Christian teaching on sexual purity

Abstract from chapter 17,  Lessons in Depravity

Biblical teaching on sexual purity flows from the holiness that is central to the character of God. In his book The Beauty of God’s Holiness Thomas Trevethan declares that holiness is the fundamental attribute of God that conditions and qualifies all other attributes.  ‘The true God is distinct, set apart, from all that he has made as the only truly self-sufficient Being.  All his creatures depend on him; he alone exists from within himself.  And the true God is distinct, set apart, from all that is evil.  His moral perfection is absolute.  His character as expressed in his will forms the absolute standard of moral excellence.  God is holy, the absolute point of reference for all that exists and is good.’_[i]   In a vision of heaven, the prophet Isaiah sees the Lord seated on his throne and is overwhelmed by the holiness of God, as the seraphim call to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole world is full of his glory’ (Isaiah 6:2-3).  The Lord God of the Bible lives in unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16); his eyes are too pure to look on evil and he cannot tolerate wrong (Habakkuk 1:13).  

 The Bible makes it clear that holiness must be exhibited in the sexual realm. ‘It is God’s will that you should be holy; that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him.  The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you.  For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life.  Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit’ (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). 

 It is God’s will that his people should be holy in their relationships. Christians should learn to control their passions and desires in a way that is honourable. This means avoiding sexual immorality through practising self-control. In Possessed by God David Peterson explains that if our bodies belong to the Lord, we are no longer free to use them selfishly or in accordance with the accepted values of the time.  ‘Gaining control over one’s body and refusing to use it for self-indulgence expresses a true knowledge of God and his will for human life… God’s initial calling of us “in holiness” is to be the ground and motivation for holy living.  God did not call us “for impurity” but, by setting us apart for himself, he indicated his desire for us to live differently, as those who belong to him… Those who teach a more permissive policy or disregard Paul’s words by their actions are setting aside the explicit will of God.  Indeed, the Spirit he gives to Christians is the Spirit of holiness, and nothing unholy can be tolerated in the lives of individuals or communities where the Holy Spirit dwells.’_[ii]  

 The standard that God has set for his people is that we should be pure in body and spirit.  Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God’ (Matthew 5:8).  The uncompromising message of the apostle Paul is ‘keep yourself pure’ (1 Timothy 5:22), and he instructs Timothy to relate to young women ‘with absolutely purity’ (1 Timothy 5:2).  Sexual purity is an attitude of the heart and mind that comes from an understanding of God’s holy character.  The Christian, who strives to be conformed into the image of Christ, longs for sexual purity that brings honour to God.  Sexual purity is manifest in the way we think, the way we talk and the way we behave.  And so Christians are encouraged to think on those things which are true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8).

 One of the essential marks of Christian conduct is purity of speech.  Christians believers are to rid themselves of ‘filthy language’ (Colossians 3:8).  They should ‘not let any unwholesome talk come out of their mouths’, and there must not be ‘obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place…’ The Bible warns that no immoral or impure person ‘has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God’ (Ephesians 4:29 and 5:3-5). We can be sure that Christian people do not indulge in lewd and indecent language.  The sex talk promoted by sex educators is completely unacceptable to God’s holy people.

 Jesus condemns the lustful look as equivalent to adultery and the apostle John warns that ‘the lust of the eyes is not of God, but of the world’ (1 John 3:16).  Indeed, the lust of the eyes is so dangerous that Jesus says, ‘If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out’ (Matthew 5:28, 29).  So Christians are warned of the moral danger of tolerating sexual impurity.  The sexual images of the sex educators are anathema to the Christian faith.

 So we see that an attitude of mind that seeks after sexual purity is at the heart of biblical teaching.  Implicit within the idea of purity is an undivided heart which renounces sensual and sexual pollution, and a spirit of obedience to God’s moral law.  A pure heart inculcates a duty of self-restraint and self-denial.  The people of God desire purity in all areas of their lives, and especially in sexual relationships.  Moreover, we know that the impure person has no part of God’s kingdom.  Sexual purity manifests itself through the biblical virtues of modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity.

 Modesty

Christian sexual conduct is expressed in the four virtues—modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity.  While each virtue applies to an aspect of sexual behaviour, together they form a coherent inner belief system that expresses the biblical attitude to sex, marriage and the family.  Sexual purity is the foundation on which these virtues are built.

 Modesty is the virtue that recognises the rightful purpose of sex as something private, mysterious, and meant for the relationship between husband and wife.  Modesty discourages lust and encourages faithful love.  Chivalry is the virtue that teaches men to relate to women with honour and respect.  It gives men the inner motivation to practise self-control, honesty and decency in relationships.  Chastity is based in the desire for sexual purity, both before and after marriage.  It welcomes the discipline of self-control and self-denial.  Fidelity is based in faithfulness that rejoices in the lifelong nature of the marriage union, and so provides security for all members of the family.  Modesty and chivalry are the roots from which the virtues of chastity and fidelity grow, flourish and bear the fruits of marital faithfulness and family security.  Without the desire for purity there is no inner moral foundation and so the virtues of modesty, chivalry, chastity and fidelity when faced with sexual temptation lose their cohesion and gradually decay.  Marriage flourishes when all four virtues are practised.  And most important of all, these are the Christian virtues that guard children from danger and abuse—they provide children with God-given protection against the ravages that result from sexual immorality.  In his great wisdom God has instituted moral laws around human sexual conduct that preserve marriage, secure the family and protect children.  These virtues are based in holy, righteous character of God, and reflected in his moral law.

Modesty in the Garden of Eden

The first indication of sexual modesty occurs in the Garden of Eden.  After creation and prior to the Fall, ‘the man and woman were both naked and they felt no shame’ (Genesis 2:25).  But then sin entered into the picture.  When Eve ‘saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.  She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves’ (Genesis 3:6-7). 

 One of the first consequences of the original sin is the disappearance of sexual innocence.  The first man and woman looked at each other and became aware of their nakedness.  As they gazed at each other’s naked bodies they were overwhelmed by a sense of shame and embarrassment.  Claus Westermann makes the point in his commentary on Genesis, ‘Being ashamed is rather a reaction to being discovered unmasked.’_[iii]  Aware of their nakedness they are embarrassed and feel an instinctive need to cover their sexual organs, and so use fig leaves as a cover.  Following God’s judgement for their disobedience, ‘the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them’ (Genesis 3:21).  By this action God confirms the need for sinful men and women to cover their nakedness with clothing.  And wrapped up in the idea of covering is the virtue of modesty, which implies sexual reserve, and the avoidance of displaying the sexual organs.  Gordon Wenham comments: ‘It therefore follows that in Eden, the garden of God, man and woman must be decently clad, so God clothes them himself… Just as man may not enjoy a direct vision of God, so God should not be approached by man unclothed.’_[iv]  It was God’s will that sinful mankind, both men and women, should be clothed—it is indecent for them to expose their private parts. 

 The nakedness of Noah

The biblical story then moves on to Noah after the great flood.  ‘Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.  When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.  Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.  But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backwards and covered their father’s nakedness.  Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.  When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan!  The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers”’  (Genesis 9:20-25).

 The incident of Noah and his son Ham emphasises the importance of sexual decency—to be uncovered is a disgrace.  Nakedness in the Old Testament usually refers to the loss of human and social dignity._[v]  His son Ham enters his father’s tent, sees his father’s nakedness, and, it seems, takes sensual delight in what he has seen.  He does not cover his father’s nakedness and this was an outrage against his father’s dignity and modesty._[vi]  And Ham compounds his offence by going outside and telling his brothers.  They instantly grasp the seriousness of the sin that Ham has committed.  The brothers, appalled by what the younger brother has done, enter the tent backwards to avoid looking at their naked father.  They cover his nakedness, so protecting their father’s dignity.  Notice how they ‘turn their faces the other way’ to make sure that their eyes do not see their father’s nakedness. 

 According to Calvin this incident commends the modesty of the two brothers.  ‘They gave proof of the regard they paid to their father’s honour, in supposing that their own eyes would be polluted, if they voluntarily looked upon the nakedness by which he was disgraced.  At the same time they also consulted their own modesty.  For there is something so unaccountably shameful in the nakedness of man…’_[vii]  When Noah awakes and discovers what has happened he is appalled by the depravity of the son who has looked on his naked body.  So serious is the offence that Noah curses Canaan, Ham’s son.  Henceforth the Canaanites, the descendants of Ham, became notorious throughout the Old Testament for their sexual depravity.  This incident shows the sin of the indecent look, and illustrates the principle of sexual modesty.

 The marriage of Isaac and Rebekah

We have the example of Rebekah and Isaac.  Abraham, the father of the faithful, instructs his loyal servant to ensure that Isaac, his only son, does not take a wife from among the Canaanites, who were known for their sexual immorality.  Instead, the servant is to go to Abraham’s family and there find a wife for his son.  When the servant sees Rebekah, he observes that ‘the girl was very beautiful, a virgin, no man had lain with her’ (Genesis 24:16).  Note the biblical emphasis on the chastity of Rebekah.  After the servant explains to her family the purpose of his journey, and the way that God has answered his prayer for guidance, she agrees to travel back with the servant and his men.  Accompanied by her maids, Rebekah sets out on the journey to meet her future husband.  As they approach the home of Abraham, Rebekah looks up and sees a man coming to meet them.  When told that it is Isaac, she gets down from her camel and ‘she took her veil and covered herself’ (Genesis 24:65).  The clear inference is that chaste Rebekah is behaving with modesty in the presence of her future husband.  

Canaanite depravity and God’s holiness

After giving the Israelites his holy law, God commanded them to take possession of Canaan, the Promised Land.  When they take possession of the land they are instructed by God to destroy the Canaanites totally.  ‘When the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.  Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy… This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire.  For you are a people holy to the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 7:2-6).  The people of God were commanded to wipe out the Canaanite people, their religion and culture.  ‘Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshipping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 20:18).  It was in order to prevent the idolatry of the Canaanites, their detestable practices and sexual depravity, from corrupting the people of God, that God commanded their total destruction.  

But what was it about the Canaanites that was so detestable in the eyes of God?  Canaanite worship elevated sex to the realm of the divine._[viii]  The Canaanite gods were sexual in nature and were worshipped in sexual rites.  The chief god El and his son Baal were complete moral degenerates.  According to Canaanite epic poetry a symbolic re-enactment of the incest between Baal and his mother Asherah formed an essential part of Canaanite fertility rites. Horrible sexual perversions are associated with El.  He is represented as practising vile sex acts and influencing others to do likewise.  It is little wonder that the evidence indicates that the Canaanites followed their gods in such abominations.  In Canaanite religion, homosexuals and prostitutes were employed to raise money for the support of temples.  It is not an exaggeration to say that these pagans elevated sex to the status of a god._[ix]  According to GE Wright, ‘The amazing thing about the gods, as they were conceived in Canaan, is that they had no moral character whatsoever.  In fact, their conduct was on a much lower level than that of society as a whole, if we can judge from ancient codes of law.  Certainly the brutality of the mythology is far worse than anything else in the Near East at that time.  Worship of these gods carried with it some of the most demoralising practices then in existence.’_[x]   

In worshipping their gods the Canaanites did ‘all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates’ (Deuteronomy 12:31).  In The Enigma of Evil, John Wenham shows how the Old Testament directs its bitterest venom against Baalism and the cult of Molech.  ‘Baalism was a fertility cult, in which sexual licence was glorified as something religious and meritorious.  There were “holy” prostitutes, male and female, for the gratification of the worshippers.’_[xi]  The detestable things included human sacrifice, demonism, homosexuality, lesbianism and incest.  Sexual orgies and promiscuity were commonplace among the phallic cults that permeated Canaanite religion.  And the priests of the phallic cults performed their functions naked.  And this exposure was prevalent throughout the ancient cults._[xii]   The Asherah, originally a symbol of the tree of life, was corrupted and debased into the organ of procreation.  ‘These symbols, in turn, became the incentive to all forms of impurity which were part of its libidinous worship, with the swarms of “devotees” involved in its obscene orgies… There can be no doubt about it being, in its essence, phallic worship pure and simple, whatever may have been its origin.  This abomination was common to all the ancient nations; and relics of it are found today in various forms, in India and elsewhere.’_[xiii]       

The sexual debauchery of the Canaanites was an affront to the moral perfection of God.  Moreover, God knew that the depravity of the Canaanites would prove to be a snare to his people, who were called to be holy. But the Israelites were disobedient and did not drive out the Canaanites as God commanded.  It was not long before the Israelites learnt the detestable practices of the Canaanites, and did evil in the eyes of the Lord.  ‘They followed and worshipped various gods of the peoples around them.  They provoked the Lord to anger because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths’ (Judges 2:12-13). Clifford Hill, in Prophecy Past and Present, shows that the great harvest festivals of Israel became associated with the fertility cults of the Asherah poles.  ‘They were predominantly sex cults and included both male and female shrine prostitution.  These practices all became incorporated into the religion of Israel and Judah.  Manasseh, for example, even introduced these practices into the Temple… These idolatrous practices included child sacrifice as part of the fertility rites which were roundly condemned by the prophet… It was not simply that the prophets disliked the disgusting practices of animal sacrifice, the detestable practices of ritual fornication or even the unthinkable horror of human sacrifice; their opposition to the whole sacrificial system was because their thinking about God was on an entirely different plane.  To the ordinary Israelites sin was the neglect of ritual, but to the prophets it was the violation of moral law.’_[xiv]  

The purpose of God in his dealings with the Canaanites is to show that there can be no compromise with evil.  The people of God are taught to detest utterly and abhor the abominations of the Canaanites.    It is not difficult to see the similarity between the Canaanites and the modern day sex educators.  Both are amoral, both have deified sex and both are devotees of depraved sexual practices.  The uncovering of the sex organs is common to both.  Indeed, phallic worship played an important part in Canaanite ritual, just as the condom demonstrator plays an important part in the work of the sex educator.  Is the condom demonstrator not another phallic symbol?  

Covering nakedness

It was because God is holy that only priests could enter into his presence in the temple.  Moses was commanded to consecrate Aaron and his sons so that they could minister as priests, and they needed to be suitably covered before approaching the altar.  ‘Make linen undergarments as a covering for the body, reaching from the waist to the thigh.  Aaron and his sons must wear them whenever they enter the Tent of Meeting or approach the altar to minister in the Holy Place, so that they will not incur guilt and die’ (Exodus 28:42,43). As a witness to the holiness and purity of God, Aaron, the high priest, and his sons wore a plain linen undergarment to cover their genitals.  This command for the priests of Israel to cover their genitals was in contradistinction to the priests of Baal.  It was a heinous sin for the priests of Israel to appear before God with uncovered genitals, whereas in Canaanite worship exposing the genitalia was common practice.   

In Leviticus the Bible gives a list of unlawful sexual relationships.  The people of God were not to follow the detestable sexual practices of Egypt or Canaan.  ‘None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him to uncover their nakedness’ (Leviticus 18:6).  Incest, homosexuality and bestiality are forbidden.  In the Old Testament, human nakedness and gross sexual immorality are linked in the mind of God.  The principle of modesty, as expressed by the Aramaic word tze’niut, rejects the very idea of nakedness, both in public and at home.  The opposite of modesty is ‘abandon, looseness, and the absence of self-control’ (helkerut).  Extreme sexual immorality is described in the Bible as ‘the uncovering of nakedness’ (gilui arayot).  

From the Old Testament texts considered above we have discovered a profound biblical truth—modesty is associated with the covering of sexual nakedness, while gross, shameless sexual immorality and idolatry is associated with the uncovering of nakedness.    

Inner beauty, outward conduct

The apostle Paul emphasises the importance of modesty as a Christian virtue.  ‘I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes’ (1 Timothy 2:9).  A modest woman does not make an outward show of her female attributes and does not dress in a way that is sexually provocative or that attracts attention.  The Greek word aidos, translated ‘modesty’ in this verse, signifies an appropriate reserve or sense of shame which preserves a woman from unbecoming behaviour.  A modesty of spirit expresses itself in outward conduct, and influences the way a woman dresses and speaks, her general demeanour, and especially the way she behaves in the presence of men.  Based on this great biblical principle, a modest woman is careful to avoid any outward sexual display; she does not use revealing clothes, or make up, or jewellery in order to make herself attractive to the opposite sex.   

The apostle Peter also explains the importance of modesty as a virtue that enhances the inner beauty of women.  The wife of an unbelieving husband should let him see the purity and reverence of her life, for her beauty ‘should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewellery and fine clothes.  Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight’ (1 Peter 3:3-4).  A quintessential characteristic of modesty is a quiet and gentle spirit, which shows an underlying desire for sexual purity.  It demonstrates a woman’s true worth as a person.  By its very nature, because of its sexual connotation, modesty is primarily directed towards men, and makes a clear statement of a woman’s intention to preserve her sexuality for the one man who will be her husband and the father of her children.  There is a mystery about the modest woman, for although she does not strive to be overtly sexual, she is nevertheless attractive to members of the opposite sex.  Because modesty reveals a woman’s inner beauty, it is attractive to the man who loves her and chooses her to be his wife. So a woman who follows the moral standards of the Bible does not parade her sexuality in a way that encourages sensual lust.  

New Testament teaching reinforces the idea that God’s moral law requires sexual purity.  And Jesus set the standard of sexual purity when he said, ‘But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matthew 5:28).  Jesus warned men not to look at women with lustful thoughts—to do so is tantamount to adultery.  Notice that it is men who are warned, not women, as men are especially prone to the temptation of sexual lust.  The woman’s body attracts men, and our Lord recognised this fact when he set a new standard of sexual purity.  Because of their relative sexual freedom in that they do not have the responsibility of bearing children, men are able to satisfy their sexual cravings without the consequences that women face, and are especially prone to the sin of lust in a way that women are not.  So a man must not look at women with lust; he must learn the virtue of self-control for it helps him deal with sexual temptation.  

This command of Jesus to men places an onus on women to dress, speak and behave with decency and propriety, and not in a way that is sexually enticing.  The woman who displays herself is foolish for she is attracting men for all the wrong reasons.  There is the grave danger that men show interest in her not because of her worth as a person, but because they think that they may gain her sexual favours.  The immodest woman, who appears to attract many men, finds that the respect she longs for is not there, and the more men she has, the less she is respected.  Even in our sexually liberated society men lose respect for the ‘easy’ woman; although they don’t always say so.  Immodesty has its price. 

Mother of all living

By her nature, woman was created to be ‘mother of all the living’ (Genesis 3:20). By design of the Creator a woman’s sexuality is inextricably bound up with bearing children, and so it is natural for women to desire motherhood.  In this regard there is a fundamental difference between the sexual nature of a man and that of a woman.  For women one of the potential consequences of sexual activity is pregnancy, and all women instinctively understand this, and this is why most are repelled by the idea of casual sex.  They know that the consequences of sexual sin, unlike most other sins, has consequences that may be lifelong and may effect many other people, especially members of their family.  It is the height of immorality for a woman to become pregnant by a man who is not her husband, for she is showing that she does not really care that her children may grow up without a father, and outside a legitimate family structure.  Such a woman has put her own selfish desires before the welfare of her children.  Because motherhood is the ultimate purpose of female sexuality, a prudent woman will only have sexual intercourse with her husband, so that he is the father of her children.   

Men, on the other hand, can escape the consequences of nurturing children in a way in which women cannot.  Women are pregnant for nine months and always physically present at the birth of their children.  Not so men—they are only present if they choose to be present, and we all know that some men desert the woman they have impregnated.  Women therefore must be on their guard against predatory men who seek only to gratify their sexual desires, caring nothing for the consequences of their actions.  The man who persuades a single woman to ‘have sex’ on the pretext that he loves her is a deceiver—what he really wants is to satisfy his lust.  The man who truly loves a woman will not place her in the position where she may become the mother of a child he does not want.  

‘Return to Modesty’

In her book Return to Modesty, Wendy Shalit, a young Jewish woman, testifies to the importance of sexual modesty.  She explains how she became aware of the Jewish modesty law which meant not touching boyfriends before marriage.  She argues that many of the problems facing modern young women, such as sexual harassment, stalking and rape are all expressions of a society which has lost its respect for female modesty._[xv]  She relates the story of her experience of sex education as an innocent nine-year-old girl.  She tells how the sex educator confronted the class with the question: ‘What is 69?’  Wendy Shalit realised that there was more to the question when some of the boys started giggling.  The sex educator responded by telling the children that there was absolutely nothing to giggle about.  Wendy explains her embarrassment at the proceedings and how she excused herself and escaped to the toilet.  She related the incident to her mother who was so upset by the whole episode that she arranged for Wendy to be withdrawn from future sex education lessons.   

Shalit believes that young girls are still experts on embarrassment. ‘Everyone tells us not to be self-conscious, but we always are.  It’s as if the world’s embarrassment passed through us, from generation to generation.’  Why do young girls get so embarrassed?  ‘It’s a very important question in the life of a girl.  Today, embarrassment is something to “overcome”, but maybe if so many girls are still embarrassed, even in an age when we’re not supposed to be, maybe we have our embarrassment for a reason.  The natural embarrassment sex education seeks so prissily to erode—“Now remember, boys and girls, there is absolutely nothing to giggle about!”—may point to a far richer understanding of sex than do our most explicit sex manuals.  Children now are urged to overcome their “inhibitions” before they have a clue what an inhibition means.  Yet embarrassment is actually a wonderful thing, signalling that something very strange or very significant is going on, that some boundary is being threatened—either by you or by others.  Without embarrassment, kids are weaker; more vulnerable to pregnancy, disease and heartbreak.’_[xvi]  

Shalit believes that most women do not want a whole series of sexual partners, but really want ‘one enduring love’, one man who will stick by them, for better or for worse.  She concludes that ‘modesty is a reflex, arising naturally to help a woman protect her hopes and guide their fulfillment—specifically, this hope is for one man’._[xvii]  When a man lets a woman down, her hopes are dashed.  This is where modesty comes in.  ‘For modesty armed this special vulnerability—not to oppress women, but with the aim of putting them on an equal footing with men.  The delay modesty created not only made it more likely that women could select men who would stick by them, but in turning lust into love, it changed men from uncivilised males who ran after as many sexual partners as they can get to men who really wanted to stick by one woman.’_[xviii] Shalit believes that women who dress and act modestly conduct themselves in a way that shrouds their sexuality in mystery.  They live in a way that makes womanliness more a transcendent, implicit quality than a crude, explicit quality._[xix]

 While Shalit’s argument that most women want a sexual relationship with only one man is intuitively correct, a large survey of teenage sexual behaviour done in the UK in the early 1960s confirms it to be true.  In response to the question ‘would you like to be a virgin when you marry?’ 85 per cent of the girls, aged 15-19 years, responded yes._[xx]  According to The Sexual Behaviour of Young People, when young girls were asked why they had not become sexually active many girls took it for granted that their first experience of sexual intercourse would occur after they had married.  Among sexually experienced young women, the vast majority (88 per cent) admitted that they had thought about pregnancy when they had sex with their boyfriends, and 70 per cent had feared pregnancy.  Among the sexually experienced boys, on the other hand, only 51 per cent said that they had been afraid of a possible pregnancy on one or more occasions.  ‘An important inhibiting influence on teenage sexual behaviour was fear of pregnancy, just as it was the most usual reason for restraint given by the sexually active girls.’_[xxi]   

Girls mentioned moral reasons and reputation as important restraining factors.  Those ‘who permit premarital intercourse are disparaged by some boys, even by the boys who are seeking to have intercourse with them’._[xxii]  In response to the question ‘would you like to have sex with your fiancé before you marry’ only 22 per cent of girls responded yes, compared to 40 per cent of boys.  Furthermore, 61 per cent of girls agreed that sexual intercourse before marriage is wrong, compared with 35 per cent of boys.  ‘Most girls do not want to have sex before they marry, and they believe that their boyfriends want to marry a virgin.  They also believe, more often than the boys, that a girl who has sex before marriage gets a bad reputation.’_[xxiii]   

The findings of this survey, undertaken in the early 1960s when the permissive era had already begun, shows beyond any doubt that the vast majority of young women wanted to be chaste, and did not want to have sex before marriage.  And the large majority of those who were sexually active were afraid of pregnancy, which is recognised as a restraining influence on female behaviour.  The young men tended to have different views, and were more liberal in their attitude to premarital sex.  It is clear that all teenagers expected girls to be much more circumspect than boys.  The majority of girls accepted the view ‘that girls who have sex before marriage get a bad reputation.  They also want to be virgins when they marry and realise that this is what the boys expect; more girls than boys believe that most boys want to marry virgins.’_[xxiv]  Young women know that if they sleep around they get a bad reputation.  In their heart of hearts they want to keep themselves pure for their husband.

The Christian virtue of chivalry

Chivalry is the virtue that flows from Peter’s instruction to husbands to treat their wives with respect ‘as the weaker partner and heirs with you of the gracious gift of life’ (1 Peter 3:7).  It is a male virtue based in the respect that men have towards women.  It is founded on biblical truth, and provides the moral framework in which worthy men relate to women; it teaches a man to become a gentleman, committed to honour and principle.  It reveals itself in a man’s courteous behaviour towards women.  Like modesty it comes from the inner self and is a reflection of God’s moral law; men, as created in the image of God, have an innate potential for defending, serving and honouring women.  In 1878 the United States Court declared, ‘Man is, or ought to be, woman’s protector and defender… it is the law of the Creator’.  Two weeks after the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, Second Officer Lightoller told a United States Senate panel that ‘women and children first’ was more than just the law of the sea—‘It is the law of human nature.’ It is God who ordained man as the head of the family, charged him with the protection of his family, and instructed him to treat his wife deferentially as the weaker partner.  It is because men are called to lead that they must be the first to give their lives._[xxv]        

Bound up in the virtue of chivalry is a recognition that women are the weaker sex, for they do not have the same physical strength or aggressive nature as men.  Chivalry recognises a woman’s sexual vulnerability in that she is prone to pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood.   This leads to a general respect for womanhood, which results in men treating women with special respect and honour.  A chivalrous man understands that for a woman there is no such thing as casual sex, for she bears the awful responsibility of conceiving a new life and all that that involves.  A chivalrous man does not take sexual advantage and does not place a woman in a compromising position.  He is careful to do nothing that will impinge on her sexual propriety or tarnish her reputation.  Chivalry and honour inspire genuine relationships between the sexes, such as courtship, love, and marriage—they reveal a man’s true worth, and are the essential masculine virtues that capture a woman’s heart.  

It is natural for the chivalrous man to protect a woman from physical danger; he defends a woman against the designs of brutish men.  For centuries a distinguishing mark of the western maritime tradition was that, in times of crisis, women and children received preferential treatment.  A chivalrous man also protects the dignity and modesty of a woman.  He behaves with respect, politeness and decorum in the presence of a woman; he does not use foul language or behave in a loutish way; he does not tell smutty jokes in her presence and he does not make sexual innuendoes that are offensive to her modesty; he always stands up when a woman enters the room and he holds the door for her.  So we see that chivalry modifies men’s conduct towards women just as modesty modifies women’s conduct towards men.   

In Victorian England the idea of the gentleman was taken seriously.  The worth of the true English gentleman depended upon moral character.  According to Gertrude Himmelfarb the gentleman was identified by his moral virtues of integrity, honesty, generosity, courage, graciousness, politeness and consideration for others.  ‘By moralising the idea of the gentleman, the Victorians democratized it as well, extending it to the middle classes and even, on occasions, to the working class.’_[xxvi]   

In his essay on chivalry Mitchell Kalpakgian explains that, unlike the Christian ideals of manhood as described in Louisa May Alcott’s novel, Little Men, and the heroism exalted in Victorian England, the postmodern world fails to teach that maleness is essentially noble and chivalrous.  ‘Chivalry can flourish only when a culture clearly defines the meaning of masculinity and femininity.  A gentleman knows that a woman deserves to be treated in special, considerate, sensitive ways that are reflected in manners, speech and courtesy.  If men and women look alike, dress alike, talk alike and act alike, then the mysterious, idealistic or romantic relationship between men and women disappears… Chivalry also flourishes when women hold men to high standards, expecting them to be magnanimous, gallant, civilised and chaste.  The ideals that women instil in boys, and that they expect of men, determine the moral climate of a society.  Do sex education courses, coeducational dormitories, and condom distribution in schools promote the chivalrous treatment of women, or do they encourage the lustful exploitation of women for selfish pleasure?  Without the virtue of chastity governing the relationship between men and women, the respect due to a woman’s honour is absent.’_[xxvii]   

He argues that contraception undermines chivalry.  Instead of being treated, by men and herself, as worthy of courtship, respect, dignity, and devotion, woman has become a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, rather than a man’s respected and beloved companion.  A woman intuitively senses when she is loved for her own sake and responds with gratitude, beauty, and generosity.  ‘This kind of love is dynamic and surprising, not perfunctory; a mutual giving and receiving in self-donation, not a hidden form of selfishness; a priceless gift, not a calculated risk.  This is the mystery of love that is lost in the sexual revolution that substitutes “safe sex” for the adventure of romance.  When women are taught to resent masculinity, chivalry is stifled.  When chastity is not the norm, men and women cannot idealise or respect each other.  When educators assume that boys and girls must be sexually active rather than gentlemen and ladies, ideals such as honour evaporate.  Instead of romance, which leads to the wonderful vision of the true, the good, and the beautiful incarnate in the beloved, we are left with only the various forms of lust advertised as sexual liberation.  Without chivalry, love loses its heart, and men and women become less than human.’   

Kalpakgian concludes that chivalry trains the male heart to put the woman first, while sexual liberation puts self-gratification first and women last.  ‘While chivalry evokes the princess or lady in a woman, the contraceptive mentality treats her as an object.  While chivalry glories in the femininity of women and in the idealism of love, unisex thinking reduces sexuality to mere orgasm.  Without chivalry informing the characters of men and shaping the education of boys, preparation for marriage suffers.’ _[xxviii] 

Click here to return to top of page