I live in New York City and attend Columbia University–probably one of the most liberal institutions in the country, both in terms of politics and in terms of student behavior. I’ve spent more nights than I care to remember, holding the hand of one my best girlfriends at the nasty end of a consummated romantic relationship; holding the hair out of her face while she threw up her dinner and tequila, thinking back on all the sexual favors she preformed before he dumped her. We like to think of modern western women as liberated because we have the “freedom” to dress scantily, seduce men openly, have sex however we want, with whomever we want, whenever we want.

To me, this is not freedom. Over the summer, I was reading the Washington Post and came across a story about Sarkozy banning women in “burqinis” from French swimming pools, saying ‘Such clothing imprisons women.’ The idea that bikini-clad women are the most free represents a wildly popular, and incredibly narrow way of thinking. Personally, I dress modestly because I feel more free when straight men I encounter are forced to look to somewhere beyond my surface because the surface is covered up. I feel more confident and less prejudged for my gender when I know I haven’t tempted men to view me as a sexual object.

When I tell men on the third date that I plan on remaining abstinent until marriage, it’s valuable to see who sticks around and who runs in the other direction. When I’m in a relationship with a guy, I know for a fact that he takes me seriously, enjoys my company, and isn’t just in it for the sex. I feel FREE to love (in the emotional sense!) without inhibition because if a guy is staying with me, it’s not for something so fleeting as sexual passion, but for something much deeper.

While women may feel, in this age of post-feminism, that there are no social taboos to govern our sexual decisions, it’s important to consider the pressure our modern culture places on us to have premarital sex, in the same way a previous culture pressured us not to. My father never took me to a Purity Ball, and neither of my parents ever suggested I would be cast into the lake of fire for succumbing to sexual instincts before marriage. I was lucky that they lovingly convinced me to wait at least until I finished high school, and that by then I had matured to the point of making the decision to continue holding out until marriage.

I realized that my hormones are present but controllable. The real pressure was coming, not as a consequence of nature, but of nurture. Most of my best friends have had sex, and we talk about their experiences openly, which makes me curious. The late-night television air waves are all abuzz with the sound of screaming orgasms. No need to check out porn for steamy sex scenes–the R-rated movies I’ve seen in theaters since age 17 should suggest an extra pair of panties in the adverts. I’m overwhelmed by the number of magazines displayed openly in grocery store check-out aisles, that want to show me how to make him hot and how to have the most incredible sexual experience of my life. I figure attribution for my growing sex drive could be divided in the following manner: 20% my hormones, 30% pressure from my rotten ex-boyfriend, and a whopping 50% in cultural suggestion.

Just as women of the 1850s may not have known that sex out of wedlock was an option, today’s young women may not be aware that waiting for marriage is a viable option. It took a lot of soul-searching, a lot of research, and a lot of social experimentation for me to understand that I could wait for sex. The girls attending the Purity Ball are growing up in the USA. Trust me, they can see that the world will not end if they fall short of their pledge. However, everyone’s body and everyone’s heart is different. There are some girls out there who are perfectly capable of holding out for that one special man, and would be more comfortable doing so, but are convinced that that would be abnormal and socially unacceptable, and that sex is the only way to get close enough to a man that he would be willing to marry her. The fact that these girls have their fathers to counter those untruths is a beautiful thing, as is the fact that they don’t have to feel alone in their convictions, as they’re surrounded by other girls making the same pledge.

One last point: I know it sounds kind of weird that the girls intend to give themselves as wedding gifts to their husbands, and that it’s particularly politically incorrect. But can any men on this thread deny that when a woman consents to have sex with you, it’s a gift? If the man loves the woman he’s with and is willing to take his time and ensure that her physical needs are met, isn’t that a gift from him to her? We spend so much time trying to make ourselves desirable to the opposite sex (or same sex if we’re LGBT), and we appreciate their acceptance of us and the pleasurable sensations that ensue. If that gift is saved for marriage, it becomes a wedding gift. Perhaps a little jarring to read, but please don’t paint these people as freaks for terming it the way they did.

1) First of all, “salvation” in Mormon doctrine is not the same as in mainline Christianity. According to Mormonism, ALL people (married or not) who do not “deny the Holy Ghost” will live forever in a paradise beyond imagination, and NOT live with the devil forever, as in mainline Christianity’s concept of hell. You ought to know that most of your readers don’t understand that, and without that understanding, the Mormons and their God seem much more cruel to the outsider. That Mormons believe the highest salvation cannot be enjoyed without heterosexual marriage is true; however, an important caveat here is that the marriage does not have to happen in this life. Indeed, Church leaders DO NOT advocate gay members to enter heterosexual marriages in this life.

2) God will eventually tell us, but perhaps not until after we die. That’s also when we’ll find out why countless of innocent people had to suffer anything, from common colds to genocide.

3)True, and not just gay sex, but any pre- or extra-marital sex.

4) Sex within the bonds of heterosexual matrimony is not sinful, but rather a sacred act within its sacred context (marriage). There is no irony here: it would include polygamous heterosexual marriage here if such were the current practice of the Church. But since it’s not the current practice, but is CURRENTLY contrary to the will of God for polygamy to be PRESENTLY practiced, the only God-sanctioned sexual relations PRESENTLY occur in heterosexual monogamous marriages. That’s what the Mormons really believe.

5) Sex IS sacred. Trifling with sacred things is immoral. The only proper setting for sex is within the bonds of heterosexual marriage, which was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. So sex-outside-of-marriage is immoral, not sex itself. Sex itself is not evil, but to treat sacred things lightly, or in a manner contrary to God’s commandments, IS evil, as you put it.

6) You are correct that Mormons believe self-denial of unclean things leads to greater self-respect, among other benefits. You are also correct in that Mormons do not believe sexual drives are the same as biological or even social NEEDS. History abounds in examples of men and women who have led admirable, fulfilling lives without sex.

I would like to add a personal thought here, which is not Church doctrine insofar as I know, but also is not refuted by Church doctrine, again insofar as I know. I would direct you to Matthew 19:12, wherein Christ, speaking on marriage (verse 10), says “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Eunuchs were not only castrated men, as is evident in His description of the earliest eunuchs. So what could He be referring to? Celibates, perhaps? If so, who would those celibates be? Well, from the womb, there are people who are physically unable to copulate. In Christ’s time, there were men who “were made eunuchs of men” via castration for various reasons. It is the third category that is most intriguing. Who are those who have CHOSEN to be celibate “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”? I think it possible that He was including here the homosexuals who would practice abstinence because the gospel and the kingdom of heaven require it.

7 – 15) In these items you are less factual and go more on opinion, so I won’t go through these clarifying fact from half-truth. However, if anyone would like further discussion of these items, I’d be happy to share what I know and what I think.

I appreciate the integrity displayed by your posting this.

http://quebecer13.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/human-rights-optional-in-quebec/

I realize from your perspective right now, this will sound trite, but you are so lucky to have figured this out in your teens. My doubts didn’t start until my early 20s and didn’t really change completely until I was in graduate school. It does take a lot of years and hard work to “deprogram” yourself, especially from tight religious scripts such as a conservative evangelical background.

The problem is that religion gives you a complete world view, giving meaning to everything around you, so when you realize you don’t believe it anymore, you are left floating and adrift, moorless. So I would urge you to focus your energies on looking for “meaning”. A good way to do this is to step back from religion and think of it as a “philosophy of life”, and start looking around the world at how different people have answered the Big Questions (Who am I? Why am I here? What does it all mean?). Artists, poets, musicians, philosophers, and even religion (if you think of it is humanity’s attempt to give meaning to life) can give you ideas, thoughts, inspirations. You’ll start feeling connected to humanity and to other people on the same journey as you. Rather than feeling a connection to a “god”, you can learn true compassion for your fellow human beings. If possible, see if you can find a group of friends you trust to talk about these things. There are even “churches” that offer this kind of atmosphere, such as the Unitarians. You might even consider an in-between step by reading some rational, liberal, loving Christian thought; I highly recommend Elaine Pagels’ books on ancient Christianity, Bishop Spong’s critical books on the meaning of the Bible; Marcus J. Borg’s books on the meaning of Christianity and Jesus after you have a rational awakening.

There are a lot of things out there for you to help in this process. Good luck!