, thinking Christians who understand sexuality far differently than the flower or duct tape metaphor.

I liked your comparison of the duct tape metaphor with the flower one. I found that small thing about the duct tape metaphor actually helpful - when you have relationships with people, you leave some of yourself with them and pick up some of them. Now, to me that doesn't make me defiled, if I pick good people I'm probably becoming more refined and seasoned. But that really has little to do with what my sexual relationship was with those people anyway.

I liked your comparison of the duct tape metaphor with the flower one. I found that small thing about the duct tape metaphor actually helpful - when you have relationships with people, you leave some of yourself with them and pick up some of them. Now, to me that doesn't make me defiled, if I pick good people I'm probably becoming more refined and seasoned. But that really has little to do with what my sexual relationship was with those people anyway.

First, I have to laugh, because I think I had to endure a lecture from the same guy... or at least one of his ilk. I graduated from Chisholm Trail Academy. :-)

I now teach comprehensive sex ed, and am constantly amazed at the fright tactics used by the fundies. It has zero effect on most kids' actual behaviour. I don't advocate that my kids go out and have casual sex like they're shaking hands, because I believe (because of biological drives that have been studied as well as my experience) that most people do form attachments when they have sex, whether they plan to or not, and those attachments have consequences. But it's far past time to be real about the conversations about those consequences, and quit with the scare tactics. As well as have adults sharing their experiences and beliefs as just that -- and NOT as fact beyond question or reproach.

I never want either of my girls to be made to feel dirty because they chose to have sex, even if I disagree with their choice. That disgusts me.

The flower example you gave is much like a 'lesson' that I had once when I was little. It was a long time ago, but I think I remember most of it. Us kids sat down in a circle and one person was given a cookie. We were instructed to pass the cookie around the circle. When it got to the last person, the teacher asked us if any of us wanted to eat that cookie. I don't remember if one of us said yes or no, but the point of the lesson was that nobody was supposed to want to eat the cookie because it was 'dirty' and had been touched by everyone.

I look back on that 'lesson' and think about how horrible that kind of message is.

Jessica: Yes, it is. And I totally don't want to buy into the idea here that STD-positive equals "dirty", but I think if I'd been there I would have said "So that's why we should all have been wearing rubber gloves, isn't it?"

There are, of course, times when "comparing" is useful. If I'd never compared sexual experiences, I might never have figured out how much more I enjoyed sex with women than with men. :)

Did anyone actually visit Brad Henning's website? Here it is, for all of your viewing displeasure: www.bradhenning.com.

Among the many ignorant-gender-role-perpetuating lies disguised as knowledge, you'll find a page filled with "innate differences between a male and a female"; a "For Guys Only" section featuring millions of ways to ask the girl out and take her on creative, non-sexified dates; and a "For Girls Only" section which features gems like these:

5. Why are guys scared of smart girls?

Again, what’s a guy’s biggest fear? Being rejected by the girl. He knows he’s not as good at communicating as she is, and most guys think girls are more moral than they are. So he thinks, the smarter the girl is the more she will find out about him. That scares him to death. So if a girl is really smart she will look for ways to let him know that she was soooooo smart…SHE PICKED HIM!!!
By the way, someone asked a bunch of college guys once; “If you were going to ask a girl out, how smart would she have to be.” The guys almost all answered, “Oh, just average.” Then when the guys were asked, “If you were going to try to get the girl into bed…how smart would she have to be?” They all answered, “Oh, BELOW AVERAGE!!! So what does that tell you?

It tells me that I need to be just smart enough to "pick him" but not that smart--just "average."

This guy is a wolf in kindly-old-man clothing.

I think I'm coming in a little late, but what an awesome entry!

Though I've tried so hard to block it, Brad Henning also spoke at my high school. My high school was Catholic and pretty liberal- we still received accurate information in health class. For some screwed up reason, he was brought to speak.

The shittiest part about Henning is that he starts the speech out with humor, citing (pretty sexist) differences between men and women. People laugh at his jokes, and then get sucked into his insane don't-have-sex message. It makes me sad and upset that he speaks to children younger than I was, because they are so much more impressionable and likely to be guided right into his back asswards logic.

Wouldn't only thinking of previous partners just raise questions about your relationship with your current one? That's what I've never understood.

The less sticky the duck tape, the less I have to fix! Okay, bad concept, but I found it amusing...

As for the guy - YIKES! I went to a Catholic high school, and for as much as our sex-ed teacher was prohibited against teaching comprehensive sex-ed, she did her best. She just provided the facts from the CDC and health organizations, but yet, she still ended up getting booted. Although she never once outright said "safe sex is the way to go" she was removed for "reasons of not abiding by the churches teachings regarding abstinence." We boycotted, but of course, they're not gonna listen to a bunch of seniors, so that didn't last very long.

I went to Brad Henning's website. Did anyone notice, not only the CRAPPY "Top 40 Questions Asked by Girls" but the absolutely horrible spelling and grammar mistakes?!?! I mean, if you're going to pretend to educate young people, at least put on the air of being educated yourself. Or don't, hopefully that will lead some kids to look at him and think he's clueless since he can't seem to form a sentence?

And on the "remembering partners in bed" I'd like to think I remember what worked and didn't work, not the specific people. And if someone's really on your mind that much, maybe you should reconsider your relationship...or why they're on your mind.

Another note on Henning's website (it amused me for a while)...

He continually talks about how boys are scared of a girl rejecting them. It's a constant theme throughout all of his "Girls Only" sites (also did anyone notice "Girls Only" has multiple things, while "Guys Only" is date ideas? Girls ARE NOT allowed to come up with fun, non-sexual date ideas), along with the idea that a girl will find a guy stupid if he talks to long or if he says to much or if he tries to hard. Guys have to be quiet, macho and fit into the hardened stereotype of the full-blown chauvinistic American male *shakes head* I've never heard him speak, but he doesn't exactly strike me as the type to come out and say that, while his teachings and his concepts and his website all feed into the constant stereotypes that people encounter daily, and it just makes me sad.

Stop feeding patriarchal stereotypes that only push people further back into the realm of the 50s!

I apologize for the double comment, I'm a little scatterbrained tonight.

If you have a policeman friend, this is a great way to surprise your girlfriend on Valentine's day. Have the officer follow her to school, pull her over and walk up to her car with his ticket book in hand. "I'm sorry miss but you went through cupid's red light and I'm going to have to give you a Valentine." Then have him pull out a big red valentine with your name on it. She will always wonder how you pulled it off.

Folks, we're dealing with Mr Classy here.

Oh, and he has a question about why "he's a stud, she's a slut"! Maybe he urgently needs to read Jessica's book.

"Here's one I hear all the time: 'We wanted to make sure we were sexually compatible.' Well, I would have thought it was a pretty simple matter of biology!"

Wow. There's a guy who knows nothing about sex beyond Insert Tab A Into Slot B. I feel sorry for his wife.

"I'm sorry miss but you went through cupid's red light and I'm going to have to give you a Valentine."

Aside from how not cool it is to unnerve your girlfriend for a laugh, how do you get the officer to say that without throwing up? I mean really, it sounds like a bad song title, right up there with "You Tried to Make Me Take a Credit Card for Love in the Cash-Only Check-Out Lane of My Heart".

So much of this scares me. All these lies. I mean sex can be a big thing particularly because of how it's emphasized in our culture and the risks if you aren't careful but other sexual activities have given me similar feelings of connectedness. Sex is different but not magical like some people make it sound.
(Although, it can depend on your beliefs. If you REALLY want to have sex with only one person, and then you have sex before marriage, that might make you more likely to stay with the person. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

I'm appalled by this "you think of everyone who you ever had sex with" fallacy. By that token, every time my husband and I have sex, he's not thinking about me, he's thinking about his dead first wife.

My husband, the necrophiliac.

Thanks, fundies!

Good post, Lauren! Oh, I was relieved to read that I'm not the only one who doesn't remember everyone I've slept with! I do tend to remember the evil ones - but only to wonder if their dicks have fallen off like I wished.

Maybe the duct tape trick should be turned around into a safe sex lesson. Whatever you put the duct tape on has to be wrapped in latex first. No matter how many times the duct tape is put on, the latexed item remains clean and unsticky! Same with Jessica's cookie "lesson." Too bad the kids were probably too small to say, "Put the damned cookie in a baggie, idiot."

This reminded me of two experiences with sex ed I had at high school.
The school administration decided that the information on reproductive health given by biology teachers might not be sufficient. For whatever the reason, they invited a doctor from a local IVF clinic.
Why not, he was a doc and not entirely stupid but his lecture was directed only to girls (with boys present). As if the boys only inserted tab A in slot B.... and it was ashaming. Explaining that at a certain age, girls start to change, such as grow boobs, and some have boobs earlier and some later, pointing at the more or less developed individuals, for example.
The other sermon masked as a useful lecture was given by some American fundies. I'm in Europe, fiy. Maybe your goverment pays for it, I don't know but it was money well wasted. The fundie woman told a lengthy story about a girl who had lots of sex with lots of boys and when she found the Mr. Right, she was making love to him and she saw a parade of her exes and their exes on the ceiling, thus becoming aware that she actually had sex with all those people and the people they had sex with (extending it probably to the whole world of sexual partners, I miss the logic here) and that she suddenly started to feel so tainted and dirty and sorry that she didn't wait for the Mr. Right and the usual crap. And that the only decent way of living is getting married and making babies because life without getting married to Mr. Right and having babies is meaningless, empty and drives one mad.

The biggest lie I was told was that everybody needs sex and if they don't, they are somewhat ill and need therapy.

If there really is a guy Henning knows that is haunted by sleeping with 200 women in one summer, I'm guessing that the guy is not bothered by the fact that he slept with so many women, but guilt-ridden over the tactics he used to get them into bed.

Oh, the cookie thing is going to haunt me. Baggie or no baggie, the cookie is an object being passed from hand to hand, just as a good Christian girl knows she will be passed from her father to her husband. I was home schooled and taught that sex is an act of darkness, to be spoken about in hushed tones if spoken of at all, that can cause irreversible damage to unsuspecting girls and boys. So I got pregnant twice before I turned 18. After all that I was clearly a sinner anyway, so I threw up my hands, had some completely horrible, mutually clueless relationships, gradually learned something, wised up and am now ridiculously happy in my marriage. Thanks for nothing, abstinence-only education. Great post, Lauren and thanks to Jessica for putting it on the main page.

"I'm sorry miss but you went through cupid's red light and I'm going to have to give you a Valentine."

gah! talk about "policing" gender roles!

I know I'm really late to this, but I think I found the 9 reasons. Someone posted them on another message board when the subject of premarital sex came up.

http://www.collegenet.com/elect/app/app?service=external/Forum&sp=3148

BellonaFlayreRiver:
Re: Sex before marriage?
think of it this way. if the two of them dont end up getting married, than hes just slept with someone else's wife.

not to mention cheated on his future wife.

and trust me, no one wants that on their shoulders.

and if anyone thinks they are ready for sex, then they need to consider these things:
-are you ready to support a child?
-are you ready to accept the consequences of possible STDs?

i dont believe in sex before marriage. here's nine reasons why i think everyone should wait (thanks to Brad Henning):
1. So you can know the WHOLE person.
2. So you can build and test each others trust.
3. So there is no guilt or fear later.
4. so best sexy isnt destroyed.
5. so youre not faced with abortions and pregnancies.
6. so you'll never have an STD (at least lower your chances).
7. so you'll never be compared to past partners.
8. so you wont have to fight a bad reputation.
9. so you wont be stealing from someone else's marriage.