I was shaking my head throughout Steven Begakis’ “Sex and Morality Should Mix” (Daily Nexus, Feb. 12, 2009). His first mistake is assuming all instances of pre-marital sex involve “drunkenness and free love.” What about every sober, consensual, perhaps even monogamous instance of premarital sex? Do those people not deserve the knowledge of how to protect themselves against STIs and pregnancy?
Contrary to what the article says, condoms of course do provide protection again all kinds of STIs; the levels of protection are varied with HIV being almost completely protected against (a two year study in 1994, New England showed 100 percent effectiveness, although misuse would obviously drop that number), while cases of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia were shown to be significantly lower in consistent condom users, although the studies show a good deal of variation in just how effective they are.
Everybody, please keep using condoms. And thank goodness somebody taught you how! Abstinence-only education was shown to not successfully prevent teenagers from having sex in a 2007 study ordered by Congress. It has also been criticized by the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, two groups who know a lot about people’s mental and physical well-being. It’s clear to see that one person’s idea of morality is another (very well qualified) person’s idea of misinformation.
Lastly, I would like to say that there is nothing about premarital sex that is comparable to adultery. Just because YOUR relationship (with God? Your parents?) requires you to not have sex doesn’t mean everybody else has those restrictions, so next time, before you go about outlining your version of morality as the “responsible” choice, I suggest you recheck you facts and rethink your metaphors.