Science in Christian Perspective
Christian Sexual Mores and
Our generation has seen a flood of works dealing with human sexual behavior; the subject was far from dead even before the appearance of the monumental Kinsey reports.1 The consensus of scholars is that sexual morality is in a transition "marked by a steady decline of the ascetic tradition and the rise of biological realism as a counter-movement."2 The conventional "puritanistic" tradition is often identified, justifiably or otherwise, with the Judeo-Christian standards of sex. One marriage counselor has gone so far as to state that no competent scholar can remain a "dogmatic follower of any ... religious faith,"3 and many others silently support a similar viewpoint.
The purpose of this paper is to examine both negative and positive effects of social science upon Christian sexual mores.
Bymores we mean those habits or customs which are held by common consent to be conducive to. society's welfare. They generally are supported by formal patterns of social control; conformity to them is considered "right" and nonconformity "wrong."
By contemporary social science we refer primarily to the work of teachers and researchers since World War II in the fields of sociology, psychology, and anthropology, with occasional reference to over-lapping work of social biologists and marriage counselors.
By Christian sexual mores we mean the standards of sexual conduct supported in the New Testament. We will limit ourselves to the topics of adultery (extramarital sexual relations) and fornication (premarital sexual relations). Surprisingly, the New Testament refers far more often to fornication than to adultery, perhaps because one of the ten commandments condemns adultery. In every direct New Testament reference to adultery, fornication is mentioned as if in the same category. We are told that adultery and fornication come from the heart and defile a man (Mat. 15:18-20), that God will judge fornicators and adulterers (Heb. 13:4), and that they will not inherit the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10). Fornication fs pictured as a work of the flesh; those who commit it will not inherit the kingdom (Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:5). Christians are warned to abstain from fornication ("put it to death") (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; Col. 3:5-7; I Thes. 4:3-8) and are instructed not to eat with a fornicator who bears the name of "brother" (I Cor. The Apostle Paul feared he would have to mourn over many who had not repented of fornication (II Cor. 12:21), and he told Timothy that fornication is contrary to sound doctrine (I Tim. 1 :10). In the Revelation we are told that fornicators shall have part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Rev. 21:8), and that fornicators are outside the holy city (Rev. 22:15). In many of these passages fornication and adultery are placed on a par with murder, idolatry, drunkenness, and other sins that incur the wrath of God.
The concept of "Christian sexual mores" does not include the implication that sex is always dirty and sinful. That view is a puritanical interpretation which seems inconsistent with Biblical teachings on the subject when they are taken in their entirety. In its proper place sex is one of the normal, essential, legitimate areas of life. (E. g., "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled." Hebrews 13:4.)Limitations
There is a positive as well as a negative approach to Christian sexual mores. The positive emphasis is on the love and the judgment of God which lead the Christian to understand and evaluate sex in terms of its contribution to God's ultimate purposes as a phase of man's stewardship.5 Except by indirect and casual references, this paper will not deal with this positiveChristian ethic.
We shall not try to decipher the difficult problem of whom and when God joins together in marriage. Are couples ever joined by God outside of or before earthly marriage? If so, their sexual relations may not be fornication in the Scriptural sense, while a legally married pair God has not joined together may be living in adultery. This has obvious implications for another difficult question omitted from this discussion is it ever right for Christians to be divorced and to remarry new partners?
Another complicated theological problem with which this paper does not deal is the question of symbolic immorality referred to in the Scriptures (Isa. 1 :21 ; Jer. 3:6-10; Hosea 1:2; 3:1; etc.). Neither shall we deal with the indirect kind of adultery of which Christ spoke when he said that a man who even so much as looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart (Mat. 5:28). (Measured thus by God's standard, there perhaps is not a single normal adult person who is without sexual sin.)
Relatively little serious scientific investigation has been done on the ways in which sexual conduct affects people socially and psychologically; most of what is written and said on the subject is in the nature of mere opinion.6 This paper is limited not only by a dearth of knowledge but also by its restriction to our own society with its particular historical and cultural traditions.
Samples of the work of social scientists may lack representativeness and reflect selective biases of the one who chooses them, for there is no unanimity of opinion among them. By dividing this paper into two major parts, the negative and the positive influences on sex mores, the writer hopes to present both sides of the subject fairly, even though he has not attempted a complete survey of all social scientists concerned with this topic.
Certain influences of contemporary social science tend to weaken Christian taboos on adultery and fornication. Most of these operate indirectly and "innocently," while a few reflect open strategy to discredit Christianity or traditional sexual mores.
One of the most directly anti-Christian approaches to this subject that I have seen is by marriage counselor Stokes in an address at the 1953 meeting of the American Association of Marriage Counselors. He traced the difficulties pertinent to our premarital sex codes back to the doctrines of original sin, the vicarious atonement, the virgin birth, and divine and carnal love. He criticized severely the "mystical, taboo-ridden, irrational interpretation of sex" which has crept into our culture through the Hebraic-Christian religious system and pleaded for movement away from the attitude that there is anything wrong in premarital intercourse.7 His general viewpoint was upheld by Albert Ellis, clinical psychologist and marriage counselor,8 who in addition actively supports various forms of sex play often considered to be perversions.9
Perhaps a majority of social scientists do not take a definite stand espousing either chastity or indulgence; the stress upon scientific objectivity precludes this in the, role of scientist. As a result, in textbooks, other writing, counseling, and the social science classroom, description of man's sexual behavior predominates, ostensibly without moralizing. This occasionally may have contributed to an excuse for immorality through its latent implication that moral standards are unimportant. For example, psychologists Lehner and Kube write that some people reject moral prohibitions with guilt, others without guilt; some observe prohibitions because of fear, religious values, or the assimilation of group mores, and some indulge in sexual relations with their fiancees but not with others. They conclude that each person "must evaluate this moral issue for himself."10 Similarly, Dr. Dorothy Dyer, head of the University of Minnesota Family Life Division, indicates that in teaching and counseling young people "a neutral, middle-of-the-road attitude about information" giving both sides must be taken; the teacher when asked her opinion can only say, "I'm of another generation; therefore, I can tell you what works for me, but it may not work for you."11 The attempted objectivity of social scientists trying to be basically scientists rather than moralists sometimes contributes to a weakening of Christian mores.
A closely related and similar effect sometimes occurs from knowledge about the relativity of moral standards. Sexual behavior and the mores that govern it vary from one group of people to another; there is no universal moral pattern.12 Even among Christians there have been varying interpretations of sexual mores regulating premarital coitus of persons contemplating marriage. Social scientists also are giving increasing attention to the way in which basic personality traits are shaped by the cultural settings in which personalities develop;13 they incline toward a relativistic type of social determinism: one tends to become what his culture makes him. These relativistic approaches encourage the superficial impression that moral standards are unimportant as long as socially undesirable consequences of breaking them can be avoided. One marriage counselor actually says that fornication does not involve any more risks, if as many, as numerous other activities, such as skiing, driving a car, or playing football, which we do not condemn; his direct implication is that premarital sex relations should be suppressed no more than these other activities.14 While most would not state such conclusions so bluntly, social scientists often tend unwittingly to undermine Christian sexual mores by "objective" dissemination of knowledge. Dr. Stokes has epitomized a common effect of such knowledge in these words:
Social scientists also spread other knowledge that influences sexual standards. They have promulgated information about the ease with which conception can be avoided in the majority of copulations.16 This plus the accessability of contraceptives has no doubt contributed to the loosening of moral standards, for it has helped eliminate fear of pregnancy, a chief pragmatic basis for taboos against illicit sex relations. Knowledge about the sex drives of both sexes and about the rapid treatment of venereal disease with antibiotics may have helped break down the moral reservations of some. Social scientists have had a part in leading the cultural changes shattering barriers that once prevented discussion and dissemination of information about sex; they have thus influenced the changing pattern of sexual mores in America.
Perhaps the most significant of the knowledge they disseminate is the evidence of widespread immorality among us. Eleven of eighteen prominent students of the family listed as one of ten outstanding changes in the family in recent times the increase in premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse.17 There is reason to believe that both the behavior and the standards or mores are changing in this direction;18 the "older universals of the sex mores are breaking down and are being replaced by numerous alternatives in the current sexual folkways."19. The widespread deviations from conventional moral standards indicated by studies of limited samples of the population by Terman,20 Holithan and Schaffner, 21 Burgess and Wallin,22 Kinsey and Associates,23 and others have tended to make people feel that large numbers, perhaps even a majority, indulge in adultery and fornication. This makes it easy for many to yield to temptation, for our emphasis upon majority rule seems to carry over into ethical practices regarding traffic laws and sexual norms.
Flowing out of knowledge of the high incidence of fornication and adultery is a tendency of many to adopt a casuistic ethic that what is is right: If the majority commit fornication, this proves that the standard of chastity is too high and the standard should be changed to fit the behavior. This position is described by Folsom: "When in Rome do as the Romans do-read their laws-but also notice which laws are enforced."24 This is one implication of the Kinsey reports: laws ought to be changed so that premarital sexual activity is not penalized when both participating parties have consented and force is not involved.25 Many social scientists have drawn the same conclusion. Dr. Duvall has indicated that nearly all "arguments for a more permissive attitude towards premarital sex relations center on the fact that people do it anyway. 'You can't stop it, so you adjust yourself to it.' "26 He then wisely indicates that the universality of a practice does not indicate it to be desirable; the extent to which a moral code is violated has nothing to do with desirablity of the code itself. All have sinned and come shcrt of God's glory, but this is no justification for sin. The findings of studies of the extent of immorality have latent permissive connotations, especially for guilt-ridden persons whose anxiety may be alleviated in the thought that "everybody else is doing it; therefore it's all right for me to do it, too."27
It is only to those who gain but a little superficial knowledge that the danger of the social scientists' use of the term normal will be a serious one. There are various types of "normality." Frequently we use the term statistically to refer to that which is prevalent or common in a group; at other times we use it in the etbical sense referring to that which ought to be. Many practices which are sufficiently prevalent to be statistically "normal" are "abnormal" from the moral viewpoint. The superficial hearer or reader, hciwever, may confuse the statistical and moral uses of the term and assume that we morally approve all sexual behavior we call "normal."28
A major emphasis of Freudian psychology has been upon repression, the personality problems that it sometimes introduces, and the role it plays as a basic mechanism of adjustment. Repression is a form of selective forgetting that is largely induced by fear of disapproval by others, so it is closely related to guilt feelings and to one's conception of self. Since it tends in itself to produce tensions and instabilities, and since it so often operates in connection with sexual behavior, it frequently is linked with implicit moral teachings. A college student may get the impression from reading certain textbooks that the old moral standards are doing as much or more harm than good. The general public tends "to identify repression with all forms of restraint. Thus freedom from repression is confused. with complete license."+ Closely related is the emphasis of some psychologists upon basic drives, needs, motivations, or urges of mankind which, when frustrated, have various ill effects; they say self control, if possible, may result in psychoneurosis. It is obvious how this can influence sexual mores!
The individual differences also stressed by behavioral social scientists frequently contribute to conclusions about sexual behavior like the following:
Individual adjustments must be the outgrowth of one's own scheme of personal adaptation. Each unmarried adult who raises a personally centered question must answer it in terms of his own constitution, training, experience, and in the light of his understanding of the meaning and reflexive portent of a dynamic sex life in unmarriage.30
Dr. Ellis has said that "because there are the widest possible individual differences, it is most questionable whether we should try to make all ' human beings conform to one dogmatic and invariant code."31
This brief sketch has indicated that some social scientists directly attack or condemn Christian sexual mores, but that more, perhaps all, tend to undermine them unconsciously and imperceptibly through teaching anti-traditionalism, scientific objectivity, the relativity of moral standards, knowledge about venereal diseases and contraceptives, the incidence of immorality, an ethical casuistry which holds that whatever is common is right, and Freudian psychology with its emphasis upon repression into the unconscious. When emphasis on individual differences makes the individual a standard unto himself alone, or when there is semantic confusion in the use of the term "normal" the problem is accentuated. (I do not intend to imply that most of these should be eliminated from social science curricula, but only that care must be exercised in teaching them.)
The contemporary search for personal adjustment, happiness, peace of mind, romantic love, and the like no doubt also contributes to the breakdown of Christian sexual mores, for it often leads to a self-seeking indulgence that pays little or no attention to others. The overwhelming emphasis on sex in advertising and the mass media of communications and numerous other characteristics of American society undoubtedly have a large impact upon this problem as well.
Are New Testament standards of sexual behavior practical? Do they lead to maladjustment and mental illness in our culture? Is there any tangible scientific evidence to support them? In this section I will indicate five ways in which, in my opinion, the social sciences support Christian sexual mores.
1. Social scientists emphasize the importance to the efficient functioning of the entire social order of the regulation of sex. While there are variations in the specific arrangements, all societies contain family groups, forbid incest, sanction marriage, approve more highly of legitimate than of illegitimate births, and look upon marriage as the most highly approved outlet for sexual expression of adults.32 A sex code with restrictions upon sexual relations outside marriage is essential for the protection of children and the maintenance of the family. This clarification by social scientists supports such standards as Christian sexual mores.
2. Many social scientists have indirectly supported Christian sexual mores by refuting the arguments of those who crusade for "sexual freedom" and other forms of non-marital sexual relations. Typically they emphasize the demonstrated practicality of adhering and the impracticality of not adhering to traditional sexual moral standards, and they indicate that arguments against conventional mores are purely theoretical.33 Many of them stress the necessity of self-control which is essential to the well-being of persons and of society.
3. Social scientists have demonstrated that religion is an effective source of sexual social control. Even the Kinsey reports found that the religiously devout were less likely to have premarital coitus than the religiously inactive,34 and that the "active incidence of extramarital coitus had been more affected by the religious backgrounds of the females in the sample than by any other factor. .. "35 Burgess and Wallin reported religion to be even more significant as a deterrent of intercourse by engaged couples than education.36 Christensen found that couples who had religious marriage ceremonies were less likely to have premarital pregnancies than those with civil ceremonies;37 Porterfield and Salley discovered that premarital coitus was experienced most often by students who were not church members, less often by church members, and for the males least often by ministerial students.38 In summarizing conclusions of such studies, Ogburn and Nimkoff state that one of the reasons for the possible increase in premarital intercourse is the gradual breakdown of religious codes of behavior.39 If the trend continues "away from the traditional morality toward an ideology of sexual humanism the inhibitions imposed by religion will be viewed unf avorably."40 Nevertheless, religion is still recognized as an important control over sexual behavior. As Bowman has indicated, the iconoclastic viewpoint of sociologists who have an anti-religious bias that religious training does not influence conduct because it is little or nothing more than "an elaborate pattern of speech reactions which affects thoughts and feelings but not behavior" does not find empirical support even in the Kinsey studies.41
4. The social sciences have also supported Christian sexual mores through their empirical demonstrations of the ill effects of immorality. Psychologist Fromme has indicated the dangers of adultery to a marriage as well as some of the underlying problems it symptomatizes,42 and he has treated fornication as a common source of marital maladjustments.43 Burgess and Wallin devote an entire chapter of the report of their follow-up study of engaged couples to the assessment of premarital intercourse and conclude that in our culture "it can seriously interfere with the most important function of courtship, the testing of compatibility in temperament, personality, common interests, and values."44 Even though they "take no stand for or against the desirability of premarital sexual relations" and present both advantages and disadvantages listed by the hundreds of couples, studied, the bulk of their evidence favors adherence to conventional sexual mores. Blood's analysis of romance and premarital intercourse also substantiates conventional mores; the tendency in our culture for a couple's idealized, romantic images of each other to be shattered by physical intimacies may contribute to fears they are mismated or even to breaking an otherwise desirable engagement.45
Additional evidence supporting Christian sexual mores comes from the studies of happiness or adjustment in marriage.'The results of research by Davis, Hamilton, Terman, and Burgess and Wallin support the conclusion that virgins atthe time of marriage are the most likely to be happily married, couples who have had sexual relations only with each other next most likely, and the most promiscuous before and during marriage are the most likely to have unhappy marriages.46 Locke's comparison of divorced and happily married couples indicates that both premarital and extramarital intercourse were more common among the divorced than among the happily married.47 Christensen found that even when age at marriage, type of ceremony, and other factors were controlled, a high divorce rate was associated with premarital pregnancy.48 Goode concluded that even after divorce there are "far more complications and difficulties" for those who seek sexual pleasures than for the morally strict.49 Thus the bulk of the empirical evidence that social scientists and others have gathered in our society indicates the wisdom of adhering to Christian sexual mores.
the social sciences can help support Christian sexual mores by clarifying
Scriptural truths. For instance,
(1) Jesus said that the kingdom of God is within us (Luke 17:21). This immediately reminds the social scientist that the most effective social controls are those which are internalized so that moral codes are a part of the person's conscience and automatically operate to support proper conduct. As the laws of God and the will of God are written in the heart, to use Scriptural terminology, they will lead to correct behavior.50
(3) The social, sciences have also helped clarify the importance of motivation in human conduct. Basic to satisfactory marital relationships is the love (not lust) of husband and wife. True love is best illustrated in the person of our Lord; it does not seek its own; it is the fulfillment of the law; in its highest form it derives from faith in Jesus Christ. As social scientists study love and the relationships that flow out of it, they help us understand and appreciate Scriptural injunctions more.
1. Alfred C. Kinsey, W. B. Pomeroy, and C. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1948), and Alfred C. Kinsey et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia W. B. Saunders Co., 1953).
2. Claude C. Bowman, "Social Change as Reflected in the Kinsey Studies," Social Problems, 2:1, July 1954.
3. Walter R. Stokes, M. D., in W. R. Stokes and David R. Mace, "Premarital Sexual Behavior," Marriage and Family Living, 15:237, August 1953.
4. For an excellent relevant discussion of prostitution, see Maurice J. Karpf, "The Effects of Prostitution of Marital Sex Adjustment," Marriage and Family Living, 15:65-71, February 1953.
5. For interpretations of the Christian sex code see Sylvanus M. Duvall, "Sex Standards and Christian Teaching," Religion in Life, 17:494-502,Autumn 1948; Sylvanus M. Duvall, Men, Women, and Morals (New York: Associated Press, 1952), Chapter 16, pp. 298-310; Joseph K. Folsom, "Kinsey's Challenge to Ethics and Religion," Social Problems ' 1:164-168, April 1954; Seward Hiltner, Sex Ethics and the Kinsey Report (New York: Associated Press, 1953) ; Otto A. Piper, The Christian Interpretation of Sex (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951) ; and Simon Doniger, Ed., Sex and Religion Today (New York: Associated Press, 1953).
6. Cf. Dr. Duvall in Symposium, "Premarital Sex Relations: The Facts and the Counselor's Role in Relation to the Facts," Marriage and Family Living, 14:229-230, August 1952. She states, "There was a lot of material on the psychology of sex, and other aspects of sex, but almost none on the facts. We know almost nothing about how sex conduct affects people, except in limited biological areas. So I started to find out what we think we know . . . . I felt like the Curies did when they went through 100 tons of pitchblende to secure an ounce of radium."'7. Stokes and Mace, op. cit., pp. 234-249.
8. Ibid., p 248; see also his comments in Symposium, op. cit., pp. 229-238, and Albert Ellis, The Folklore of Sex (New York; Charles Boni, 1951).
9. Albert Ellis, "Marriage Counseling with Couples Indicating Sexual Incompatability," Marriage and Family Living, 15:53-59, February 1953, and "Letters to the Editor," Marriage and Family Living, 15:249-254, August 1953.
F. J. Lehner and Ella Kube, The Dynamics of Personal Adjustment (New
York: Prentice-Hall, 1955), p. 347
11. Symposium, op. cit., p. 235.
12. Margaret Mead, Male and Female New York: William Morrow and Co., 1949); Wilflam G. Sumner and Albert G. Keller, The Science of Society *(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927). Vol. III, pp. 1674-1693,1764-1776; George P. Murdock, "A Comparative Anthropological Approach [to sexual behavior]," Journal of Social Hygiene, 36:133-138, April 1950.
13. Cf. Lawrence K. Frank, "The Psychocultural Approach in Sex Research," Social Problems, 1:133-139, April 1954, and John J. Honigmann, "An Anthropological Approach to Sex," Social Problems, 2:7-16, July 1954.
14. Albert Ellis in Symposium, op. cit. p. 231.
15. Ibid., p. 237.
16. See Nelson N. Foote, "Sex as Play," Social Problems, 1:159-163, April 1954.
17. W. F. Ogburn and M. F. Nimkoff, Technology and the Changing Family (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955), p. 5.
18. Ibid., p. 52; E. W. Burgess and Paul Wallin, Engagement and Marriage (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1953), P. vii.
19. Austin L. Porterfield and H. Ellison Salley, "Current Folkways of Sexual Behavior," American Journal of Sociology, 52:216, November 1946.
20. Lewis M. Terman et al., Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1938).
21. Leslie B. Holunan and Bertram Schaffner, "The Sex Lives of Unmarried Men," American Journal of Sociology, 52:501-507, May 1947.22. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit.
23. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin, op. cit., and Kinsey et al., OP. cit.
24. J. K. Folsom, op. cit., p. 164.
25. Kinsey et al., op. cit., p. 326. (See p. 436 regarding adultery.)
26. Symposium, op. cit., p. 234.
27. Francis E. Merrill, "The Kinsey Report: Manifest and Latent Implications," Social Problems, 1:169-172, April 1954,
28. Cf. Symposium, op. cit., p. 237.
29. John Dollard and Neal E. Miller, Personality and Psychotherapy (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950), p. 220. Cf. Lehner and Kube, op. cit., pp. 125-126; Hubert Bonner, Social Psychology (New York: American Book Co., 1953), pp. 131-132; Clifford T. Morgan, Introduction to Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1956), pp. 83, 259-260, 267; Norman Cameron and Ann Magaret, Behavior Pathology (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951), pp. 337-371.
30. Ira S. Wile The Sex Life of the Unmarried Adult (New York: Garden City Publishing Co., 1940), p. 305, as quoted with approbation in Louis P. Thorpe, The Psychology of Mental Health (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1950), pp. 626-627.
31. Symposium, op. cit., p. 231.
32. Ruth S. Cavan, The American Family (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1953), pp. 368-371.
33. One of the best brief presentations of this kind is found in Ray E. Baber, Marriage and the Family (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Second Edition, 1953), Chapter 16, "Conflicting Sex Patterns," pp. 576-605. A typical popular book with this emphasis is by marriage counselor Paul Popenoe, Marriage Before and After (New York: Wilfred Funk, Inc., 1943).
34. Kinsey et al., op. cit., pp. 304-307; summary for both sexes, p. 331.
35. Ibid., p. 424.
36. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., pp. 337-342.
37. Harold T. Christensen, "Studies in Child Spacing: IPremarital Pregnancy as Measured by the Spacing of the First Birth from Marriage," American Sociological Review, 18:53-59, February 1953.
38. Porterfield and Salley, op. cit.
39. Ogburn and Nimkoff, op. cit., ~pp. 5, 50-57, 138-139, 261-262.
41. Ibid. (It is possible, of course, that the observed correlation between religion and conventional morality is not a resultant of a strictly "casual" relationship.)
42. Allan Fromme, Sex and Marriage (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1955), pp. 215-225. (Also published as The Psychologist Looks at Sex and Marriage, (New York, PrenticeHall, 1950.)
43. Ibid., pp. 86-87. Cf. Ira L. Reiss, "The Double Standard in Premarital Sexual Intercourse-A Neglected Concept" Social Forces, 34:224-230, March, 1956.
44. Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., p. 389. (Chapter 12, pp. 353-390).
45. Robert 0. Blood, Jr., "Romance and Premarital Intercourse-Incompatibles?" Marriage and Family Living, 14:105108, May 1952.
46. See summaries in Clifford Kirkpatrick, What Science Says About Happiness in Marriage (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1947), pp. 24, 32; Burgess and Wallin, op. cit., pp. 367-371; and Lemo D. Rockwood and Mary E. N. Ford, Youth, Marriage, and Parenthood (New York; John Wiley and Sons, 1945), p. 247. The only contrary finding of which I am aware is that of Carney Landis' study of 295 women, 25 per cent of whom had experienced premarital intercourse; Landis concluded that more women who had good marital adjustment had had complete premarital sex experience (cited in Rockwood and Ford, pp. 47, 247).
47. Harvey J. Locke, Predicting Adjustment in Marriage (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1951), pp. 132-139, 148- 155.48. Discussion in Stokes and Mace, op. cit., pp. 245-246.
49. William J. Goode, After Divorce (Glencoe: Free Press, 1956), P. 213.
50. Cf. William M. Baxter, "The Relationship of Faith to Sexual Moraltiy," Journal of Pastoral Care, 9:77-82, Summer 1955.
51. Stokes and Mace, op. cit., p. 241. See also Psychiatrist Laidlaw's comments, p. 247.
52. Many, perhaps a majority, of social science books dealing with love, courtship, and marriage openly support the conventional moral standards, even if only because of guilt feelings frequently incurred from their violation in our culture.
53. Frank A. Houser, Sociology Section, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 18, December 1954. 1 am grateful to Mr. Houser for many excellent suggestions both in this column and in his critique of a preliminary version of this paper. The comments of Dr. Arthur Volle have also been helpful in making the final revisions.