Having Sex is Not a Flex

Sleep by Alyssa Monks

I've been really irritated recently with the conversations I overhear in hallways. I'm a senior in high school, and while I've had the blessing to be in a school that has a pretty safe, clean culture, there are a lot of students my age whose schools are a breeding ground for drugs, sex, and destruction. On the one hand, I think this is a fault in our education system, but on the other hand, this is a strong indicator of the kind of culture that people my age are choosing to build.

Gen Z grew up in a culture of promiscuity. Movies include more nude scenes than they used to, hookup culture is running rampant, women's clothes are growing smaller and shorter, and pornography is more accessible than ever before. Yet statistics indicate that Gen Z is having less sex than previous generations. I believe the statistics, but I've also seen firsthand the culture of high schoolers who believe that sex is a casual interaction. 

In the past month, I have overheard conversations about pregnancy scares, make-outs at parties, and girls "talking" to entire friend groups of guys. It's gotten to a point where it feels like people are outright bragging, trying to one-up each other on a scale of who can be the least innocent. Here's the thing: As far as I can tell, there is no good reason why two teenagers should be having sex together. 

There are two major scenarios at play here, the first of which is teens in a committed relationship. When I use this term, I'm specifically referring to a boyfriend/girlfriend scenario, though I think the specific time frame that constitutes commitment can vary widely. Boyfriends are great. They're generally sweet and well-meaning, and I don't think there's anything wrong with having a boyfriend in high school. However, boyfriends are not husbands. Yes, it's possible that he could be your future husband, but right now, in high school, the two of you are not married. I make this distinction to emphasize the importance of sex within the bounds of marriage.

Call me old-fashioned, but I strongly support the idea that sex should be confined to marriage. Before you panic, hear my reasoning. The most basic purpose of having sex is to get pregnant. So if you don't want to get pregnant, which is the case for most high schoolers, why on earth would you open that door for yourself and allow that potential? While I understand and acknowledge that accidents happen and there are extraneous circumstances, celibacy is the only completely effective birth control. It's not just about the pacing of life, though. Marriage is a legal and spiritual commitment to another person. If you haven't made that commitment and get pregnant outside of it, there is nothing that requires the other person to stay in that relationship and support you. Now, I would hope that they would stay, but there's no good reason to take that risk. Generally speaking, the reason I believe sex belongs within marriage is not because I'm old-fashioned, but because the consequences of having sex become far more risky outside of marriage. So while your boyfriend may be amazing and you may have been dating for two whole years, I don't think it's wise to treat him like he's your husband if he isn't your husband.

The first scenario is high schoolers in committed relationships, but the second is what I would refer to as one-night stands. This category includes not just literal one-night stands, but any casual one-time fling (like that guy you kissed at a party). There are a couple of reasons why this is a bad idea. The first is that having sex releases unique chemicals in your brain that create an emotional and physical attachment to that person. It's not just as disposable and fleeting as you think it can be, because your brain is literally attaching to them and creating a chemical desire for that person. If you're creating that attachment for someone that you are never going to talk to again, all you're doing is setting yourself up for loneliness and a lack of fulfillment. 

Secondly, if you are treating people and relationships like they are disposable, you probably shouldn't be in any kind of romantic situation at all. To give a quick example: I had a friend who was flirting with a guy, not because she liked him, but because it was fun. I pointed out to her that if she kept going, the guy was going to think she reciprocated his feelings, and her response was this: "It's not my fault or my responsibility if he feels emotion toward me." On the one hand, I understand her meaning that she shouldn't have to bear the burden of someone else's desires. On the other hand, while you're not responsible for other people's reactions, you are responsible for your own actions. If you act in a way that tells someone you care about them, be it flirting or anything else, then you are responsible for maintaining the consequences of your own actions. If you look at a man who genuinely cares for you and wants a relationship with you, and you lead him on because it's fun, then you are treating people like they and their emotions are disposable. If you view people as disposable, I am concerned for your character. You're not only bringing harm to others and loneliness for yourself, but you are setting yourself up for failure in any future relationship endeavour, because throwing relationships out when you get bored is not going to make you the kind of person who can manage the difficulties of a long-term relationship. 

I'm really growing frustrated with people bragging about having sex. It's not the flex you think it is. In fact, I would argue that rather than framing you in the mature light you think it does, it instead reflects a lack of your own wisdom and compassion. We need to start considering the consequences of our actions, be it emotional, physical, or relational, and stop living for fleeting entertainment.