This blurb in yesterday's Inquirer caught my eye: "Brooke: Should Have Had Sex Sooner." The most famous virgin of our generation now says it would've been better for her, for health reasons and for the sake of her body image, to lose her virginity sooner.
Dear Brooke: what the heck are you talking about? It's not out of prudishness but out of medical fact that I say that sex outside of monogamous marital forever relationships is a higher health hazard than abstinence. So I fail to see how having sex sooner would've been better for your health.
And as for feeling better about your body, that is precisely why premarital sex is bad. Casual sex is bad because sex is good, and is therefore meant for a committed relationship. And sex in that context is good because our bodies are good, made for all sorts of physical enjoyments, including sexual pleasure.
For the Brooke Shields' of the world who think sex is needed to make their bodies feel good and valuable, this is a tragic denial of the inherent goodness and value of their bodies, and a vast misplacement of where that goodness and value comes from. Even some of the most godless people around can tell you that casually and liberally giving up their bodies does not validate but rather cheapens their bodies.
So Brooke Shields' of the world, if you're really interested in your health, you should know to avoid risky behaviors. And if you really want to feel good about your body, think about who made it, how much care He put into making it, and what wonderful purposes He made it for.