KentNewsNet.com

I found this article really biased. All the people interviewed were in favor of sexual abstinence, but none were in favor of being sexually active. And I think a differentiation needs to be made between promiscuity, and sexual activity. Promiscuity is more like going out to the clubs or bars and picking someone up just to sleep with them for a one-night-stand. While this falls under being sexually active, it doesn't mean that everyone who isn't saving their virginity is out on the town, giving it up. I know a lot of people, who reserve it for when they're in a relationship with someone they love, and they only decide to have protected sex after being with that person for a while; but of course, it's not just having sex then, it's making love, which is so much more fulfilling than a fling. Also, having a sexuality means more than just doing it. If you date someone of your sexual-preference/s, then don't you have a sexuality? Even if you are just attracted to someone, that's a sexual feeling.
A lot of these conclusions are coming from abstinence-only education and evangelical misinformation. Both of these camps confuse teens by telling them that everyone's doing it, and nobody's doing it safe, that condoms fail all the time, and anyone who has sex will catch an STD or get pregnant. The evangelicals just tell you you're going to Hell if you're sexually active, because then it fills those pews with guilt-laden teens, who feel bad for having desires, hormones, and genitals; each with minds of their own.
Condoms work more than 99% of the time, and STD's are still fairly rare, because there are free tests like those via Health Services (kudos to them), or when you donate blood to the Red Cross (double kudos to them).
Yes, a lot of people hit the bars, clubs and parties just to score and get wasted, but if you're the kind of person who abstains from sex, chances are you probably abstain from alcohol, too. So if you are hanging out with nice guys and girls who don't host huge orgies, what are you worried about? I've known some younger persons who are so ashamed of having a sexuality, that they are embarrassed to even have it suggested that they were fooling around with someone; not necessarily having sex, just making out or snuggling or something. It's gotten so depraved that at other colleges, they host cuddle parties, so that people starving for physical human contact can just be close to another warm human body.
A friend of mine, Rabbi Chaim Feld, says that sexuality is the chance for two beings that are made up of a soul and a body to act like a body, BUT to also have their souls connect. The thing of it is, is that sex is something naturally put there in our lives by God, and it's not something of which to be ashamed, but to be celebrated. I praise the Jews for having a part of the wedding ceremony when the Bride and Groom can have sex, alone, right then and there, after the vows and the breaking of the glass. What other religion does that for you?
Rabbi Feld teaches a great class on different topics, every week, in the KSU library, via Hillel. It's open to everyone, as long as you're respectful.
But to regress, kids can sign contracts with mom, wear their rings, and take pledges until their blue in the balls, but there is more to sexuality than just sex. There are ways of making love that go beyond coitus. And the sooner we as a generation start to understand that, the better we can start to view our relationships as something more than just a way to make babies; men can understand sexuality as more than a way to get your rocks off, and women can understand sexuality as more than just a way to deepen the relationship.
Yes, sex complicates things, as the article points out. Yes, some people feel pressured because everyone else seems to be doing it. But in all honesty, I went to a high school where everyone partied every weekend, and I usually stayed home. I wanted to hang out on weekends, but I had a rich social life in spite of not getting drunk every week. And since I've been in school, it's been a lot of the same. I waited 'til I was 21, though some of my friends haven't, but they weren't reckless. And now that I do drink and go on dates, that doesn't mean that me or my friends binge on it in excess.
The fact is that once you make something taboo, it'll make people want to do it more. The more risky you make it sound, the more teenagers will do it just to test their boundaries. I grew up in a dry house, but I still drink responsibly, because my parents didn't pretend that it would kill me. It's misinformation, like that given to these kids swearing to abstain from sex for GAWD and health, that serves only to scare them out of ever wanting sex or having a fully-rounded relationship with someone before they get married (not necessarily including coitus). Really knowing someone before you marry them could just lead to a lower divorce rate, and a greater sanctity of marriage as a religious and social practice.

Okay, Concerned, I think it goes without saying that condoms are only effective when used properly and consistently.
People who choose to remain anonymous, and then dish out digs on credibility, obviously don't feel strongly enough about what you're saying. You say that STI's are common among college students, but you don't really back up anything you say either. It's a perfect example of STD-boogie-men jumping out and scaring people into doing what they say.
Regardless of whether the Red Cross just checks for HIV or other diseases as well, the point was that someone could check for these things easily. And last time I checked, HIV, though transmittable through blood and shared needles, was still counted as an STD.
My whole point was for people to actually find out for themselves information about STIs, effective methods of contraception, and to not feel like they had to punish themselves for having a dirty thought, like a lot of kids who want to remain virgins do; or avoid dating out of fear of catching something.
And you see? I'm not ending my response by saying you don't know anything, or attacking your credibility. Not because you're infallible, just because it's the decent way to act.

Karl,

You do make some valid points about what sex can be in a loving non-married relationship, but I agree with Concerned. I don't know where you got your statistics -- they are very inaccurate. Just because you consider yourself responsible sexually, certainly does not mean that everyone else is, and there is an immeasurable amount of evidence that people are engaging in dangerous sexual behavior, both physically and emotionally.

Sure it was a biased article, but I didn't feel like people interviewed were attacking those who choose to have premarital sex. If anything, they were on the defensive, trying to explain the benefits they see in the choices they are making for themselves. Just like you.

You are right, in my opinion, that we need not go to the extremes in trying to make people scared of sex; however, I think the same can be said for making it seem like a harmless, casual thing that you can/should do when you get the urge. Our society is filled with the latter message, and the voices of those who demonstrate self control, think through the pros and cons of having sex, and choose to abstain until a later date should be respected.

PS - I'll back up my statistics when you back up yours

While I can see how you all think this article is biased, I disagree. Yes, the article did not show both sides, however, the title is "Playing the 'V' Card in College." The story is about college virgins and why they made that choice. Based on the title, I didn't expect to see a side other than abstinance. The story was clearly meant to discuss college kids who wish to remain virgins, NOT sex in college in general. Just my two cents.

I'm going to have to agree with Ally. "Playing the V Card in College"... how much more clarity do you need? The story is about VIRGINS.

Thought it has negative connotations, bias simply means "a particular tendency or inclination" Here we have a story on the inclination some of our students have to abstainance. I should have used a different word in my response.

If you want the statistics on STD here it is straight from the CDC's website. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/slides.htm

When a piece is presented that offers the view that college is "a sea of hormones, drinks, short skirts and stilettos," then it is biased, not just against persons who pursue a sexuality, but against college all together. The piece offered the view that virgins were standing in the middle of "drinking and hooking up" like Lot in the middle of Sodom.
Karl's main case seemed to be that just as Lindsey Brokaw pointed out that purity "encompasses more than just not having sex," it can also be said that sexuality can involve more than just having sex. That even going on a date means you have a sex life, whether or not physical intimacy falls into it.
By not taking even a paragraph to show the views of the other side in his section labelled "the debate" D'Altorio gave the impression that persons who are sexually active carry disease, have issues with self-respect or confidence, like being active and promiscuous are the same, and like it's dishonoring the Christian god, and like it damages the relationship by breaking down communication between partners (according to Devin Jacob).
Since Devin is pro-abstinence, it seems unlikely that he'd have anything good to say.
It seemed like Karl doesn't have a problem with people who choose abstinence, just with fears he deems irrational.
When only one perspective of at least two is offered by a reporter, in a piece designed to discuss an issue, that piece is biased. It is not the role of the 4th estate to place judgment, but merely to inform the public interest of the facts, while (when offering opinions) attempting to offer multiple, relevant views.
Michelle (who appears to have previously written under Concerned) makes it sound like Karl is supporting promiscuity, but this matter is more semantic than relevant.
It sounds like Karl's met some people who not only pursue abstinence, but also feel shame for thinking about sex. I think that he's concerned for people like that, who feel that sexuality is surrounding them, because it makes the world seem antagonizing towards these individuals. Given the presentation of information chosen by the article's author, it would seem to be the endorsed perspective, and that is bias. Bias in media is unjust, and unwelcome.