By Katherine Zhang
Contributing Writer

The decision to have sex is ultimately a personal choice. How­ever, the idea of abstaining from premarital sex is flawed in both theory and prac­tice. But its flaws only negate its validity as a les­son to be forced upon others but not its validity as a personal choice.

Abstaining from premari­tal sex is not a new theory. Its roots stem from outdated ideals that simply don’t have a place in modern, lib­eral society. The idea grew from the belief that women should remain pure virgins un­til marriage, a message that was often enforced by the religious establishment. This strongly anti-feministic belief is not stressed as much today in teaching pre­marital abstinence. However, modern society still imposes a more negative stigma on women who decide to have premarital sex than men who make the same decision. Thus, the emphasis on premarital abstinence still clings to its anti-feministic roots.

Also problematic is the fact that pre­marital abstinence is subtly but inher­ently homophobic. American society has yet to wholly embrace homosexuals’ right to marriage. This means that since homosexuals are unable to truly marry, their sexual acts are innately “wrong,” sending a homophobic message.

The more idealistic side of the pre­marital abstinence theory is also unfit­ting in today’s society. The “romantic” ideal was that a person would only have sex with one person his entire life. Unfor­tunately, this depends on the condition that a person would also stay married to one person his entire life. More and more people are choosing not to marry in the first place. The marriage rates fell from 24.2 marriages per 1000 people in 1940 to only 15.6 marriages per 1000 in 2002. Furthermore, 43 percent of those who do marry end up divorced, repudiating the “one person per lifetime” ideal.

The idea of premarital abstinence is also exceedingly impractical. Sex is an important part of a relationship. Humans were finding sexual mates long before they sought emotional mates. Denying the sex in a relationship denies a huge part of the relationship itself. It would be extremely difficult to build a marriage where there is not sexual compatability, a fact which they may discover too late if they wait until they are married.

Because it is so significant, sex will also often seriously change a relation­ship. It would be terrible to discover a huge change for the worse in a relation­ship after someone has promised “’til death do us part.”

There is nothing wrong with hav­ing the romantic or perhaps religiously motivated ideal of abstaining from sex until marriage. However, the problems in the idea of premarital abstinence does point to the fact that it is open to differ­ing opinions. Thus, the decision should never be forced upon anyone and should always remain a personal choice.