Teen Abstinence

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Janny

But as 9/10 year olds we had crushes, but we didn't want to watch videos with naked people on them. IMH(uninformed)O children don't even make the connection between crushes and sexual attraction until maybe three, four years later.

Really? I beg to differ, of course. Girls "mature" before boys do, generally, and I was no exception. My first real crush at the age of 10 was very much sexual. ::shrug:: And as for sex education for juniors (ages 13+), I think it's very important. Both me, and my best-friend were sexually active during our junior years, and my other friend started having sex when she was 15. Fact of the matter is that 13 is a good time to start dealing with these issues.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

Abstinence- what do you think?

Seems to work for married women.

[inked]

Lefty,

Once again, we agree !
***************************


Children differ greatly in their interest in these matters, but actually age 6 is not a bad time to initiate discussion on the level they seem interested in.

E.g., Little Johnny comes home and asks his mother, "Where did I come from?"
Mom, who has been eagerly preparing for this day, though with a great deal of angst launches into a detailed presentation of the facts of life. When she's done, she asks, "Johnny, do you understand what I just told you?"
"Not really, Mom. Tim says he's from Chicago. Now, where did I really come from?"

[Rían]

Not this married woman!


My husband had a all-the-details talk with our oldest when he was 9.

(I had my ear plastered to the door! He did a great job! )

[Sminty_Smeagol]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Really? I beg to differ, of course. Girls "mature" before boys do, generally, and I was no exception. My first real crush at the age of 10 was very much sexual. ::shrug:: And as for sex education for juniors (ages 13+), I think it's very important. Both me, and my best-friend were sexually active during our junior years, and my other friend started having sex when she was 15. Fact of the matter is that 13 is a good time to start dealing with these issues.

I remember being pretty "sexual" when I was around that age, also. I think I first started puberty when I was 9 ish... I dunno. I remember being really curious about sex and I was pretty sexual in a weird way (it would freak me out, thinking of little kids I know who are 9 thru 11, and knowing what crazyness they're capable of). I think in Middle-School kids are more obsessed with sex than they are in highschool... it's the new big deal then.

[BeardofPants]

Yeah, I hit puberty when I was 8, and started having periods when I was 11, so I was an early bloomer. In fact, I had my period BEFORE the sex talks, and thought I was dying, lol. Also, I actually knew people who were having sex at that age (11). I don't even WANT to think of how that one worked!

[Sminty_Smeagol]

totally. Same with me, pretty much. I knew kids who claimed they were having sex at age 11 but looking back in hindsight I doubt they were, but I suppose I will never know. I know there are ocassionally girls getting abortions as early as 10 and 11.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Janny

I agree with it wholeheartedly. I'm a Catholic (sorry) and intend to have sex with one person only.
However, I feel that the abstention should be only from sexual acts. I believe there is a clear distinction between the joining of two people in sexual intercourse and... um... kissing and fun and intimacies which stop short of sex.

Well, not according to Jesus. I'm not talking to anyone but Janny right now, all right ! (Glares at everyone else, defensively)
"If you even look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery with her in your heart." I think one can commit the same sin in ways that are beyond the merely physical. What do you think of that passage?

[Janny]

*Hides... why so mad? *

I have no recollection of writing that, but I don't think that it pragmatically unreasonable... mind you, I did just go on forever about ideology.


Firstly, I would like to know the context of the quote. Was he speaking as it were a law? Was he speaking of people already married? Or should I just pack my bags and leave Christiaity for being human?

I'm sure too that one can commit sins in various ways, but frankly I think that the desire and practice of a sin is worse than a sin alone.
By the by, what then of the 'it's okay to think gay thoughts so long as you don't act on them argument'?

And people in general, I don't think it's impossible to teach your children to obey their parents on big issues. And for sex ed to not be sex encouragement.

[Mercutio]

It's in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew 5:27-29
(27) "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' (28) But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (29) If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

I was just reading a book on the 'seven deadly sins' in the works of Dorothy Sayers...wait a sec. I need to find the book and then find the section I want and then reread some stuff...


Ah here we go. "...the Seven Deadly Sins were regarded as tendencies or root causes of specific vices, rather than actual offenses in themselves. The problem of Sin was understood, as Christ expounded it, to be internal rather than external, and the essential issue was ungodliness of the heart rather than destructiveness in behavior."

Lust is the root sin or cause of (for example) adultery.

[BeardofPants]

Haha, looks like Janny's gotta stop having "fun" with his girlfriend.

[Janny]

This thread has taken a bit of an anti-me turn. *Humpf*

But you know, a Hugo Boss advert was on TV a few moments ago. Unfortunatly, I was having a TV dinner and a fork was in my right hand. Transpires that after my eye was forked out, my sense of blinding pain insisted that my fork hand had offended me. I hope you can appreciate my predicament.

I take your point Mercutio. Sin is the cause of destruction. But is sin alone bad if it does not cause destruction? And I suspect the whole 'gay thoughts' question requires a 'no' answer for its argument to be valid.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Janny

*Hides... why so mad? *

I was just warding off everyone but you . Didn't want to deal with someone making the illogical statement that scripture is useless as a source in the matter because they don't believe in God. I was glaring warning at everyone except you .

Originally Posted by Janny

Firstly, I would like to know the context of the quote. Was he speaking as it were a law? Was he speaking of people already married? Or should I just pack my bags and leave Christiaity for being human?

I'm sure too that one can commit sins in various ways, but frankly I think that the desire and practice of a sin is worse than a sin alone.
By the by, what then of the 'it's okay to think gay thoughts so long as you don't act on them argument'?

I've spent a lot of time, myself, trying to conquer all thoughts that I don't see as holy. Sexual thoughts, improper thoughts, I have in general tried to stomp down upon. I don't think all sexual thoughts are wrong.

I am unconvinced by the belief that it's only the action that is a sin, for I think thoughts also can be sinful. Meditating on sinful things I think can be a sin itself. Thinking a great deal of homosexual thoughts for pleasure can be sinful, just as thinking and enjoying normal sexual thoughts (in an improper way or time) can be sinful. If on the other hand, we try to resist those sexual thoughts that are clearly not of God, I think that we're all right. Having the thought appear is not our fault. Whether we entertain it or not is. I actually have something of a difficulty myself, here, being unclear on where the proper sexual thoughts end and the improper sexual thoughts start. So that's an area of difficulty for me, which I trust God will grant me the answers to, in due time.

Originally Posted by Janny

And people in general, I don't think it's impossible to teach your children to obey their parents on big issues. And for sex ed to not be sex encouragement.

I agree completely.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Janny

This thread has taken a bit of an anti-me turn. *Humpf*

But you know, a Hugo Boss advert was on TV a few moments ago. Unfortunatly, I was having a TV dinner and a fork was in my right hand. Transpires that after my eye was forked out, my sense of blinding pain insisted that my fork hand had offended me. I hope you can appreciate my predicament.

lol ok

I take your point Mercutio. Sin is the cause of destruction. But is sin alone bad if it does not cause destruction?

Is sin bad? yes. Is sin alone bad? yes. Is sin alone even if it doesn't cause outward destruction bad? yes.

And I suspect the whole 'gay thoughts' question requires a 'no' answer for its argument to be valid.

?

[Janny]

Sin alone is bad. Therefore individual sins, e.g. lustful thoughts alone are bad. Thus the argument about homosexuality 'being okay so long as you think it not act it' is wrong. But, as Lief established, having homosexual thoughts is okay, provided that one doesn't willfully entertain them.

[Sminty_Smeagol]

I think it's dumb how christian kids will kind of jump around the rules.... having oral or anal sex in order to remain "pure". Well, if "pure" means not having penile-vaginal penetration, then sure. But I think they're missing the point. Oral and anal sex are still sexual acts which include lust, which is a sin. I wouldn't consider them chaste.

In my opinion, "purity" and "chastity" are when you don't do anything that would make a partner/spouse jealous. Being pure for someone upon marriage would be that you haven't done anything in the past that your spouse would be upset about or uncomfortable with. Of course, there's forgiveness and love and all that, but you shouldn't willingly do something and just say "well it will be forgiven." You can't expect forgiveness. Nobody deserves it.

IMO, from a christian standpoint (I am not christian, but assuming a christian identity here) the very things that you wouldn't do with other people except your spouse, you shouldn't do with other people except your spouse. Meaning you are cheating on your husband/wife by intentionally doing things with other people that will (knowingly) arouse you or provide sexual pleasure, but I don't think this is limited to time. Doing these things will be cheating on your husband/wife you haven't met yet.

The concept isn't specific to religion, either. Some religious people follow it for religious purposes instead of for themselves. I am not religious and I know that if I ever do eventually get a life partner, I know I will regret anything sexual I would have done in the past. Knowing this, I'm lately hesitant about sexuality. But I don't have much trust in marriage anymore. Around half of marriages end in divorce. So much for life partners.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

I think it's dumb how christian kids will kind of jump around the rules.... having oral or anal sex in order to remain "pure". Well, if "pure" means not having penile-vaginal penetration, then sure. But I think they're missing the point. Oral and anal sex are still sexual acts which include lust, which is a sin. I wouldn't consider them chaste.

That's why I said I struggle with thoughts, too. I probably wouldn't consider people that willfully involve themselves in things like that exactly "chaste" either. That's why I even try to avoid dreaming of sex, so that I can remain pure in my dreams .

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

In my opinion, "purity" and "chastity" are when you don't do anything that would make a partner/spouse jealous. Being pure for someone upon marriage would be that you haven't done anything in the past that your spouse would be upset about or uncomfortable with.

Often what would make a partner/spouse jealous is the same thing as is considered impure in the Bible, so I certainly think you're right that the two things definitely often coincide. Sometimes those practical unfortunate consequences are also directly referred to in the Bible. For example, in the condemnation of adultery in Proverbs, the writer refers to the husband's anger as a good reason to not be involved in the act.

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

Of course, there's forgiveness and love and all that, but you shouldn't willingly do something and just say "well it will be forgiven." You can't expect forgiveness. Nobody deserves it.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

IMO, from a christian standpoint (I am not christian, but assuming a christian identity here) the very things that you wouldn't do with other people except your spouse, you shouldn't do with other people except your spouse. Meaning you are cheating on your husband/wife by intentionally doing things with other people that will (knowingly) arouse you or provide sexual pleasure, but I don't think this is limited to time. Doing these things will be cheating on your husband/wife you haven't met yet.

I agree. You're definitely a Christian, Sminty .

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

The concept isn't specific to religion, either.

Yeah. As I like to point out sometimes, what affects the spiritual also frequently has negative physical consequences. The Bible is a very practical book.

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

Some religious people follow it for religious purposes instead of for themselves. I am not religious and I know that if I ever do eventually get a life partner, I know I will regret anything sexual I would have done in the past. Knowing this, I'm lately hesitant about sexuality.

It says in the scripture that there are Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts, and are a law unto themselves, without knowing about the written word. You may turn out to be one of em .

Originally Posted by Sminty_Smeagol

But I don't have much trust in marriage anymore. Around half of marriages end in divorce. So much for life partners.

I know what you mean. The statistics are awful for 'Christians' too. I'd like to post some examples of enduring love, though. My own parents have been married for very large amount of time, and they love one another dearly. My grandparents also, both pairs, loved one another extremely dearly and never let go of each other. My grandparents on my father's side are probably near their eighties now, and they were married in their teens! And they aren't even Christian. These things certainly can work . It's just that too many marriages are formed for selfish reasons, IMO. The reasons probably go a LOT deeper then that, though, but I haven't studied the matter intently. I feel that America is more and more downgrading morality-wise, but anyway, I'll skip over that issue.

When the marriage partners go into it without any thought of what's coming to them, but only of loving and benefiting the other person, then the marriage will certainly worked out. Christians call that agape love, the highest form of love. It is sacrificial love, and a truly marvelous thing.

[Snowdog]

Teen Abstinence??? Yes!

(They have to be 21...)

[Sminty_Smeagol]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That's why I said I struggle with thoughts, too. I probably wouldn't consider people that willfully involve themselves in things like that exactly "chaste" either. That's why I even try to avoid dreaming of sex, so that I can remain pure in my dreams .

Dreams you can't really help. Once again assuming a christian perspective (which to me is basically the same as saying "hypothetically...") I would state that if God did create us, well, he created us the way we are. It is natural and healthy for a human to get sexual feelings.... arousal is atleast a sign of functioning. However, people who willingly pursue sex disgust me.

Often what would make a partner/spouse jealous is the same thing as is considered impure in the Bible, so I certainly think you're right that the two things definitely often coincide. Sometimes those practical unfortunate consequences are also directly referred to in the Bible. For example, in the condemnation of adultery in Proverbs, the writer refers to the husband's anger as a good reason to not be involved in the act.

Yeah, people seem to give themselves much more leniency when "outside of marriage" means not married at all, compared to meaning married but with another person. Cheating is considered a pretty bad thing to do pretty widely, and I think it is much less accepted by the secular population than having sex with other partners before being married, which it shouldn't be, since to me they are quite the same.

I agree. You're definitely a Christian, Sminty .

Hmmm, here you are incorrect. My parents are christian and I attend church but I do not assume a religious identity. I think open-mindedness is very important. I do not believe there is a God, and I don't believe there isn't one. Anyways, I think some of my morals and values have stuck from christianity, but I morals are universal and natural. It isn't just christians who are upset when their spouse cheats on them, and it isn't just christians who want to be monogamous and faithful to their mate. From an athiestic viewpoint, I would think morals have some basis in natural and instinctive behavior, or perhaps socially developed. Whatever it is, it isn't specific to religion, as it would have to be present in order to be included as a part of a religion. Someone had to of said, "yeah, that would work. That sounds like Right to me, I'll say god said it since it is apparently an ideal, Just law that fulfills this natural/socially enfluenced posessiveness of my mate."

Yeah. As I like to point out sometimes, what affects the spiritual also frequently has negative physical consequences. The Bible is a very practical book.

I don't think the bible was written as an entirely religious book. I am not one of those people that thinks religion is all a selfish scam, I know the majority of religious people really, purely believe in their religion and follow it for reasons other than just to manipulate people or whatever. However, the Bible does contain accounts of all sorts of historical things, including human behavior. Any account of history and what different cultures see as good or bad is going to express some universal truths, or widely developed behaviors.

It says in the scripture that there are Gentiles who have the law written in their hearts, and are a law unto themselves, without knowing about the written word. You may turn out to be one of em .

Not everyone who is not religious is a disgusting pig. The world is populous with disgusting pig people, christian or not, I've seen my fair share from both sides of the religion line. Too many people pursue religion from the outside in, but change has to happen from the inside out. Unless you have something happen inside, some realization, some sense of balance, everything else is meaningless. For me, I've gotten this feeling of balance since deciding not to follow any religion or believe in any god, but while at the same time not blocking out the idea either.

I know what you mean. The statistics are awful for 'Christians' too. I'd like to post some examples of enduring love, though. My own parents have been married for very large amount of time, and they love one another dearly. My grandparents also, both pairs, loved one another extremely dearly and never let go of each other. My grandparents on my father's side are probably near their eighties now, and they were married in their teens! And they aren't even Christian. These things certainly can work . It's just that too many marriages are formed for selfish reasons, IMO. The reasons probably go a LOT deeper then that, though, but I haven't studied the matter intently. I feel that America is more and more downgrading morality-wise, but anyway, I'll skip over that issue.

When the marriage partners go into it without any thought of what's coming to them, but only of loving and benefiting the other person, then the marriage will certainly worked out. Christians call that agape love, the highest form of love. It is sacrificial love, and a truly marvelous thing.

Everyone is selfish. I am selfish. A lot of people don't realize their selfishness, and those that do often aren't bothered by it and revel in it. I have a whole little theory I rant concerning divorce rates and teenage relationships and dating. I have problably posted it before, but I shall do so again, as it may have altered.

When teenagers form and end relationships on a whim, I think they often grow into adults living in this same basis, until they find someone who they believe they won't have the "whim" to leave, calling this trust in their own feelings "love". However, when one lives like this, based on emotions, you are affected by emotional fluctuations a lot and are used to reacting based on them. To me, this isn't love. A loving relationship isn't based on these infatuations, but, in my opinion, is more like a commited friendship than anything else. A lifelong friendship with sex as a perk. I think genuine empathy and selfless (if anything can truly be selfess) concern are key elements. Even if they completely leave you forever, wishing the best for them.

Meh, I'm not exactly *reputed* for having experience on the matter, but I have been developing a sense of what I feel love to be, and it's terrible to explain it since everything sounds so cliche.
Right now, I am thinking that there is no such thing as "unrequited love". I feel love for people I don't even know, and I feel love for people who barely know me. To me, loving someone and them loving me do not neccessarily correlate - unless in a romantic sense, in which case I think there is mutual generic love followed by, under the right conditions, romantic/sexual feelings and attachment, but unless the feeling is mutual then to me it is the same love as loving a stranger or another person just for being who they are, and so it doesn't matter if it is unrequited, nor should it be expected to be "requited". Just really valuing what you see in a person and caring more about this person than yourself to where you don't really even exist, you just want to help this person or you just want their life to go well or for them to find contentment. Sometimes I just feel a real.... humanity just watching some people. Even if they don't notice me.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm afraid I won't be responding to your lengthy and very well thought out post in great depth, simply because I agree with too much of it and greatly respect the rest .

I guess it might differ from person to person, but in my experience, one actually can control what one does in dreams, some of the time. Not all of the time, but some of it. For me, whenever I've had a dream where I'm there with a girl, and sex is the temptation, there has always been a choice. I always had the ability to choose, yes or no, and I always have decided no. I don't like those dreams.

I wasn't serious when I said, "you're definitely a Christian". I was merely remarking on how similar our viewpoints were.

I agree with your "disgusting pig" comments.

I think that's all the responses I had to make. A great post, Smeagol .