Talk:Sexual abstinence

Medical and Religious aspects

The topic about Medical aspects of S.abs. has been stuffed with paragraphs about religious views on it. They should be put in separate topics.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.95.180.197 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Comment

Someone probably needs to rv POV changes from Thatguythere. Some of the changes may be quite valid, others are clearly POV. --Yamla 00:18, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

• talk:chastity - talk for material from chastity article, now merged.

I have removed the following paragraph:

Medical aspects

The venereal diseases are diseases which are so hard to catch that they require the most intimate sexual contact to transmit. Gonorrhea and syphilis are two sexually transmitted diseases which sexual abstinence or married faithfulness keep people from catching. Thus, some public health advocates encourage abstinence on medical grounds. Abstinence until marriage, combined with fidelity thereafter, has been shown to have a negligible infection rate for HIV and other STDs.

Given that existing research shows that abstinence "education" accomplishes the exact opposite, namely that teens know nothing about disease and pregnancy prevention when the inevitable happens (see also sex education), I find this paragraph with an utter lack of supporting evidence unconvincing. If you examine only juveniles who are abstinent, you will find fewer sexual diseases - duh! The question is whether abstinence "education" works, and the research so far shows that it does not. --Eloquence 23:29 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Abstinence education doesn't work? Well not if you listen to the liberal media. However, according to numerous other sources, it does work. According to the Heritage Foundation there are at least 10 studies that says otherwise, many of which are in peer-reviewed journals. It seems, however, that the work of those who are pro-abstinence is marginalized and those who promote the lifestyle are portrayed in a negative way (ie. retarded, etc). When Bill Gates brought up the very real successes of abstinence programs in Africa, for example, he was booed.

Ok, first I'd like to say that I'm twenty and I'm just interested medically if my "lack of sex" in my life leads to something bad. I've just lost my virginity a couple of months ago. I have had a couple of relationships and I haven't had much sex. What I'd like to know is if any physiological "problems" will appear? Just that. I have rarely had sex, I don't masturbate at all. It's not something psychological - I don't care much about that. It's just a concurrence of circumstances that I don't have sex. I just don't think about it. But anyways, I just want to know what physiological "problems" if any can occur. That's what I want to know. If anyone would be so good to explain it - I will be happy and thankful. Thanks very much. Painbearer 22:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No. No harm comes from not having sex other than you having a lack of experience when you do finally have sex. Danman111111 (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no problems with abstaining other than the social stigma that comes from it. Abstinence is perfectly healthy, normal and moral. They say frequent sexual activity is beneficial to one's health, but you must really consider the reliability of these reports and how they are carried out. Sexual activity is supposed to, for example, be good for men's prostate but despite the US having the highest rate of sexual intercourse per year in the world, according to Durex research, besides France, prostate cancer rates in the US are among the highest in the world.

The US does not have particularally good health standards in general. Your assumptions are not important; science is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.145.188 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Questioning Standard

I question saying that minors are expected to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage. If abstinence until marriage is the standard, it hardly has any application to minority. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:45, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Abstinence and Chastity

From 1st paragraph:

There is a distinction between the terms abstinence and chastity, the latter more frequently implying the application of force or the existence of rules.

What does the application of force have to do with chastity? Are you talking about chastity belts? No one wears these outside of porno novels, I think...

And what does the existence of rules have to do with the distinction?

AFAIK, the words 'abstinence' and 'chastity' are synonyms.

The only distinction I'm aware of, having to do with sexual activity or its absence, is that between (a) restricting one's sexual activities according to a set of rules and (b) not following much of any restrictions at all.

Okay, maybe there's one other distinction within (a):

1. having sex only with one's spouse (for married, male-female couples)
2. not having sex at all, like adults who don't get married; and

I guess this gives us (A1) fidelity within marriage, (A2) celibacy, and (B) unrestricted sexual activity.

Note: I am not urging that the Wikipedia endorse any POV; nor am I suggesting any major change to the articles. I'm just trying to understand (and possibly straighten out) the terminology.

Comments? --Uncle Ed 18:42, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

yo, ed. Chastity is enforced. Look at extreme orthadox islam. What would happen to an "easy" girl there? Chastity is when you are forced into the situation. Like if I tell my daughter "I will KILL you if you mess around" and she knows I mean business. Abstinance is where she is just really pious and non-slutty and decides to save it for marraige. What interests me is where do you draw the line? Is oral sex against abstinance? What about anal? Or mastrabation? Just what is allowed? Is kissing ok? What about french? ;) JackLynch 18:57, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First things first, Jack. You're saying that in some Islamic countries, parents or others FORCE women into chastity. Accordingly, you distinguish between forced and voluntary abstinence. I guess you want to call abstinence voluntary and chastity forced. Am I reading you right? --Uncle Ed 19:10, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

yes. now answer my questions please ;) JackLynch 19:15, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is no practial difference between chastity and abstinence. You can force someone into abstinence; that doesn't make it chastity (probably less so since chastity is traditionally a virtue, being forced into something doesn't carry much virtue). DJ Clayworth 19:17, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure it does. besides, I think your getting a little too philosophical here. If you look it up, Chastity is the state of being pure, and abstinance is the act of refraining. If I don't allow you to soil yourself, you are still pure. But you havn't necessarilly refrained. There is a distinction. JackLynch 19:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually on a closer check I find that there is a difference in usage. The main difference is that chastity can sometimes be used to describe someone who refrains from immoral (or illegal) sexual relations. Thus a husband can sometimes be described as 'chaste' if he has sex only with his wife. DJ Clayworth 19:17, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think your distinction is far too subtle for this article. It's kind of like, if I'm in prison, have I abstained from going outside? DJ Clayworth 19:36, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The words abstinence, chastity and celibacy are disambiguated at Wikipedia:Terms for avoiding sexual intercourse. Perhaps the definitions there can help us decide what information belongs at celibacy and chastity.

It seems to me, that abstinence means "refraining" from sex voluntarily, especially for reasons other than morality, religion, or fear of being murdered by an extremist.

Celibacy would then be either a profession (like nuns, monks or priests) required by one's religion and adopted voluntarily -- or a temporary period, say when husband and wife remain faithful to each other during a prolonged separation.

Chastity, if I may go on further, would mean following laws or rules about sexual activity. It could be either voluntary (a "moral virtue" or "ideal") or enforced by fear of punishment (like the Islamic extremists).

---

Chastity is definitely about sexual rules, force and moral code, whereas abstinence is a more neutral term that simply describes a specific type of behavior (note that there is also "alcohol abstinence", but not "alcohol chastitiy"). And yes, chastity belts are worn outside porn novels, especially in the BDSM community (which is essentially a playful leftover of the very real sexual repression of earlier ages).—Eloquence 21:30, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I agree w Eloquence, and whoever that was above them that didn't sign JackLynch 23:03, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about it but at least for christians (and I guess it is generally accepted to be so)

• Chastity means the use of sex under some ethical rules -i.e. in marriage, etc...- (this is just a simple way of stating it).
• Sexual abstinence means not using sex.
• As way of example a single person would not be catholically chaste if (s)he used sex, while a married person having sex with his/her wife/husband is perfectly chaste.

At least for catholics, married people using sex can be chaste... I really feel that "chastity" redirecting to "sexual abstinence" is a complete misunderstanding of the terms. I really really feel that someone has a wrong concept here. But then again, I am not going to argue over this (it's so clear to me). I'll just shut up.Pfortuny 17:23, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that yes there are obviously differences in implication and POV between the two terms, but that they are so similar as to not warrant seperate articles. Neither "sexual abstinence" nor "chastity" require complete abstinence in all situations - they may both be context-dependant. Martin 17:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Possible Sentence Reorganization

Without trying to be politically correct, the phrase ". . . [monks and nuns in] Christianity, and priests in the Roman Catholic Church." may imply the perception that the Roman Catholic Church is not Christian. However, I suppose that on one hand you might annoy Catholics for the implication that they are not Christian, but on the other hand you may annoy some fundamentalists by implying that they are Christian. I will not get into the debate, but it might be something to think about.

Criticism of Eloquence's additions

I removed the following:

Health writer Michael Castleman argued in Salon.com: "When it comes to teens and sex, liberals and conservatives have very similar core values. Neither of their approaches to sex education makes sense (though the liberal view is a tad more realistic). And neither of their programs does much except create fear of sex." [1] He proposed teaching teenagers to enjoy oral sex and mutual masturbation would be safe while helping them to become better lovers.

This is extremely biased option by a relatively unknown guy with no academic credentials. The quote is basically an unsubstantiated accusation of everybody but the author himself in stupidity. His proposals are completely irrelevant to this particular article. There is no reason to include this info here.

Also removed:

Even if teens make it into adulthood without having sex or getting pregnant, these critics argue, they may not know how to prevent having babies, or how to become pregnant when they want to, and they may suffer from sexual immaturity and shame.

Even if SIECUS says this, it's still a bunch of crap. There is nothing wrong with providing criticism of abstinence-only programs in this article, but adding bullshit like this is just plain wrong.

First, abstinence-only programs do not necessarily require that no information about birth control is given at all (although particular programs may be as extremistic in this as they like). Second, it is idiotic to assume that teens would not get this information (even though not in a well-structured, 100% correct and easy to understand form) elsewhere. Third, I've never read about humans losing all capability to learn new things after their 18th birthday. Most young adults should have no problem finding this information extremely easily. So this sentence was misleading, wrong and just stupid FUD. Removed.

Disclosure: I am against abstinence-only programs, I am for recreational sex among teens and children, I am for better access to contraceptives and abortion, I am for sexual freedoms, but I am very much against adding biased FUD to Wikipedia. BTW, I also chose abstinence as a lifestyle for myself. Paranoid 14:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quick response: Whether you think something is "misleading, wrong and just stupid FUD" is not particularly relevant when it is an opinion held by an organization which is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. Please read up on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy before removing text which you disagree with. More later.--11:39, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Whether I disagree with the text has nothing to do with its removal (especially since I do agree that teaching kids masturbation and oral sex may have some benefits). In this particular case there is a combination of three factors. First, the quoted statement is certainly of low quality. Second, the author doesn't appear to be very notable and the opinion is not very widespread (nor is shared by any prominent group). Third, it's juvenile. An analogy would be an addition of "The Pope is a moron" to an article about Roman Pope. Even if some journalist said it, it probably shouldn't be included. Paranoid 18:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory introduction

The introduction defines abstinence as "the practice of voluntarily refraining from sexual activity". But just a few lines donw, it cites the "lack of suitable partners" as a possible reason. I don't think that would count as voluntary. Unmitigated Success 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Medical aspects of abstinence for men

I didn't fully understand, is sexual abstinence medically bad or good for man's health. Does the lack of masturbation reflects on man's body in a bad way? Is it bad for my body that I am not having sex? It is a powerful urge and it is difficult trying not to think about it, but does the constant lack of semen ejaculation leads to something bad for my body. I know that sex is overall good for human's body. But is the lack of thereof, something bad? I would like to see more definitive explanation about that.

Regards: Painbearer 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a study done that concluded that men who masturbate more in their 20s have a lesser risk of prostate cancer...http://cancervic.org.au/cancer1/whatsnew/mediareleases/2003/20030717.htmAbitw 05:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to question the reliability of such studies. For example, despite having the highest rates of sexual intercourse in the world, outside of France, the US also has one of the highest prostate cancer rates in the world. So sex really doesn't seem to be an issue in preventing it, but does it have a role in promoting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.20.172 (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

France, however, has relatively low prostate cancer rates, and we're discussing masturabation and not sexual intercourse anyways. Seeing as your arguement isn't based on any studies quoted and fails to account for other factors leading to prostate cancer, I don't believe it's a proper counterpoint to this scientific study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.145.188 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Can we find some neutral references? These are kind of shady and one-sided. Also, the whole article isn't that well cited. 72.150.62.175 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

these two paragraphs (distributive) were removed due to lack of citation.

Proponents of abstinence^{Please name specific person or group} often reply to this claim by stating that there is a difference between repression and transformation of the sex urge. They agree that repression, especially when involuntary, is not effective and may indeed lead to numerous psychological problems. They say that the sex energy should not be repressed but slowly transformed and purified. This must be a voluntary process and in order for it to be truly effective, must include abstinence from sexual thoughts as well as actions. Otherwise, the organism faces the stress of being excited by desire and at the same time prevented from fulfilling that desire. This is what may lead to an increase in aggression, although the human body uses mechanisms to relieve this arousal, such as nocturnal emission.

==Abstinence in therapy==

Abstinence from sexual activity often results in an obvious build-up of hormones, correlated with a feeling of well-being. Testosterone and estrogen, two primary sex hormones that build up during abstinence, are related to other antidepressant neurochemistry such as serotonin and endorphins. While orgasm releases endorphins in short-term secretion, abstaining for more lengthy periods of time produces a more lasting feeling of what sometimes may be described as euphoria, and, according to many partners, better marital sex. Abstinence has been reported by some as a natural antidepressant.

Bob A 08:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with Bob A. Abstinence without masturbation did nothing for my depression. It led to extremely vivid sexual night dreams that continued into daydreams that would not stop until I resumed masturbating.Mylittlezach (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Involuntary Sexual abstinence

I think there should be a section on Involuntary Sexual abstinence, ie can't get none for various reasons other than reliogipus and moral beliefs. 75.15.178.185 02:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oral sex riskier than sex with a condom.

I'm under the impression that because oral sex involves the contact of mucous membranes, that oral sex is a riskier activity in terms of the likelihood of contracting stds than having penetrative intercourse with a condom. In light of this, and with appropriate references, would it be ok for me to insert this after the following sentence. "Oral sex is not perceived as being "real sex." Teenage girls are able to indulge in sexual practices while claiming the traditional virtues of the virgin in cultures that admire it." Supposed 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to express is that because the article is stating that often abstinence leads to people replacing sex with oral sex, then the riskier nature of oral sex means this abstinence leads to riskier sexual activity. It leads to the increased chance of the spread of stds if the statement quoted above is true. Supposed 12:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of Sex

Should a section be added concerning what those who practice sexual abstinence do to replace or quell their urges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danman111111 (talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ref?

Abstinence Education: Assessing the Evidence, heritage foundation -- Cherubino (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Industrial Revolution labelled as "sexually free?"

In Western attitudes section is the following sentence: "Historically, there has been a swing from the sexually free end of the Industrial Revolution to the chaste values of the early Victorian period."

I am not sure that the term "sexually free" is the right term to use to describe that period. I am thinking of making a change here. Any opinions on this? Hopewatchful (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article was clearly mostly written by people against abstinence only sexual education. needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.55.2 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There's an entire section of the article whose only source is a study from the Heritage Foundation, which is hardly reputable. (Character attacks aside,) the adjacent sections on "possible psychological effects" and abstinence-only sex-ed each need better citation and the assertions made need to be backed up better. What's there is inadequate, and which way you think it's slanted, I think you'll agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naptastic (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Psychological Effects

There is a passage in this section citing a study that found that sexual abstinence led to fewer STDs and a lower likelihood of bearing children outside of marriage. Neither of these things are psychological effects and should be removed from this section (??). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Garvey (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Neurochemical Bonding

Ceremony has been used in pairing and marriage throughout culture and history. It has been recognized early on that such ceremonial bonding was diminished or corrupted in effect by premarital sex. In extreme cases, the first sexual encounters could corruptly bond individuals in non-productive or perverse attachments, although this may only be speculative.

Pair Bonding can directly be linked to the effects of vasopressin , oxytocin, and dopamine upon the nervous system. High stress situations create strong memory imprints using these neurochemicals, quite like a baby bonds to its mother.

Abstinence is a means of clearing the bonding state for new imprinting. This results in a stronger sense of fidelity and greater chance of long-term marriage success.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/200910/the-mysteries-pair-bonding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.6.246 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Popularity and effectiveness - New study

Hi, there is a new study about the effectiveness called Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. The article Abstinence-only programs might work, study says in The Washington Post also quotes Nicholas Papas, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services: "No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention". Should this be included? Regards --Cyrus Grisham (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Typical use" failure rate

I assume it would be hard to find empirical studies for, but shouldn't the typical use rate be considerably higher, especially in light of other contraceptive articles using rates that include the occasional failure to use (missed pills, not using a condom, etc.)? Bristol Palin comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodsorr0w (talk • contribs) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the bot beat me in signing my own post. Preston (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.scarleteen.com/blog/heather_corinna/2010/01/29/whats_the_typical_use_effectiveness_rate_of_abstinence Preston (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Judmental word?

In the reasons for why some people choose sexual abstinence, it calls the reason of not wanting to become pregnant 'Material'. I find that somewhat judgemental. Couldn't a more suitable word be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.115.172 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Abstinence is NOT 100% effective

Abstinence has failed before. Are you guys forgetting about all the virgin births that have happened throughout history? Abstinence is 99% effective not 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.217.103 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

facepalm Naptastic (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible psychological effects

This section isn't supported by the references provided - for instance it talks about high school acceptance when most US high schools do not have acceptance requirements. The section also needs to specify that it's a US-only section. "Almost twice as likely to drop out from college" is incorrect - the data shows that students that attempted but failed to complete college has only a 1% difference. The report does say that students are more than twice as likely to graduate college, but that is only because more of those students start college, not because of a drop out rate difference. I don't really have time to sit down and study the report to find the correct data, and didn't want to just wipe it all out. If someone else could take the time to read it carefully and update the article, I'd appreciate it. Denaar (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I'd posit that this section could benefit from a rewrite. It seems to give to much weight to the - as Denaar pointed out, unsupported - claims that abstinence is beneficial and not enough serious consideration of the negative impact. Negative impacts also seems hurriedly written - what numerous studies? The only thing sourced is a 35 year old article from the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" (that seems totally related to the subject) and it contains generalised claims which don't seem very, well scientific.--109.145.244.107 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Myself

Abstinence should be something that you choose for your own personal benefit. not because of your religion. It should be something you want because you want to share yourself with the one you love, not random strangers.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.161.190 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with "Possible psychological effects" segment

The Possible psychological effects segment currently contains information regarding mentality of societies that have had premarital chastity imposed upon them. I feel that the segment should also take into consideration the psychological effects on individuals as well. Please take note of this while editing. Thank you. NK (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)