iBece.org

The issue of premarital sex is a complex one, and ties closely with one’s spiritual beliefs and ideals. All of the world’s major religions consider the act of physical love a serious matter, and many bluntly forbid it outside the context or marriage. A couple’s decision to have premarital sex depends on whether they hold any prerequisites such as love, their willingness to gamble on the validity of this love, and the potential consequences should the love later prove misplaced.

Is Sex Serious?

The first issue that must be considered is whether sex is indeed a serious matter, and not simply a means of physical gratification without any long-term consequences. A true atheist, who strongly denies any existence of a higher power or deity (or deities) and believes the only existence is the physical, corporeal one could argue the latter. This of course brings into question the definition of “long-term”. Because for the atheist there is no existence beyond death, long-term only extends for one’s lifetime. Not considering medical consequences of promiscuity such as sexually transmitted disease, it can be argued that premarital sex could potentially cause psychological distress – whether due to guilt, grief from a failed relationship, feelings of having been “used”, and so on. A more romantic individual may also feel that they have trivialised sex with their life partner (spouse, soul mate, or similar) by having shared the experience with others. As well as these psychological consequences, a religious or otherwise spiritual person can add to this consequences pertaining to the well-being of their soul, or possible denial of enlightenment or after-life. Clearly, then, sexual intercourse is a practice which for many people carries significant weight and is not something taken to lightly.

What Do the Religions Say?

Most of the world’s religions mirror this belief that sex is an important and serious issue. Christianity holds the opinion that sex is the physical expression of intimacy between a husband and wife, and is only to be practiced within this context. Marriage is a sacred, holy bond, between a man and a woman, entered into before God, and often held to be a reflection of the relationship with God. As such, any sex outside of the binds of marriage is a vilification of this holy union, and indirectly is an affront to the Holy Trinity itself. Both Islam and Judaism, religions worshiping the same deity as Christians, similarly believe premarital sex to be a sin. Judaism sees sex as an important act that requires commitment and responsibility. The requirement of marriage before sex ensures that sense of commitment and responsibility. The Qur’an is also very explicit in stating that individuals practicing sex with non-spouses are in breach of the laws of God. Thus, the three belief systems with Jehovah at their centre agree on their mutual condemnation of premarital sex.

Eastern religions, namely Hinduism and Buddhism approach the issue from a slightly different angle. Hinduism believes that life progresses through four distinct stages: student, householder, forest dweller (retirement), and wanderer (ascetic). Each stage is intended to build upon one’s character and bring one closer to the end-goal of enlightenment. The first, student, stage is centred on learning but holds celibacy as a key component. It ends with the completion of formal education and marriage. Therefore, while no judgement on premarital sex exists, it is essentially forbidden until marriage. Buddhism on the other hand explicitly allows premarital sex, but with the caveat that it be performed in the context of a loving relationship, with two consenting adults, and provided no one is harmed by the act. Of the five major religions, it alone holds this view.

The Agnostic’s Interpretation

The fact that not all five belief systems forbid premarital sex is initially encouraging for those who wish to pursue it. If nothing else, it shows that marriage, per se, is not necessarily a requirement imposed by the powers that be. What all the religions agree on however, is that sex is a big deal, and not to be taken lightly. This view is also held by many atheists, although in this case avoidance of future grief, “guarding of one’s heart”, and possible romantic notions of faith to one’s future spouse replace the path to spiritual enlightenment as the reason.

The Buddhist view permitting sex in a loving relationship outside of marriage is the most relevant in today’s world where promiscuity rules. When the average age of first intercourse is declining while the age at marriage is increasing, the hardline approach of the other four religions seems unrealistic. Considering a significant proportion of the population (particularly in the West) deem even love to be optional, the somewhat liberal Buddhist views still offer a morally superior, yet more achievable, position. The more one contemplates this issue however, the more it becomes apparent that things are not that simple. Marriage is an easily quantifiable entity – one is either married or not. There is no ambiguity. Love on the other hand is universally difficult to define. Furthermore, one’s interpretation of love is bound to change throughout life, as new experiences and wisdom add to one’s perception of what the word means. A fourteen-year-old expressing his “love” for his girlfriend because she lets him hold her hand, has a completely different perception of love than a sixty-year-old, who may have a deep respect and admiration for his wife and life-partner. Similarly, a twenty-year-old couple may feel in love, and consent and a (potentially false) sense of spiritual security may lead them to engage in sexual intercourse. A wiser individual, or even the couple themselves, may ultimately realise that their love was nothing more than lust. What this means is that one can never be entirely confident that they are in love – except of course in retrospect. Thus, if “love” is to be a prerequisite for sex, an accurate method must exist to evaluate one’s relationship and make this judgement.

An Epidemiological Model

To explain this concept, I will use the analogy of a medical diagnostic trial. No diagnostic tool is perfect, and there will always be false-positive (test diagnoses a condition where there is none) and false-negative (test finds no condition, while in fact there is one) findings. Clinicians attempt to use the most accurate tests, and combine them in such a way as to optimise the results. To gauge the accuracy of a test, epidemiologists use the measures of sensitivity and specificity. Sensitivity determines how likely a test is to detect disease in a diseased patient, while specificity determines how likely a test is to clear a patient correctly (i.e. when they have no disease). If sensitivity is high, but specificity low, a test will pick up every case of the particular disease, but will also have many false-positives. Conversely, if sensitivity is low, then many diseased patients will be missed by the test.

The condition we are attempting to diagnose here is “love” – or rather “true love”, soul mates, or any other synonym describing the partner with which sex is allowed, according to Buddhist theology. The sensitivity of any trial of love will be high, because if someone answers “not in love”, chances are that whatever their definition of love, they are in fact, not in true love. It is the specificity (the value used to rule in diagnoses) that will vary greatly. As an example, the specificity of asking different individuals whether they are “in love” may look something like this:

Remember, the specificity in this case is the proportion of couples “not in love”, who are identified as such. The higher the specificity, the more sure we can be that when the couple says that they are in love, that they in fact are.

• Fourteen-year-old holding his girlfriend’s hand. Specificity <5%
• Twenty-year-old in a month-long relationship. Specificity 25%
• Twenty-year-old living with his girlfriend of two years. Specificity 35%
• Twenty-five-year-old dating for 6 months. Specificity 60%
• Recently engaged. Specificity 75%. (assuming adequate pre-engagement selection criteria)
• Wedding night. Specificity 85% (again, assuming sound selection)
• Couple married 12 months. Specificity 90%
• Couple married 12 years. Specificity 98%

As you can see, the probability that one is truly in love rises with maturity of the individual, and maturity of the relationship. Because the above numbers are entirely fictitious, no trend can be deduced. However, I will propose that specificity will rise sharply following engagement, and even more so after marriage. So, an individual subscribing to the Buddhist belief in premarital sex, would need to weight up his or her odds and the likelihood that they are or are not in love. Clearly, the closer the relationship is to marriage, the higher the likelihood that the love the couple feel is in fact true love. This judgement may be extremely difficult to make, and this is perhaps why four out of the five major religions have set marriage as the criteria for sex. Essentially, these religions have decided that marriage, with say an 80-85% specificity, is the best test for determining that a couple is in love, and therefore allowed to have sex.

Ultimately, if one believes love ought to be a prerequisite, the couple must decide on the odds they would be happy to gamble on. If 60-40 sounds like good odds, then perhaps 6 months of dating in their mid-twenties might suffice. If 75-25 is more acceptable, perhaps it would be better to wait till engagement. When a couple don’t want to take any chances, it may be best to wait until the wedding night – although even this probably does not guarantee 100% specificity (50% of marriages fail, it follows that many of these must not have been “true love”). The odds that a couple deems acceptable will depend on a number of factors, including their beliefs as to what will happen if they get it wrong. If the consequences are to suffer in purgatory for an eternity, as some Christians believe, then waiting till marriage is probably not a bad idea. An atheist couple on the other hand may merely wish to avoid potential heart-break if the relationship goes awry, and may therefore be more than happy with 60-40 odds. If the consequences are not so severe, one can also argue that if they genuinely believed they were in love at the time, even if retrospect proved them wrong, they have no need to feel guilty. Whether this argument would pass with St Peter is another matter.

Why Only One?

An exception exists to the above discussion. Thus far it has been assumed that “love” is “true love”, and that this occurs only once in a lifetime (i.e. finding a life-partner, soul mate). Many believe that it is possible to genuinely love and be “in love”, for a shorter duration of time. In fact, numerous studies have claimed to show that the chemical changes in the brain related to love (possibly related to the hormone oxytocin) are temporary, and may only last five or so years. If this is true, then the Buddhist model may be even more practical and relevant than originally thought. Additionally, this would render the Jehovah/Hindu model obsolete in light of neurological evidence. The romantic in me is a little disturbed by this.

Summary

In conclusion, no global judgement can be made as to whether sex before marriage is right or wrong. Many atheists agree with the official Buddhist view that love is a prerequisite for sex, and it has been postulated that the requirement for marriage by many religions is an attempt to ensure this love is true. Whether sex without true love will lead to eternal damnation, reincarnation, or some other punishment is a theological matter that cannot be covered in this short essay. For the spiritually minded (including agnostics) wishing to play it safe, waiting until marriage is perhaps the best option. At the very least, having a strong sense of what love is and actively evaluating one’s relationship, together with waiting a reasonable time (I propose 6 months) may be a more liberal option. Either way, it is up to each individual couple to assess their beliefs and work out how they wish to approach this mystery called life. That is, after all, what the journey is all about.