I thought it was interesting that one day after I wrote about the limits of the church’s influence on societal morals, as expressed through regulations enacted and systems and institutions created by the state, TODAY should publish today (28 February 2006), in relation to the Tammy sex video incident, an article by the author of the Sarong Party Girl blog in which she said that "responsible teenaged sex doesn’t cause problems … and it is not for us to judge [ teenagers who have sex responsibly ]".

I assume that many angry letters will be sent to TODAY in the next couple of days, denouncing the values espoused by the article writer.

Personally, while I agree with the article writer’s view that self-righteous condemnation of pre-marital sex has limited effect in preventing teenaged pregnancies, I was uncomfortable with the tone of most of her article. And the parts of her article that I thought were particularly poorly reasoned are the following :

And it doesn’t help teenagers when we criticise their sexual needs as something "dirty" - because when they ask, there is no good enough explanation as to why this is so, especially if a couple is in a relationship their young hearts truly believe will last forever.

It doesn’t matter if, in all calculated adult logic, things will not last. Their reality tells them it will, and this is what will drive their behaviour.

…

If we look at the world today, it is the inability to accept that some things may be unchangeable, and the unrelenting criticism so many make based on unfounded prejudices and bigotry, that cause most of its problems. We should accept that some things may be unchangeable, and try to persuade the other side to come to a compromise …

Persuasion and reasoning will always be far more effective than blatant criticism with no answers for these teenagers when they ask : "Why is it wrong to have sex with someone I love ?" If you cannot change their reality, then the only alternative is to help them through it with sensible advice, acceptance and love.

Now, while I agree that there is no need to criticise sexual needs as something "dirty", it does not follow that sexual needs should be met by pre-marital sex.  It is not always wise to satisfy an obese person’s need for more food by feeding him.  Is it possible for this preoccupation with sex to be channeled to other healthy activities ?  (In this connection, my guess - I may be wrong - is that regardless of how liberal one may be in regard to teenaged sex, between teenagers engaging in pre-marital sex or some other innocuous activity like sports, we would prefer them to engage in the latter).

Secondly, on the issue of a teenager’s perception of reality, if a teenager is so deluded as to believe that his girlfriend or her boyfriend of a few weeks (or perhaps months) is his / her soulmate and future life partner, then it would be a gross omission on the part of the adults in that teenager’s life - be it family or friends - to let the teenager live in that deluded "reality" to its extremes, which would include the "reality" of a pseudo-marriage where the couple have sex.

Finally, the writer suggests that because some things are unchangeable, we should just compromise. I think that statement needs to be qualified. Compromise may be necessary in the face of unchangeable realities in life if, on weighing the pros and cons of being dogmatic, greater evil is avoided if there is some compromise.

Hence, in respect of the unavoidable reality of unplanned pregnancies (whether within or outside of marriage), while many people may think of abortion as wrong or immoral, greater evil is avoided by legalising abortion. Otherwise, desperate women will turn to herbal remedies or unlicensed abortion clinics to abort unwanted children, and cause greater harm to their physical and mental health. But in respect of the unavoidable reality that there will always be people who commit murder or steal, should we compromise ?

On the issue of teenaged sex, I am not certain if in compromise, ie. distributing condoms and openly promoting safe sex in schools, which is being done in other countries, lies the answer. What I can say is that the present strategy (as I understand) of promoting abstinence with very limited (or no) education on safe sex, is something that needs to be re-examined, in order to determine if we may avoid greater evil by being less dogmatic.