How the Argument for Premarital Sex Has Changed

Like many evangelical young adults, I grew up in a conservative church that emphasized the importance of saving sex for marriage. I read books about sexual purity, went to abstinence rallies with members of our youth group, and talked with friends about the importance of not sleeping around. And, while I’m sympathetic to many of the criticisms levied against the so-called “purity culture” of my youth, I’m still extremely thankful to those that taught me to follow the historic Christian sexual ethic.

Now that I’m a father to three young boys, I know that I’ll soon need to pass along the same message to them. But I’ve also realized the secular messages I’ll need to counter have changed. In the past, the primary argument for engaging in sex outside marriage was that it was fun. But now, the primary argument for engaging in premarital sex is that it is wise—it’s an opportunity to evaluate your “sexual compatibility” with your partner.

Today, I want to break down this shift, and demonstrate why I think the church needs to be ready to counter this new argument with new biblical perspectives.

“Free Love” and Sex as Harmless Fun

The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s and the “free love” movement was the first time the culture began to push back in a concerted way against Christian sexual ethics. As its name suggests, the “free love” perspective suggested that people should be able to engage in loving, sexual relationships unencumbered by rules set by the state or the church. In other words, they should be free to love as they see fit.

Thus, at a very basic level, the argument of the sexual revolution was that sex was good, religious rules surrounding it were stuffy and outdated, and we should all relax and start having more fun.

Of course, the church has not allowed this argument to go unaddressed. The sexual purity teachings of years past included solid arguments intended to address this “just have fun” mentality. For example, the church pointed out that pre-marital sex bore both physical and emotional risks. You could get an STD, you could get pregnant, you could increase the emotional trauma of breaking up. Sex, the church said, is more than just “harmless fun.”

These teachings ultimately bolstered the church’s perspective that the proper place for sex was within the boundaries of a committed marriage. And they succeeded for a time in helping the church counter the influence of the sexual revolution.

But our culture has continued to change.

The Rise of “Sexual Compatibility”

While our culture used to look on abstinence as stuffy and outdated, I believe it now views it as unwise and dangerous. The prevailing view says that sleeping with a boyfriend or girlfriend is the only way to evaluate your “sexual compatibility” with one another—to see if your sexual needs, desires, and preferences mesh well with the other person’s. And this view almost always includes dire warnings about the potential consequences of marrying someone with whom you are not “sexually compatible.”

Consider, for example, this statement from feminist author Jill Filipovic in an article entitled “The Moral Case for Sex Before Marriage.”

“Sexually frustrated marriages are both miserable and common—the inboxes of advice columnists from Dan Savage to Dear Prudie are filled with letters from couples with mismatched sex drives and bad sex lives. We’d be a lot better-off if we recognized that sex is incredibly important to a lot of people, and, for most couples, sexual compatibility is necessary for a great marriage. You really can’t tell if you’re sexually compatible unless you have sex.”

Filipovic’s argument is a perfect summary of this position. You should have sex before marriage so that you can tell if you’re sexually compatible. If you don’t, you risk ending up in a “miserable,” “sexually frustrated” marriage. And this is so important to your future happiness (and your partner’s) that you should view pre-marital sex as a moral imperative.

“Sexual Compatibility” in Popular Thought

This argument from “sexual compatibility” is still relatively uncommon in the teachings of therapists and counselors, whether secular or Christian (more on this next week). But it is absolutely pervasive in popular thought. If you admit your commitment to abstinence in a college dorm room, around the water cooler at work, or in an online discussion forum, you’ll almost certainly be met with puzzled looks and concerns about “sexual compatibility.”

For example, a brief internet search turned up a recent post by a young Catholic woman in the “relationship advice” community on Reddit. She reveals that she’s always been taught that pre-marital sex is wrong, but that she’s been sleeping with her boyfriend. And she’s sadly turning to the internet for advice on whether it’s “really wrong.”

Here’s a sampling from some of the most-liked responses…

“I not only think it’s not wrong, I think it’s important to have sex before marriage so that you truly know if you are making the right decision. Sex is a big part of marriage and can be a big part of problems in marriage, too.”

“Why would I want to commit to someone for (what’s supposed to be) the rest of my life, when I don’t know if we’re sexually compatible?”

“Sex before marriage is smart, as long as you’re smart about it. It’s not smart to enter a marriage without knowing if you’re sexually compatible. You don’t need to sleep around, but it’s a recipe for unhappy marriage and divorce to go into a lifelong commitment without knowing whether you can have a healthy sex life together.”

All of these commenters are making the same basic argument, demonstrating just how common the narrative of sexual compatibility has become in modern secular culture.

A New Challenge for the Church

As the church continues to take the counter-cultural stance that abstinence before marriage is the best way to experience the sexual union as God intended it, it will need to counter this “sexual compatibility” argument. Refuting the arguments of the sexual revolution is no longer enough. Secular culture has moved on and, if we’re to continue being a faithful and effective witness in this area, we will need to move on as well.

And I believe the church is well-positioned to meet this challenge. There are extremely valid reasons for thinking that the “sexual compatibility” perspective is unhelpful. And there continue to be good reasons to think that God’s design for sex is actually the best recipe for health and happiness in this area. In fact, from a Christian perspective, I believe it can be said that the best form of “sexual compatibility” is two people loving and serving each other selflessly, both inside and outside the bedroom, secure in their commitment to stick with each other no matter what life throws at them.

Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be unpacking these ideas. I’ll critique the “sexual compatibility” argument, and offer what I believe is a more biblical vision for sexual flourishing in marriage.

Until then, I hope I’ve demonstrated that our culture’s perspective on pre-marital sex has evolved and that the church must be ready to meet the challenges posed by this new perspective.

Questions or Comments?

Do you think I’m right that the “sexual compatibility” argument is now the primary argument in favor of pre-marital sex? Got any other questions or thoughts? Please leave a comment below or find me on Twitter. I’d love to engage with you!