Stop in the Name of Love

Asked why she didn’t want to have pre-marital sex, Jasmine, a teenager from the Bronx, told The New York Times, “If I do ... then the honeymoon won’t be all exciting like you see on TV, so romantic and like a big deal.” Jasmine is only in high school. She probably hasn’t taken any econ yet, but she understands the concept of opportunity cost as well as anyone on campus; regarding romance, she has a better grasp of reality than many.

Sex at Columbia is viewed as little more than an enjoyable exercise, one that may incur a moderate risk of catching a painful, even fatal disease, but is otherwise harmless and to be engaged in at will, with any willing party. Those who buy this line not only develop a cheapened sense of self-worth and a pattern of viewing peers as tools for their self-gratification, but are left with long-term emptiness that comes from a candy-filled diet, devoid of committed and nourishing relationships. All this is our gift from ’60s revolutionaries who compared strict societal standards against the moral failings of their elders and decided to throw off the concept of morality wholesale. “Everyone’s doing it” Kinsey said. “We won’t let them stop us from having fun too,” they concluded.

“Free love” became the movement’s slogan—yet what we are left with has no connection to love, but rather epitomizes soul-numbing, society-eroding, self-gratification. The movement failed to recognize that the inability of previous generations to follow a moral code had no bearing on that code’s intrinsic quality. Sex is best saved for a life-long marriage, and not because old religious prudes want to keep us from having fun. First, sex is infinitely more satisfying when you put your whole being into it. In marriage, sex isn’t an incident; it is total communication. The baring of the body accompanies the baring of the soul, a whole package of intimacy.

But you cannot bare your heart to someone unless you trust them. And you are a fool to trust someone who won’t offer you commitment. If they really aren’t willing to commit to you for life, then they really just want to enjoy you for a night or for a season. Whenever they leave you, they will take your secrets with them. They will also tear up part of your soul. No matter how cynical you become, you cannot avoid the deep emotional scars that result.

In a course I took last summer, there was a young couple who had been married for about a year. They trusted each other and each found endless wonder not only in their spouse’s qualities, but in the pleasure of having been chosen and lastingly accepted—strengths and weaknesses together. Second is the issue of children. Today, the traditional work of parenting is largely despised. Yet children raised by single or separated parents can tell you that, while they survived and may love their parents deeply, they often wish from the bottom of their hearts that their parents had stuck it out.

Sex is not a right, it is a responsibility. When you establish a pattern of multiple partners, you not only risk a pregnancy that will have to end in abortion or a child being raised alone, but you form patterns of infidelity that make a lasting marriage, a difficult prospect, all the more challenging.

Like Jasmine, question your ideals. Do you like being sized up like a barnyard animal for a night’s exercise, or would you prefer intimacy with a friend who wants your best, and will accept you for years to come? Do you care about children; are you willing to alter your behavior for their benefit?

Not everyone is “doing it.” Those that aren’t are free from needless worries about STIs, pregnancy, and gossip. And they look forward to something exciting that will not only still be “a big deal,” but will also be safe and immeasurably more satisfying than cheap thrills in the meantime.

The author is a doctoral student in the Teachers College.