Most teens say no to pre-marital sex

The Straits Times-Home, pg H4, tue 9th may 2006

95% of under 16 teens surveyed opt for abstinence. I am happy to know that such a large number of teens say no to pre-marital sex and are saving themselves for that special someone. I feel that it is morally wrong to have casual sex with many partners as we are not treasuring and are violating our own body. To treat sex as something casual is something that appalls me as i feel that our body and virginity is something so sacred and we should not take it for granted. I believe that God gave us our bodies to take care of it so we are just tenants of our body and thus we do not have the right to violate it and stain it by having sex anyhow, anytime and with anyone. All in all, i think that pre-marital sex is morally wrong as it does not require commitment and can lead to unwanted pregnancies and even abortion, which is such a cruel and selfish act. Also according to laws regarding underage sex, when a man sleeps with an underage girl it is considered rape while when a woman sleeps with a boy under 16 it is termed as molestation. Though both acts are in reality the same except that in the first case the underaged victim is a girl while in the second case the underaged victim is a boy, the one involving a male with an underage girl carries a heavier charge. I feel that this is unfair as the woman who commited the same act as the man would be charged under different terms and probably get a lighter sentence. I believe that in both cases both accused should be charged equally as i believe that the underaged boy would be just as traumatised by the 'molestation' as the girl was by the rape, even though it is the girl who appears to have lost out more in terms of virginity and chastity compared to the boy.