On the same day that the media reports that Iran intends to Islamise the humanities in Iran, because it is too "Western", also comes news that an Iranian couple was fined by the Thai police for having sex on a beach in Pattaya.

In all of India and I’ve noticed in particular Mumbai, there is a tremendous gap between the rich and poor.  The latter live in the most squalid conditions imaginable.  Or to put it another way, it is quite unimaginable that anyone could live like this.  But it is there, in your face, on almost every other street, in Mumbai.

On the second last day of my recent trip to India, a local colleague was kind enough to take me around Mumbai and out for dinner.

Over dinner she told me that when she first brought her son to Singapore for a visit, he asked her "Mummy, are there no poor people in Singapore ?".

Nothing, I told her, like in Mumbai.

Singaporeans don’t seem to have much better to do than to discuss homosexuality these days (I suppose by this post I would be guilty of this), and today’s papers carried reports about how National University of Singapore law academic and former Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li Ann had decided to withdraw from her upcoming stint to teach Human Rights Law and Constitutionalism in Asia, at the New York University (NYU) School of Law.

Prof Thio is notorious in Singapore for her speech in Parliament comparing anal sex to shoving a straw up the nose, and for her views against homosexuality.  Not unexpectedly, when pro-gay students received news of Prof Thio’s visiting appointing at NYU, they circulated information about her anti-gay views so that students could make "informed decisions regarding class registration".  According to the Office of the Dean, a number of "members of the community" (I assume this includes NYU academics) had even written directly to Prof Thio to object to her appointment as visiting professor.

Vigorous opposition to Prof Thio’s appointment can be seen in online articles / debates at Singapore’s The Online Citizen and the US legal tabloid Above the Law.  In the case of the latter, see the Online Petition, NYU Professor not a Fan of Gay Rights, Thio Li Ann : All about Her Mother, and Much Ado About Nothing, amongst many others.  (OK, so the Americans also seem to spend about as much time as Singaporeans discussing homosexuality).

Prof Thio’s two classes were severely unsubscribed (roughly only 25% enrolment), and she withdrew at least partly because of this.

Pro-gay camp, 1.

But wait !  Just a couple of weeks ago, it was announced that former Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong, who is pro-gay, would not be appointed for a second term.  It would be naive to think that the opposition by the anti-gay camp in Singapore to his reappointment was not taken into consideration by the Select Committee.  So there we go.

Anti-gay camp, 1.

And the losers are both camps and everyone else.  By collectively opposing the appointment and reappointment of Prof Thio Li Ann as visiting professor and Siew Kum Hong as Nominated Member of Parliament respectively based on their pro or anti-gay views, the pro and anti-gay camps have cut off from themselves and from others the contributions (in addition to their pro / anti-gay views) which these individuals can bring to the quality of learning and to parliamentary debate.

Are there many other academics as qualified as Thio Li Ann to teach about human rights in Asia ?  Has any NMP spoken as extensively and as intelligently as Siew Kum Hong in Parliament ?  I don’t necessarily agree with all of the views of both, but I think that we are a little poorer without them.

Finally, a word of sympathy for what Thio Li Ann is going through.  Many Internet forumers in Singapore have called her a coward (and worse things) for withdrawing from NYU.  I don’t think this is fair.  Given how vocal the Americans are compared to us Asians, I imagine the opposition that she would have to confront for her views would be several times more intense than anything anyone would experience in Singapore.  The US is not like sanitised Singapore, where debates are polite, protests / demonstrations unheard of, and personal safety generally a given.  Here Siew Kum Hong mentions his wife’s fear that he would be manhandled by security guards, and jeering "where were you", both at the AWARE EOGM, and we Singaporeans recoil at the indignity of the proceedings.

Some of us might not agree with Thio Li Ann’s anti-gay views.  Some of us might think that Thio Li Ann deserves a very public opposition to her anti-gay views.  But she is, like all of us gay or straight, human, and I would empathise and think that any person in the same circumstances as Thio Li Ann would feel the same pressure to retreat.

And the above I think is one of the problems with the pro / anti-gay debate in Singapore.  The parties in both camps have stopped seeing each other as human, "fearfully and wonderfully made", and seen it fit to hurl all sorts of invective as well as death threats and fake (thankfully) anthrax powder at each other.  (Well, the latter two were received by the anti-gay camp courtesy of anonymous persons from the pro-gay camp, but the favour was not returned).

My letter to the Straits Times in response to Felicia Tan’s letter was published on its Online Forum today.

Religiously informed views can make policies better

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Ms Felicia Tan, ‘Facts outshine faith’.

Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential ‘to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual’.

I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual as a religiously informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as on the integrated resorts will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.

In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should be carried out respectfully, with the hope that different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to give way graciously to another in the implementation of a policy or law.

Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, ‘only logic and reason should dominate discourse’.

And that ’scientific, sociological and economic facts’ and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.

The process of law or policymaking is not so simple.

The death penalty or castration would be highly effective in deterring rapists from re-offending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists. A clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone does not determine law or policy.

This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at a particular time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. What the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today may be regarded as completely acceptable in the future.

Religiously informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.

This is the original text.

Facts Outshine Faith ?

I refer to the forum letter, “Facts Outshine Faith”, by Ms Felicia Tan (28 May 2009).

Ms Tan advances the concept of pure secularism as the superior and only rational option for a multi-religious country like Singapore, believing that this is essential “to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual”.

I respectfully disagree. A non-religious policy has as much potential to encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual, as does a religiously-informed one. Even a non-religious policy such as the establishment of integrated resorts, will encroach on the beliefs of those who believe that the state should not condone gambling, whether out of religious conviction or non-religious experience.

In my opinion, it is precisely because Singapore is multi-religious, that it is necessary for a fair opportunity to be given to all views, whether based on religion or not, to be debated by any individual or parliamentarian who cares to raise them. What is essential is that this debate should (to the extent it is humanly possible) be carried out respectfully, with the hope that the different views will find common areas of agreement, and with the understanding that one view (or certain parts of one view) may sometimes have to graciously give way to another in the implementation of a policy or law.

Ms Tan also argues that, as part of pure secularism, “only logic and reason should dominate discourse”. “Scientific, sociological and economic facts” and not faith should form the basis for a policy or law.

I question if the process of law / policy making is so simple.

Factually, the death penalty or castration would be highly effective in preventing rapists from reoffending. However, many of us would hesitate to prescribe such severe penalties for rapists, and indeed modern societies do not. This suggests that a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts alone should not determine law and / or policy.

In the above example, a common perception that the death penalty or castration for rape would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of human rights, has resulted in the imposition of more humane penalties for rapists. In other words, clinical facts are sometimes (if not always) weighed against personal values, before a law or policy is formulated.

Ms Tan would argue that these values should be purely secular. Can they ? I have just argued that it may not always be possible to derive (secular) values from a clinical examination of scientific or economic facts.

This leaves secular values to mean the values held by the majority on a non-religious basis at the relevant point in time. If so, Ms Tan must be prepared for the possibility that such values may change over time. That what the majority perceives as cruel and unusual punishment for rapists today, may be regarded as completely acceptable sometime in the future.

Religiously-informed values, on the other hand, do not shift with the mood prevailing in society, at least in theory. This is the positive contribution which religious conviction can bring to the debate and formulation of policies and laws.

I’ve written a letter to the Straits Times and TODAY responding to the forum letter by Ms Felicia Tan (see bottom of this post).  If it gets published it would probably come out tomorrow.

NMP Thio Li-Ann must have made several people in the Straits Times very, very upset when she stood up in Parliament on 26 May and said

"The feedback I received from friends and strangers on the reporting of the Aware controversy was that much of the reporting, particularly in one paper, was biased. It largely lacked a diversity of views in singing the same chorus that religious groups should not get involved in secular organisations."

Because the majority of print and online letters that followed in the two days after that were hostile to her views.  I think the substance of those letters leaves much to be desired, though.

Family Ties : NMP Thio’s advocacy inappropriate (Print, 29 May)

Given that two of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Thio Li-ann’s relatives were closely linked to the saga (her mother, Dr Thio Su Mien, admitted playing the key role in bringing about the leadership change after monitoring Aware’s affairs for a year, and her cousin-in-law Josie Lau was the ‘new’ Aware president for several weeks), it is highly inappropriate for the NMP to use her position in Parliament to address an issue in which she has a personal stake.

I fail to see how NMP Thio’s speech was inappropriate.  She did not devote her speech to defending her mother’s or the Josie Lau’s conduct and, even if she did, there would be no issue of abusing her privilege as Josie Lau and committee have resigned after losing a no confidence vote at the AWARE EOGM.

Disingenuous Absence of a Vital Fact in NMP’s Speech (Online, 29 May)

Had [ Josie Lau's ] assumption of power been left unchallenged, their religious beliefs would have severely compromised Aware’s primary mission of addressing women’s issues regardless of religious background.

This is the same, tired story which the AWARE Old Guard and its most ardent supporters sold to new AWARE members, to great success as they obtained sufficient votes to pass the no confidence motion against Josie Lau’s EXCO.  However, it takes quite a bit of imagination (of which there was no short supply in the AWARE saga) to conclude, from the fact that Josie Lau, et al, were Christians mostly from the same church, that they would severely compromise "AWARE’s primary mission of addressing women’s issues regardless of religious background".  Admittedly Josie Lau and committee might be biased in favour of certain issues (or against certain issues, such as homosexuality and a liberal sexuality programme), but unless those issues constitute the primary mission of AWARE, then there is little reason to believe that they would compromise it.  Anyway, the fact remains that it is now impossible to prove that Josie Lau and committee would have compromised AWARE’s primary mission because they are not in office.

Trusting God not the same as trusting Godly human beings (Online, 29 May)

READING excerpts from Nominated MP Thio Li-ann’s speech on Wednesday (’No ‘bright line’ between religion and politics’), I am amazed that an accomplished woman of her calibre cannot fully perceive the danger in mixing religion with politics.  While she enthuses her preference for hearing and reading diverse views, does she honestly believe her faith is willing to embrace diverse opinions which may be crucial to the survival of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural group of women who need help?  How many people throughout history have been persecuted in the name of religion ?

This writer is guilty of trying to discredit NMP Thio’s authority by calling her an accomplished but stupid woman for wishing to mix religion and politics.  All of us of course agree that mixing religion and politics is tricky business, but NMP Thio’s speech was a lot more sophisticated than just "let’s mix religion and politics".

Then there is the unfair question which NMP Thio will not be able to respond to — "does she honestly believe … ?".  Readers are invited to conclude that she does not (and is being disingenuous) or that she does (and is stupid).

Finally the "how many people … have been persecuted in the name of religion" question is another unfair question inviting readers to conclude that because evil has been done in the name of religion, religion is bad, which is total nonsense.  People all over the world have been unfairly persecuted for all sorts of things, because humans are fundamentally not very nice.  Non-religious people like Lenin or Stalin or Mao, have been as guilty as religious people in persecuting others.

The mother of all letters, I think, is this one from one Ms Felicia Tan -

Facts Outshine Faith (Print, 28 May)

I DISAGREE with Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann’s assertion yesterday (’Secularism practised in S’pore ‘does not exclude religion”) that religion is appropriate in the public sphere.

On the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore’s multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.

By basing an argument on one’s religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.

Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief- specific.

In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.

An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.

Instead of appealing to one’s faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.

Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen’s secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.

In this way, pure secularism, with its clear separation of religion and politics, is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.

Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.

What is interesting is that TODAY published the same letter by the writer, but probably in an unedited form (or with less editing), so the rawness of her arguments really ring out.

Not Militant, Just Civic Minded (Print, 28 May)

I refer to the report, "A Recipe for Disharmony".

I wholeheartedly disagree with NMP Thio’s assertion that "militant secularism" would lead to greater disharmony.  I believe that on the contrary, it is precisely because of Singapore’s multi-religious nature that pure secularism in the public sphere, regardless of how seemingly "militant", is essential to ensure that no policies or public debates encroach on the beliefs or disbeliefs of any individual.

By basing an argument on one’s religious views, one would essentially alienate the views of other Singaporeans who are of other religions or are non- believers.  Such an argument would be non-inclusive, narrow and, worst of all, belief-specific. 

In a country where people of various religions and non-believers alike co- exist, it would be extremely unreasonable and self-centred to assert that a policy be implemented because of the beliefs of a single religion, especially if this policy contradicts the beliefs or principles of another group.

An argument about a policy or social issue should be made based on its own merits.  Instead of appealing to one’s faith as the basis of arguing for or against a policy or law, one must instead appeal to the scientific, sociological or economic facts of the issue.  Only then can Singaporeans be confident that the policy was made with each citizen’s secular interests in mind, and not as a form of favouritism towards one or a few religions.

In this way, the position of so-called "militant" secularists is the only rational option for a multi-religious country, to ensure every religion is free to practise in its own private space.  Religion-based arguments have no place in public debates about policies. Only logic and reason should dominate discourse in the public sphere.

I intend to post a separate note on Ms Tan’s letter.

Couldn’t resist taking a dig at one of the more inscrutable statements in the AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) Programme.

For those who have given unqualified support to the CSE Programme on the basis that it encourages "critical thinking", was denial or delusion what you had in mind ?

Today’s (13 May 2009) Straits Times carried a forum letter, "Instilling Values a Complex Task", in which the writer states :

The social and cultural environment in which young people are informally educated consists of more than parents and teachers. In today’s information society, a child’s identity develops under influences that far exceed the censorship of well-meaning adults.

Television, cinema, popular music and the Internet, for example, are powerful and pervasive transmitters of popular culture and cosmopolitan values.

Such media images of gender roles and sexual behaviour draw on a range of liberal and conservative perspectives.

To what extent does the formal curriculum in schools teach students to critically analyse these diverse media messages so as to help them make responsible, well- informed decisions for themselves?

Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) push for critical thinking. If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?

A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore’s society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well- researched knowledge and information.

Let’s pick up on two issues raised in this letter — the pervasive influence of the media and the need for a sensitive and intelligent sexuality education program to deal with this — in the light of the current AWARE Comprehensive Sexuality Education Program, which instructor’s guide states that :

(1)  Pre-marital sex is neutral

(2)  Anal sex is neutral

(3)  Virginity is a state of mind

(4)  Sex is fun

Suppose a student watches a movie (say "Rear Entry") in which there is an explicit sex scene between a teenaged couple (unmarried of course), and for some reason it has escaped the notice of our usually diligent censors that there is a very graphic depiction of anal sex.  In the extreme, what might the instructor say in relation to this movie which is consistent with the CSE guide ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend.  Lots of teenagers do it.  Let me tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of.  Sex is fun and normal, and all forms of sexual activity (including anal sex) are ok.  Just make sure you don’t get hurt and that your boyfriend is wearing a condom correctly. 

Society and your parents probably think that virginity is important, so you should wait till you get married.  Actually its all a state of mind.  Some people think that anal sex or oral sex are not sex and therefore you are still a virgin as long as you don’t engage in virginal sex — that’s what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe.  Some people believe that you are a virgin if you abstain from sex for long periods between each encounter — what you believe, and you are a virgin if that’s what you believe. 

Or would this be more appropriate ?

Society and your parents probably don’t generally approve of pre-marital sex, but in reality there may be times when you just feel like doing it with your boyfriend.  Lots of teenagers do it.  Let me tell you that sexual desire is nothing to be ashamed of.  Sexual desire is normal, but I want you to be very clear that there are risks in engaging in (casual / pre-marital) sex, and it is partly for these reasons that your parents wouldn’t want you to engage in pre-marital sex.  The risks are :

1.  You might get pregnant.

2.  You might contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), particularly when engaging in a riskier form of sexual activity such as anal sex.

3.  Condoms when used correctly can significantly reduce the risk of (1) and (2).  However, sometimes condoms are used incorrectly (especially in the heat of passion) or they fail (burst).  If a condom does not completely cover a lesion, you might still contract genital warts.

4.  You might feel hurt emotionally or "used" if the relationship does not work out.  Or your privacy might be compromised — look at Edison Chen, et al !

If you do decide to go ahead and have sex, my advice is that you should at least insist that your boyfriend is wearing a condom.  Maybe you even want to ask him if he has an STD or multiple sex partners before — that would be an indication (though by no means conclusive) of whether he is "safe" !  And if ever you engage in an unsafe sexual activity, please go and get yourself tested.  Early detection and treatment will better protect your health, and is the only responsible thing to do for your future sex partner(s).

If you find all the above a little intimidating, then maybe casual / pre-marital sex is not worth the risk !  While a lot of teenagers do engage in sex, and you might feel pressure to do the same, there are also be teenagers who have consciously decided not to engage in sex until they are married.  Maybe this seems a little old-fashioned — sex is portrayed so attractively and as so commonplace in the media.  But movies do not create reality, you do.  You have a choice as to whether to give in to pressure.  You have a choice as to whether to avoid places and situations where you might be tempted to have sex with your boyfriend.  And I hope that, when under pressure, you would have the courage and presence of mind to do what is safe even if it seems unpopular — abstaining from sex.

Admittedly the above is easier to pen than to say to a teenager.  Well, my time will come when my kids become teenagers.

There is talk on the Internet that Christians or the "Christian Right" are "astroturfing" in order to prevent the reappointment of Siew Kum Hong as NMP.  The basis for the Wayang Party’s report is "notice" (we are not told of its origins) that "a campaign is underway to swarm REACH with feedback in order to exert pressure on the Parliamentary Select Committee to reject Mr Siew’s application [ for NMP ]".

I would like to see another smoking gun as the basis for this allegation of astroturfing.  It has become all too convenient of late to blame and demonise Christians / the Christian Right for anything which is not supportive of the gay lobby.  I do not doubt that there are many Christians who have written in to express that they oppose Siew Kum Hong’s return as a NMP, but I am not sure if it goes as far as astroturfing.

So what do I think ?

As mentioned before in relation to the AWARE saga, I think it is generally insensible to vote for / against (or in the case of NMPs who are not elected, support or oppose) a political candidate on the basis of his / her stand on single issues alone.  Rather, candidates should be assessed holistically on their competence and ability to contribute.

What if one day, all the candidates for elections (for whatever reason) have to declare whether they are pro- or anti-gay, or pro-life or pro-choice ?  Are Singaporeans going to vote based solely on their position on this issue ? 

What if half of the candidates in a GRC are pro-gay / pro-choice, while the other half are anti-gay / pro-life ?  How are Singaporeans going to vote ?

What if half of the MPs voted into Parliament are pro-gay / pro-choice, while the other half are anti-gay / pro-life ?  Is Parliament expected to spend all of its time debating laws and policies on homosexuality and abortion ?  After all, that is what we voted them for !

Personally I think NMP Siew has made a positive contribution to the debates in Parliament.  I am not sure if everyone understands some of the more complex legal arguments he has made (but they support him anyway), and I am not sure if I would agree with all of his views (and I’m not talking about his views on homosexuality).  But many of the issues he has raised in Parliament are important issues which deserve airing even if a law or policy proposed by the Government was not ultimately amended.

My (only) concern is that NMP Siew has become a somewhat divisive figure.  His presence polarises.  I think this is partly unavoidable because of the explosive nature of debates on homosexual issues.  But I also think that, maybe, he could have tried to reconcile the parties holding opposing views, instead of leading / lending support to one party against the other (well, maybe he did try - I don’t know). 

The Parliamentary Select Committee will have to decide whether it wishes to have NMPs who generate such divisiveness, or who are able to moderate opposing views.

In 1998, former US President Bill Clinton made the infamous claim that oral sex is not sex.  More recently, the AWARE instructor’s guide to its Comprehensive Sexuality Eduction (CSE) Program makes the mind-boggling suggestion that, maybe, "virginity is a state of mind".

There are many things I find disturbing about the instructor’s guide to the CSE Program.  Excuses such as only 1.5 minutes being spent on the topic of homosexuality or the instructors’ guide not being indicative of the message imparted during an actual CSE program do not hold water in my opinion.  My retort to those excuses are :

(1)  What exactly was said about homosexuality during the 1.5 minutes ?  I’m inclined to agree with the old AWARE’s supporters that a 1.5 minute discussion on homosexuality (no matter how inappropriate) probably isn’t going to turn a girl into a lesbian.  But is a simple discussion revolving around the statement that "homosexuality is neutral" sufficient to convey complexities such as that not everyone who engages / experiments with homosexual sex is necessarily a homosexual, and that at least for those who are merely "experimenting", homosexuality is not "just the way you are" (another statement from the material) ?

(2)  Even if instructors do not repeat every word in their guide to students, surely the answers provided in the guide (including the inappropriate answers) will be used as and when a student pops a question which the guide provides an answer to ?

Some of my other concerns are :

(1)  Classifying "anal sex" as healthy or neutral, when this form of sexual activity (where it involves penetration of the anus with a penis) often (as far as I’m aware, can’t speak from personal experience here sorry) involves more pain and carries a higher risk of transmission of sexual disease.

(2)  Classifying pre-marital sex as neutral.

(3)  Classifying virginity as a state of mind (whatever that means).

(4)  Categorically denying that the possibility that childhood trauma may cause homosexuality, when no one knows for certain the cause(s) of homosexuality.

I am therefore somewhat gratified to hear, on my return to Singapore, the Ministry of Education saying that the CSE program was inappropriate because it "convey[ed] messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex".  I am also gratified to observe Internet forumers in general agreement that there was something inappropriate about the CSE program, though this has not stopped the occasional odd opinion that there was nothing wrong and everything right about the CSE program : see here and here.

I think a more appropriate CSE could, on the topic of sex, say :

(1)  That sex is essentially a risky activity (I am such a pessimist).  That there will always be a risk of unwanted / unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), even if condoms are used. 

(2)  That when a couple engages in sex within the boundaries of marriage there is greater (albeit sometimes misplaced) assurance that the husband would support the wife in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, and that the husband / wife have not been unfaithful and are therefore free of STIs.  Even then, pregnant mothers are encouraged to test for HIV in case they had been infected by their husbands, to prevent the onward tranmission of HIV to their babies.  Hence pre-marital sex is higher risk activity, compared to sex between married couples.

(3)  That certain forms of sexual activity, such as anal sex, are particularly risky, because of the higher risk of STI transmission.

(4)  That responsible sex in a pre-marital (and even marriage) context means (i) ensuring that you are free of STIs before engaging in sex (or that you inform your partner you have been sleeping around and I-might-have-caught-an-STI-from-I-don’t-know-who-but-nevermind-will-you-still-have-sex-with-me-please ?), (ii) using a condom, and (iii) being prepared to deal with the potentially lifelong consequences should something go wrong, ie. STI infection or unplanned pregnancy.

(5)  That for the above practical reasons, sex should ideally be confined to married couples, and virginity is rightfully valued.