Be chaste, or be chastised

Recently I read an article from the straits time about a Christian-based group to promote virginity and it disturbs me because of how it is using morality and religion to warn the young against sex.

SINGAPOREANS are an immoral lot.

That seems to be the implied message of a pro-virginity drive initiated by Focus On The Family Singapore (FOTF), a Christian charity organisation.

The group, which is affiliated to a worldwide United States-based movement of the same name, seeks to strengthen family values here.

Its sexual abstinence programme is titled No Apologies, and it has convinced about 7,200 teens and young adults to pledge to remain virgins and 'save themselves for marriage'.

Under the programme, which comes with workshops on sex and relationships, these non-apologetic virgins sign abstinence pledge cards, which they can keep in their wallets presumably in place of condoms.

Whenever temptation rears its wanton head, they can pull the cards out to remind themselves of their vows of chastity.

All this is fine with me. I applaud any attempt to inform our young how to say 'no' to sex, especially if they are not ready.

What disturbs me is the holier-than-thou tone the group adopts in spreading the message.

In a Nov 23 report, vice president for programmes Joanna Koh-Hoe, 29, was quoted as saying: 'Our message is this: If I have pre-marital sex, I am not a person of good character. In fact, any sex outside of marriage is immoral whatever the age of the person.'

I don't know about you, but to me, such a mindset reeks of moral segregation.

A reporter from the Straits time approached Joanna Koh Hoe and she took pains to explain that her group is not condemning or judging people who have pre-marital sex.

'It's not just a moral issue, but a health/relationship/emotional issue,' she said.

'Nonetheless, you need to have good character to abstain from pre-marital sex. Aspects of good character include self-control, a sense of responsibility and honesty.

'You need to have such characteristic traits, too, if you want to overcome other things, like overeating or the urge to slap someone when you're angry.'

She added that her group also welcomes 'secondary virgins', young people who have 'blown it and want to start all over again'.

'In our workshops, we tell everyone they are of good character, capable of making good decisions.'

'Blown it'? 'Good character'? Aren't these value-laden terms a reflection of the same patronising view that virgins are good people and non-virgins bad?

While older folks might seethe at such highfalutin ideals, but know better than to take them too seriously, what about teenagers who are already confused enough as it is trying to grapple with their raging hormones?

Instead of relying on education to drive home the point on how they should be careful when it comes to sex, why is the group scaring them with this morality-sex argument?

I HAVE other concerns regarding the No Apologies programme.

What is its definition of virginity?

Mrs Koh-Hoe said it defines virginity as 'purity, be it physically, emotionally, ethically, intellectually or socially'.

'We leave the teenagers to draw their own lines, to decide for themselves where sexual arousal begins.'

So let's take former American president Bill Clinton's definition.

He got away with his 'no, I did not have sex with that woman' spin by insisting that Monica Lewinsky only engaged in oral sex with him.

So, if a teenage couple does everything else except have sexual intercourse, would the group still consider them virgins, and therefore of good character?

If virginity, and good character, are defined by the lack of sexual intercourse, is the teenager who goes into online chatrooms to seek partners for heavy petting more morally upright than a couple in their 30s who have been seeing each other for a long time and have sex with only each other?

Then, like any lawyer who knows how to work evidence to his advantage, the FOTF overemphasises the unreliability of condoms to argue that abstinence is the best contraception.

While I agree that condoms are not 100 per cent foolproof, won't it be more responsible of them to give an objective picture? That is, that contraception can and does work if used properly?

Won't our young then be able to make more well-informed decisions? Won't an incomplete understanding get them into bigger trouble?

Finally, what alarms me is how a religious-based group is seeking to dictate the collective morals and mindset of a secular, pluralistic society.

The group has insisted that it is not proselytising, but there are clear Biblical undertones in its linking of morality and sex.

A booklet on homosexuality which it distributes, for instance, has phrases like 'God clearly condemns any act of sex outside of heterosexual marriage.'

Discussing social issues through the lens of one religion can't be good in a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Not to mention how alienating it is for the less religious among us.

YES, we live in sexually permissive times. The young are frighteningly more savvy yet cavalier about sex.

A survey of 350 Nanyang Technological University students showed that about one in six had pre-marital sex.

Of them, only slightly more than a third use protection all the time. Half of them think that sexually transmitted diseases do not pose a risk.

Yes, there is a lot more that can be done to guide and protect them from sexual diseases and even sex crimes.

Against such a backdrop, shouldn't those in a position of power and influence adopt a more pragmatic approach when dealing with the young and sex, instead of a message that harps on morality and, worse, appears to be based on one religion?

What about this tagline: 'Abstinence is good and you don't have to have sex to be cool'?

Beyond taglines, arm them with all the necessary knowledge about sex and birth-control so that if they really decide to do it, at least they can do so safely and responsibly.

But Mrs Koh-Hoe said that providing more comprehensive information about contraceptives will dilute the group's message of chastity.

She mentioned to the reporter,'If you're an Olympics coach, surely you'll tell your athlete to go for gold rather than bronze? How will it sound if we say, 'yes, abstain, but there're condoms if you really can't?'

The group has also maintained that the young are smart enough to make their own decisions.

If that is really so, then give them an objective picture on sex, and spare the rest of 'unchaste' Singaporeans the high-handed moralising.