But what about birth control?

[naturegirl7]

In the line of "no bc because they weren't planning on having s*x" we need to realize that, at least girls, are most likely to ignore their convictions when the hormones are raging the most. The hormones rage the most when they are ovulating/ fertile! So the times when otherwise inclined young women would give into their hormones and poor choices, are the times when they are most likely to get pregnant.

 

This has an affect on the teen pg rate for sure!

 

 

LOL teens aren't the only ones affected by this. it has been a long time since I was a teen and hormones still get the best of me. We are actively preventing pregnancy here (but I can't use the pill) - but when I am close to ovulation and in that moment, the idea of BC is not even a factor for me. Luckly Dh has more presence of mind than I do in the heat of the moment. LOL There have been many times I have said "don't worry about it" and he had to the strong one holding his ground, reminding me that pregnancy is not an option - often to be told by me "I don't care!" :lol:

Thank goodness I have such a strong, cool under pressure DH - or we'd have a whole football team by now! :lol:

[Annabel Lee]

nm

Edited July 18, 2010 by Annabel Lee

[Smithie]

"FYI, Mormons do teach that sexual sins are second to murder in seriousness. It's scripture in the Book of Mormon."

 

Thank you for the explanation. I have never read the book of Mormon, and I should.

 

But you'll note that even Elder Holland is pretty clear the murder tops fornication on the list of Things God Forbids. Even in the context of a Mormon family teaching Mormon sexual ethics, I still don't much care for the condom=silencer metaphor. There has got to be another way to vivdly illustrate the principle. :)

[Renthead Mommy]

 

The risk of unplanned pregnancy is huge and life altering yes - but even more huge and life altering is the risk of STDs.

Maybe you'd get lucky and get one that clears up easily with antibiotics (if they are under medical care and it is detected!). Or maybe not quite as lucky and get one one like herpes or HPV (warts) that is uncurable, painful, and has outbreaks. But even these "minor" ones can lead to infertility and increased risk for female reproductive organ cancer. Or maybe you'd be really unlucky and get a death sentence like HIV.

 

 

Also - I think it is incredibly sad that the focus of teenagers having sex comes down to preventing a pregnancy. If that is all they are walking away with, they are incredibly lucky. STDs needs to be a much much bigger focus.

 

Further more, as a nurse, I can tell you that younger kids are having non-vag sexual experiences at very early ages - the fear of pregancy and the definition of sex as vag penetration has led to a HUGE trend in very young girls (think middle school aged girls!) engaging in unprotected Oral and even Anal. Both of which put them into a much much much higher risk catergory for STDs - but it is "safe" in their minds cuz they can't get pregnant! STDs of the throat are becoming much more common in teens and preteens. And easily preventable but just putting on a condom!

 

I'm glad you brought this up! It is a huge thing! I think too often it is about preventing pregnancy, not about just plain protecting your self.

 

Oral sex just isn't talked about like sex. Too many kids don't think of it as sex. They think of it as something okay to do INSTEAD of sex!

 

That is it's own spin off in itself!

 

I have no problem with premarital sex. But then I have no problem with just living together. I don't want my kid having sex at 14, but I'm certainly not going to tell him to wait till he's married. I have a bigger problem with the idea of him getting married at 17 or 18 or before he's done with college and settled in his career. I only know of two people that got married young and it was for a mistake pregancy. Where we come from, most people don't even think about getting married till after college or later. I was one of the first of our friends at 27. And we did a quicky wedding because we were moving and wanted to be married for health benifits/taxes before we moved to another state. Our friends didn't start having kids till almost 30 or so.

 

Like I said before, my kid will end up with full knowledge of the how's and why's of sex and birth control. Oral and anal sex is going to be part of that discussion.

 

I also hope he'll have enough common sense, when he's with a group of friends who are discussing these things (and they DO discuss these things with each other, I don't care how open your relationship is with your child, they are STILL going to talk with their friends!) and someone says something crazy/wrong like you can't get pregnant on the first time, just pull it out, use Moutain Dew?!!!!? oral sex doesn't count or whatever he's got the strength to stand up and say "No. That's not how it works." and then give them real, correct knowledge.

[Sara R]

Even in the context of a Mormon family teaching Mormon sexual ethics, I still don't much care for the condom=silencer metaphor. There has got to be another way to vivdly illustrate the principle. :)

 

Yes, another poster used the metaphor. It's not one I've used, or ever heard at church. And LDS doctrine on birth control for the unmarried is unclear, I guess. Obviously if you are obeying the law of chastity you don't need it, but I had several BYU roommates who were on the pill for health reasons. My mom told me, "If you're stupid enough to have sex before marriage, I hope you are smart enough to use birth control," but that's not official doctrine. For married couples the doctrine is birth control is a personal decision between husband and wife that should be made prayerfully seeking personal inspiration.

 

LDS are pretty successful in my experience in getting their youth to actually stay chaste. Of course there are exceptions, but it was definitely true in my peer group. I was friends with good kids from other religions, but it was only my LDS peers who stayed chaste until marriage. It's hard to say why it generally works, but it's probably a combination of

 

(1) clear doctrine taught; LDS teens go to a daily religious class called seminary where they learn the doctrine and the reasons behind the doctrine,

 

(2) a good youth program, where they have fun in wholesome ways with youth with similar values,

 

(3) clear goals: young men who have not been chaste generally can't go on a mission at age 19, and that is a big deal. Couples who have been unchaste can't get married in the temple, and that more than anything probably keeps engaged couples chaste, because not getting married in the temple would be embarrassing.

 

(4) a culture where young marriage is not looked down on; it's common for women to marry at about age 20-22 and men to marry around 22-25.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Sara R

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, another poster used the metaphor. It's not one I've used. And LDS doctrine on birth control for the unmarried is unclear, I guess. Obviously if you are obeying the law of chastity you don't need it, but I had several BYU roommates who were on the pill for health reasons. My mom told me, "If you're stupid enough to have sex before marriage, I hope you are smart enough to use birth control," but that's not official doctrine. For married couples the doctrine is birth control is a personal decision between husband and wife that should be made prayerfully seeking personal inspiration.

 

LDS are pretty successful in my experience in getting their youth to actually stay chaste. Of course there are exceptions, but it was definitely true in my peer group. I was friends with good kids from other religions, but it was only my LDS peers who stayed chaste until marriage. It's hard to say why it generally works, but it's probably a combination of

 

(1) clear doctrine taught; LDS teens go to a daily religious class called seminary where they learn the doctrine and the reasons behind the doctrine,

 

(2) a good youth program, where they have fun in wholesome ways with youth with similar values,

 

(3) clear goals: young men who have not been chaste generally can't go on a mission at age 19, and that is a big deal. Couples who have been unchaste can't get married in the temple, and that more than anything probably keeps engaged couples chaste, because not getting married in the temple would be embarrassing.

 

(4) a culture where young marriage is not looked down on; it's common for women to marry at about age 20-22 and men to marry around 22-25.

That has been my experience with Witnesses as well. Thank you for sharing. I actually wish that higher education was more acceptable though.

[Sara R]

That has been my experience with Witnesses as well. Thank you for sharing. I actually wish that higher education was more acceptable though.

 

LDS leaders also encourage higher education ("get all the education you can!"), and the youth do it. Companies like to relocate to Utah because the population is well educated. Young married couples with or without children are very common at BYU. We are counseled to (1) go on a mission (young men, and young women who feel inspired to do so), (2) get an education, (3) not to unduly delay marriage and children, and (4) stay out of debt. It is very difficult to follow all of these simultaneously, but people try the best they can, and sometimes parents help.

[dragons in the flower bed]

For example, I have never *once* accidentally ended up too close to a female friend, slightly to completely unclothed, etc. Sex is not as spontaneous as some pps seem to think.

 

I find this hard to believe. You have never been in a locker room naked together handing off a towel? Laughed and stopped to tease while squeezing past each other in a crowded kitchen? Shared a tent or huddled together for warmth while camping? Shared a blanket at an outdoor show?

 

How about watching a movie side by side? Holding on tight while one of you is sad? Helping a friend get dressed when she is injured or just needs to be within sight of a nursing baby? Have you never gone skinny dipping, or heck, even gotten totally wet and soaked all through so your clothes cling? Have you ever gone into a dressing room while shopping with a friend -- and then been prompted to tell her in some detail how hot she is?

 

Granted, your situation isn't perfectly comparable with a bisexual person's, but I see my platonic female friends naked or am intimate with them pretty often. It is natural enough for girlfriends to do this that we have to make a conscious effort to avoid those scenarios when crushes that can't be pursued are identified.

[Aubrey]

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community. The end result of sex, after all, is a new life - and that is only a POSSIBLE consequence of sex. I shudder at the notion of teaching a child that sexual impurity is a sin of the same kind or degree as commiting murder. That's a heavy load for young shoulders - especially if your creed teaches that masturbation is also a form of sexual impurity. I can think of no better way to condition an adolescent to believe that they are bad, weak, selfish, dirty, unworthy... you get the point. Believe what you want to about abstinence, but keep your mortal and venial sins a bit distinct, YKWIM? As C.S. Lewis said, the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.

 

Since that was my analogy, let me clarify. I didn't mean to imply that murder & fornication are equal--in fact, I said that the comparison was an exaggeration. My point was simply that if I think something is sin, I'm not going to give my kid the equipment w/ which to "get away with" a sinful act.

 

Let me go the other way w/ the exaggeration: if I tell my little one not to take cookies from the cookie jar, I'm not going to set a stool out for him so that if he decides to steal cookies, at least he won't get hurt climbing up the side of the refridgerator to reach them.

 

As far as all sins being equal...I do try to see them that way because for me, the result is humility. I judge less when I don't allow myself to think, "*I* would never do *that.*" If I believe that we are ALL capable of adultery or murder, that I'm not somehow inherently better than others who've committed these sins, then I will be more aware of the state of my heart, working to give it to the Lord continually, keeping it even from lust & hate, which, as Jesus said, are equal to adultery & murder.

 

If I believe that pride & jealousy & a short temper all have the same *basic* result as adultery, murder, etc. (separating us from God), then I will treat sins that seem smaller to us humans w/ as much vehemence as the bigger sins.

 

So my point in treating sins equally is not to create a bigger sense of guilt but a deeper sense of humility & gratitude for Jesus' sacrifice. If we can manage humility, we become a much safer place for people. And fwiw, this is merely a personal approach to sin, not something I go around pushing on other people. :001_smile:

[Aubrey]

I find this hard to believe. You have never been in a locker room naked together handing off a towel?

 

No. And now y'all are going to know how shy I really am: I always changed in a bathroom stall. Except for my mw & my dh, absolutely, no.

 

Laughed and stopped to tease while squeezing past each other in a crowded kitchen? Shared a tent or huddled together for warmth while camping? Shared a blanket at an outdoor show?

 

No, & now I feel really friendless. :lol:

 

How about watching a movie side by side? Holding on tight while one of you is sad?

No.

 

Helping a friend get dressed when she is injured or just needs to be within sight of a nursing baby?

 

Never had a friend need help dressing, & I'm one of those crazies who covers up when nursing. I'd be mortified for my mom to see me. Now, I'll grant you that that makes *me* weird, but it's still a no.

 

Have you never gone skinny dipping, or heck, even gotten totally wet and soaked all through so your clothes cling? Have you ever gone into a dressing room while shopping with a friend -- and then been prompted to tell her in some detail how hot she is?

 

Oh my gosh, NO!!!

 

Granted, your situation isn't perfectly comparable with a bisexual person's, but I see my platonic female friends naked or am intimate with them pretty often. It is natural enough for girlfriends to do this that we have to make a conscious effort to avoid those scenarios when crushes that can't be pursued are identified.

 

I don't completely follow this whole section, but I did realize the other night after my bf left town (w/ nursing baby who doesn't nurse under a blanket & whose poor mama probably couldn't stand it anyway in the Tx heat) that it is really normal for women to be more naked w/ ea other than I'd thought about before. I can't think of a time in hist when it wasn't normal.

 

I still think my point is valid, though. Physical closeness doesn't happen instantly or accidentally. If you decide to share a blanket while watching a film, any closeness that occurs is not *really* an accident. It's the kind of thing you do *hoping* for an accident. :001_smile: W/ boys, anyway.

[Wheres Toto]

"I think it is ridiculous to tell your teens/young adults "don't have premarital sex" at the same time you are telling them, "don't marry until you finish college and are settled in your career!" That is about a 10-15 year gap between physically ready and "life" ready."

 

That's pretty much where I come down on it - and what I would choose, if I got to make this choice on my children's behalf, is a few premarital sexual relationships with all their attendant joys and heartaches, followed by a choice of life partner made when they are fully prepared for their profession/vocation, ready to leave off being a dependant in my household and establish a household of their own, and hopefully gearing themselves up for some purposeful procreation.

 

Sex is a great pleasure. Unintended pregnancy and exposure to STDs are hazards to guard against. A+B=BC in this family. It sounds from that study Rosie linked to like we're pretty typical Jews. ;)

 

This is a really interesting thread. I think there's a valid argument to be made for almost any POV on this issue - which probably means that there's a sound parenting strategy to be employed in service of almost any POV.

 

One exception - giving a kid a condom put on their penis is like giving them a silencer to put on their gun? Having sex is an equivalent transgression to committing murder? What Bible are you reading? :confused: No matter how much a family may advocate for abstinence, I don't see that there's much Scriptural support for equating consensual fornication between unwed young people with the taking of a human life in terms of the damage done either to the individuals or the community. The end result of sex, after all, is a new life - and that is only a POSSIBLE consequence of sex. I shudder at the notion of teaching a child that sexual impurity is a sin of the same kind or degree as commiting murder. That's a heavy load for young shoulders - especially if your creed teaches that masturbation is also a form of sexual impurity. I can think of no better way to condition an adolescent to believe that they are bad, weak, selfish, dirty, unworthy... you get the point. Believe what you want to about abstinence, but keep your mortal and venial sins a bit distinct, YKWIM? As C.S. Lewis said, the sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins.

:iagree:

You explained it much better than I could.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I still think my point is valid, though. Physical closeness doesn't happen instantly or accidentally. If you decide to share a blanket while watching a film, any closeness that occurs is not *really* an accident. It's the kind of thing you do *hoping* for an accident. :001_smile: W/ boys, anyway.

 

It's not an accident, but it's not part of sexuality either. It's an extension of an attitude of acceptance of your body and the fact that your friends also have bodies. It's the fall-out of not-shy-ness.

[ma23peas]

You have never been in a locker room naked together handing off a towel? Laughed and stopped to tease while squeezing past each other in a crowded kitchen? Shared a tent or huddled together for warmth while camping? Shared a blanket at an outdoor show?

 

How about watching a movie side by side? Holding on tight while one of you is sad? Helping a friend get dressed when she is injured or just needs to be within sight of a nursing baby? Have you never gone skinny dipping, or heck, even gotten totally wet and soaked all through so your clothes cling? Have you ever gone into a dressing room while shopping with a friend -- and then been prompted to tell her in some detail how hot she is?

 

No to all of these except the tent thing, but I was climbing a 14k mountain and at treeline it was pretty darn cold...we were both in 0 rated sleeping bags...so not at all what you're describing....

 

The issue I have with all of your scenarios is that it leaves out modesty..I would never tell someone how 'hot' they are because I do not think in those terms...that is what our culture wants you to say to 'sell' ya something or appeal to your basest physical drives...I think we're above being animals...most of the scenarios you point to above do not put modesty on a high pedestal...I do...'far above rubies' is where I'm going...so while many in this society may be stimulated by wet t-shirt contests, choose to go skinny dipping, misconstrue a sympathetic hug as a sensual moment...their mind is not where mine is...if I'm hugging someone out of care/concern I do not think 'how hot this person is'..it just never enters my mind...it goes back to what we are aroused by..to turn me on means a loving/giving/selfless person who runs out to the store to get binder clips when I'm in a need, calls and asks if I need anything while he's out, rubs my back when he knows I've had a rough day...it's not the wet t-shirt...it's what's inside and behind their actions...

 

Tara

[ktog29]

Thanks. I generally go off of what the Bible says on the matter.:tongue_smilie:;) Yeah, snarky... but silly snarky I hope. I know not everyone agrees.:)

 

 

1 John 5:16

 

 

 

:)

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

No to all of these except the tent thing, but I was climbing a 14k mountain and at treeline it was pretty darn cold...we were both in 0 rated sleeping bags...so not at all what you're describing....

 

The issue I have with all of your scenarios is that it leaves out modesty..I would never tell someone how 'hot' they are because I do not think in those terms...that is what our culture wants you to say to 'sell' ya something or appeal to your basest physical drives...I think we're above being animals...most of the scenarios you point to above do not put modesty on a high pedestal...I do...'far above rubies' is where I'm going...so while many in this society may be stimulated by wet t-shirt contests, choose to go skinny dipping, misconstrue a sympathetic hug as a sensual moment...their mind is not where mine is...if I'm hugging someone out of care/concern I do not think 'how hot this person is'..it just never enters my mind...it goes back to what we are aroused by..to turn me on means a loving/giving/selfless person who runs out to the store to get binder clips when I'm in a need, calls and asks if I need anything while he's out, rubs my back when he knows I've had a rough day...it's not the wet t-shirt...it's what's inside and behind their actions...

 

Tara

 

I have told female friends they're "hot." I have also had a female friend ask "how do my breasts look in this new Victoria's Secret bra?" to which I have replied, "very perky! Nice!" Nothing sexual about it.

 

Of course, I would never berate someone for being extremely modest (even though I don't understand it), just as I would expect that nobody would berate me for my casualness with my dear female friends, which in the context of our relationship elevates our womanhood and cements our friendship. I'm pretty sure there are many would will disagree with me on this point, but I think some of the ultra-modesty stuff goes hand in hand with denying our sexuality, and is part of subjugating women.

[Wheres Toto]

It's not an accident, but it's not part of sexuality either. It's an extension of an attitude of acceptance of your body and the fact that your friends also have bodies. It's the fall-out of not-shy-ness.

:iagree:

I was very shy as a teenager and didn't have any really close friends but I see this all the time in my oldest. She is extremely outgoing and has lots of close girl friends. They constantly tease each other about being hot, BooK size, etc. They share a bed at sleep overs, undress in front of each other, try on clothes together. Not sure about the skinny dipping but it wouldn't completely surprise me either (one friend lives on a lake with a private beach). I think its just a way of getting comfortable with their changing bodies.

[Aubrey]

It's not an accident, but it's not part of sexuality either. It's an extension of an attitude of acceptance of your body and the fact that your friends also have bodies. It's the fall-out of not-shy-ness.

 

No, it's not part of sexuality, BUT realizing that these things *lead* to sexual feelings is part of educating our dc, imo, whether we choose to teach abstinence or not. Being able to see the difference between physical attraction & "relationship" (based on the internal stuff) can help people (incl teens) to be...more in control of their feelings.

 

If I were to go watch a movie w/ some guy & share a blanket, I absolutely know that there could be attraction. But I love my dh, so I count doing something like that as STUPID.

 

It doesn't have to be just physical, either, though. Content of conversation, etc. contributes to attraction.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

No, it's not part of sexuality, BUT realizing that these things *lead* to sexual feelings is part of educating our dc, imo, whether we choose to teach abstinence or not. Being able to see the difference between physical attraction & "relationship" (based on the internal stuff) can help people (incl teens) to be...more in control of their feelings.

 

If I were to go watch a movie w/ some guy & share a blanket, I absolutely know that there could be attraction. But I love my dh, so I count doing something like that as STUPID.

 

It doesn't have to be just physical, either, though. Content of conversation, etc. contributes to attraction.

 

Are you of the mind that a man and woman cannot share an intimate friendship without it eventually turning into something sexual?

[dragons in the flower bed]

The issue I have with all of your scenarios is that it leaves out modesty..I would never tell someone how 'hot' they are because I do not think in those terms...that is what our culture wants you to say to 'sell' ya something or appeal to your basest physical drives...I think we're above being animals...most of the scenarios you point to above do not put modesty on a high pedestal...I do...'far above rubies' is where I'm going...so while many in this society may be stimulated by wet t-shirt contests, choose to go skinny dipping, misconstrue a sympathetic hug as a sensual moment...their mind is not where mine is...if I'm hugging someone out of care/concern I do not think 'how hot this person is'..it just never enters my mind...it goes back to what we are aroused by..to turn me on means a loving/giving/selfless person who runs out to the store to get binder clips when I'm in a need, calls and asks if I need anything while he's out, rubs my back when he knows I've had a rough day...it's not the wet t-shirt...it's what's inside and behind their actions...

 

Aubrey's point (if I read it correctly) was that it's no accident when you find yourself alone, within a couple of feet of someone who turns you on, and having an opportunity to touch them. I said, yes, I think that can be accidental.

 

You're saying no it never is innocent and accidental? Or you're saying it happens to you, rarely because you're careful, but you don't let it go to sexual/romantic thinking? (Or maybe you were saying that anyone who could even think about sexualizing a hug is disgustingly omnivorous?)

 

If sweetness and selflessness is what turns you on, then you are much more likely to be occasionally aroused and have to make a choice about abstinence. When he hands you those binder clips, that's touch. What's to keep you from lingering at his fingertips for an extra second?

 

People have bodies and other attractive qualities. Unless you train your teens to walk around thinking and feeling that people are undesirable and must be given a wide berth, the occasional challenge to their abstinence is unavoidable.

 

In my social circles we say, "being a grown-up about it," when we mean, "not sexualizing" skinny-dipping or blanket-sharing or complimenting a friend on a new pair of pants. That terminology grew out of our experiences of being horny adolescents who find it hard to keep these ideas from their minds. It settled down when we got older and had practice with self-control.

 

I believe that every kid is going to struggle with this no matter how early they are taught to choose abstinence and no matter whether their attitude extends to modesty. Attraction is unavoidable and so is non-sexual but nevertheless opportunity-providing contact.

 

Sex is not like murder. It is not like stealing extra cookies either. Both of those things hurt other people (one much less than the other, though I am pretty upset when I find there are none left for me). Sex brings joy to two individuals for a short amount of time. It is much more like kayaking than murder: risky, but mostly fun. So, yes, if shooting people did nothing worse than worry me and the daddio, I would give my kid a silencer just in case. Just as I'd give them a life jacket for that kayak.

[Murphy101]

I find this hard to believe. You have never been in a locker room naked together handing off a towel?

 

Nope. Frankly females are mean and don't tend to create an environment of comfort in appearance. Especially in school.

 

Laughed and stopped to tease while squeezing past each other in a crowded kitchen? Shared a tent or huddled together for warmth while camping? Shared a blanket at an outdoor show?

 

How about watching a movie side by side? Holding on tight while one of you is

sad? Helping a friend get dressed when she is injured or just needs to be within sight of a nursing baby?

 

 

Um. Yeah. Sure. With my clothes ON. It takes effort to get naked enough for sex in those situations. Convienent as it would be for dh, our clothes have never spontaneously combusted as we pass in the kitchen or huddle under a blanket during an outdoor event. Yet.

 

Have you never gone skinny dipping, or heck, even gotten totally wet and soaked all through so your clothes cling?

 

Sure. Went skinny dipping late at night with my granny when I was in elementary school. Wet clothes = still equal clothes. It takes more than being sexy to have sex. It doesn't just happen.

 

Have you ever gone into a dressing room while shopping with a friend -- and then been prompted to tell her in some detail how hot she is?

 

Nope. Never. I wouldn't consider it normal for most other women either.

 

Honestly I'm not shy by most standards. I'm not prude although I do have catholic views about sex. But no, it's not common for me to be that obsessed with sex and I can honestly say vie never had accidental sex. Dumb sex maybe, not accidental. ;)

 

Dh and I say the closest we can get to picturing accidental sex is a man and a woman are both naked in a room and one of the slips on a banana peel and lands stretegicly on the other. Even then one questions why the heck they were both naked and who left the banana peel.:D. IOW it couldn't have been that spontaneous or accidental after all.

 

It's not an accident, but it's not part of sexuality either. It's an extension of an attitude of acceptance of your body and the fact that your friends also have bodies. It's the fall-out of not-shy-ness.

 

:001_huh:I'm not shy. But I am private. And I don't presume everyone is happy to see me naked either. Even when I had a gym membership, I didn't use the lockerooms. Ick. Preferred the shower at home where I'm fairly confident of the hygiene situation. I don't cover when nursing and I'm sure not of the Christians only wear long sleeves and skirts variety either, but I don't know any women that regularly get naked around others either.

[ma23peas]

I have told female friends they're "hot." I have also had a female friend ask "how do my breasts look in this new Victoria's Secret bra?" to which I have replied, "very perky! Nice!" Nothing sexual about it.

 

Of course, I would never berate someone for being extremely modest (even though I don't understand it), just as I would expect that nobody would berate me for my casualness with my dear female friends, which in the context of our relationship elevates our womanhood and cements our friendship. I'm pretty sure there are many would will disagree with me on this point, but I think some of the ultra-modesty stuff goes hand in hand with denying our sexuality, and is part of subjugating women.

 

Here is where the road divides...no one was berating your approach but you seemed to be incredulous to the fact that women do not interpret scenarios like you do. I have never and would never ask how my breasts look in anything. Would I choose your scenarios for my children? No, I do not encourage immodesty and pretty much all the scenarios you described were attaching a sexual tone to some of the most innocent actions. So in my view you're giving sexuality a higher value than modesty. Just because I choose to put different values elsewhere does not mean subjugation of anything..in my view it is raising women to a higher status..again 'far above rubies'...so for me and my family, modesty wins out over 'denying our sexuality' as you put it..but in fact, I put great value on sexuality that is why I preferred to save it for one person, it is a gift that no one else has been given and I do it out of love for my partner...

 

I see it as a precious gift...for me, giving it to others and putting a physical desire first diminishes the gift...that is not berating your approach but trying to explain how we can both disagree on this issue and not be shocked that others do not believe the way we do.

 

Quickly just to add..you said nothing sexual about telling someone they had perky breasts...I disagree wholeheartedly. Why do we want perky breasts? To feel attractive and why do we want to feel attractive? So that we are desired by the opposite sex..do our children care that our breasts are perky? Our society has soo sexualized every facet of our outer image that you simply look at a commercial for chapstick (it's supposed to be protection from the elements) but boy they sure do make a point of making you look 'attractive' wearing it....there are sooo many articles about the sexualization of our society....we just are bombarded and the values shift.

 

Tara

Edited July 18, 2010 by ma23peas

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

Here is where the road divides...no one was berating your approach but you seemed to be incredulous to the fact that women do not interpret scenarios like you do. I have never and would never ask how my breasts look in anything. Would I choose your scenarios for my children? No, I do not encourage immodesty and pretty much all the scenarios you described were attaching a sexual tone to some of the most innocent actions. So in my view you're giving sexuality a higher value than modesty. Just because I choose to put different values elsewhere does not mean subjugation of anything..in my view it is raising women to a higher status..again 'far above rubies'...so for me and my family, modesty wins out over 'denying our sexuality' as you put it..but in fact, I put great value on sexuality that is why I preferred to save it for one person, it is a gift that no one else has been given and I do it out of love for my partner...

 

I see it as a precious gift...for me, giving it to others and putting a physical desire first diminishes the gift...that is not berating your approach but trying to explain how we can both disagree on this issue and not be shocked that others do not believe the way we do.

 

Tara

It seems as if you interpreted my post as accusing you of berating, which I did not intend. I apologize if my post was poorly worded enough to cause offense. My intention was simply to provide another POV in which women can be casual and intimate without sexual undertones.

 

I do, however stand my by last statement. And I add this: Why is locker room nakedness/horseplay acceptable among men but not women?

[dragons in the flower bed]

Um. Yeah. Sure. With my clothes ON. It takes effort to get naked enough for sex in those situations. Convienent as it would be for dh, our clothes have never spontaneously combusted as we pass in the kitchen or huddle under a blanket during an outdoor event. Yet.

 

:D Well, yes, but I think you take what I'm saying out of context. I did not attempt to say that sex is accidental. That would be disturbing to say the least. I mean to say that opportunities for the kind of closeness that leads to the intentional ripping off of clothes, those can be unplanned.

[Murphy101]

:D Well, yes, but I think you take what I'm saying out of context. I did not attempt to say that sex is accidental. That would be disturbing to say the least. I mean to say that opportunities for the kind of closeness that leads to the intentional ripping off of clothes, those can be unplanned.

 

Well sure. But the point is that there really is not a true heat of the moment situation where a couple is having sex. So the notion that these kids are having sex without birth control bc they just suddenly found themselves surprisingly naked and horny does not really happen.;)

 

No one is arguing that sexual attraction doesn't happen. Sure it does. But sex takes more than attraction to happen.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I have never and would never ask how my breasts look in anything. Would I choose your scenarios for my children? No, I do not encourage immodesty and pretty much all the scenarios you described were attaching a sexual tone to some of the most innocent actions.

 

No, I think it's the opposite. You're assuming there must be a sexual tone to any physical contact or talk about body parts. You avoid scenarios like describing how a new bra makes a friend look because those scenarios have sexual implications for you. But if they don't, then why not?

 

Abstinence starts way before one heated moment. It's a choice to prevent that moment. It's a choice of location, who to date, drawing the line way smaller than right. up. to. the. limit.

 

If you're not sexualizing, say, going to a movie with a guy friend, then you could do choose that location with that gender and wouldn't have to draw the line way smaller. You could fall into his arms when you haven't seen each other in a while. You could skinny dip! I do. It's not a big deal when you know neither of you are thinking anything about sex.

[Murphy101]

You could skinny dip! I do. It's not a big deal when you know neither of you are thinking anything about sex.

 

:lol: my dh says your guy friends are full of carp. Unless it's family, there's a reason he's naked in the water and it ain't for bait.:lol:

 

Movie or hugs? Sure that's not sexual. But skinny dipping? Sorry every guy I have ever met would tell you that is blarney.

[dragons in the flower bed]

:lol: my dh says your guy friends are full of carp. Unless it's family, there's a reason he's naked in the water and it ain't for bait.:lol:

 

Movie or hugs? Sure that's not sexual. But skinny dipping? Sorry every guy I have ever met would tell you that is blarney.

 

I will have to disagree with you 'cause I don't want a spin off thread about nudism. :001_smile:

[ma23peas]

No, I think it's the opposite. You're assuming there must be a sexual tone to any physical contact or talk about body parts. You avoid scenarios like describing how a new bra makes a friend look because those scenarios have sexual implications for you. But if they don't, then why not? .

 

No, the original poster to who I responded did..she was setting up 'happenstance situations' and asking if one never was turned on or stimulated in some way by it. My point is who asks how a new bra looks, apparently she was going for perky and such...not...'it covers you well, it looks like it will give you good back support..." in perky I was saying you're only asking for a response that is ultimately sex seeking...as I described.

 

 

 

 

If you're not sexualizing, say, going to a movie with a guy friend, then you could do choose that location with that gender and wouldn't have to draw the line way smaller. You could fall into his arms when you haven't seen each other in a while. You could skinny dip! I do. It's not a big deal when you know neither of you are thinking anything about sex .

 

That's why we have many of the unwanted pregnancies today...seriously. Neither were thinking of it, it just 'happened'...sometimes it's two friends who have just broken up with their so and commiserating together, and you have a connection.. I have never been to a movie with just a guy friend, only someone I was seriously considering dating...if I went with guy friends it was always as a group and we hung out where it would not be conducive to having an oops moment. Just look at all the clothing departments for teens right now..Dillard's, Macy's...it's all about showing belly/butt crack/cleavage/tight fitting clothes...why? Go to any hang out on a Saturday night and you'll see clothes that could not cover anyone at a jog....

And to say you'd skinny dip with a friend...I doubt my husband would take that as innocent...we just have different definitions of what we consider 'innocent and low risk'....that's all...I'm just here to support the ladies on this thread that support an alternate view than what I had read..(Oh and no thinking of berating, just didn't want you to think there was any of that in my tone, posting on a thread gives multiple tones anyone could interpret) I purely mean this as a point of view that some may not be familiar with or understand..but we do exist and we value our beliefs as much as you do yours :).

[Smithie]

"Sex is not like murder. It is not like stealing extra cookies either. Both of those things hurt other people (one much less than the other, though I am pretty upset when I find there are none left for me). Sex brings joy to two individuals for a short amount of time. It is much more like kayaking than murder: risky, but mostly fun. So, yes, if shooting people did nothing worse than worry me and the daddio, I would give my kid a silencer just in case. Just as I'd give them a life jacket for that kayak."

 

:iagree:

 

I understand that other people have different convictions about the proper time and place for sexual relations. My conviction is, there are risks, you can get hurt, but seeing as that's true of every important decision my kids will ever make, my focus will be on counseling them to make decisions that maximize opportunties for joy and mimize opportunties for pain. If one or all of them decide that early marriage or an extended period of chastity is their ideal scenario, then hooray.

 

And to continue with the metaphor game... my kids are not allowed to take stuff off the kitchen counter without asking (cookies or anything else), but yes, we own a stool and yes, they have been taught how to use it properly. Why would I want to set up a situation where I might have to deal with pilfered cookies AND a fall onto the hard kitchen floor? I may not HAND them the stool with which to pilfer the cookies, but it's in the house. They have free access to it. Just like they'll have free access to bc when the time comes that they might have need of it (right now, they'd just be making really pricey water balloons, so we don't have any on hand ;)).

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

No, the original poster to who I responded did..she was setting up 'happenstance situations' and asking if one never was turned on or stimulated in some way by it. My point is who asks how a new bra looks, apparently she was going for perky and such...not...'it covers you well, it looks like it will give you good back support..." in perky I was saying you're only asking for a response that is ultimately sex seeking...as I described.

 

 

 

No, not at all. We're over 40. Perky is not sexual. Perky is preferable to saggy. Pretending one is not concerned with outward appearances doesn't make it so. If I ask a friend how I look in a new outfit, I certainly don't want to hear "well rested" or "healthy."

 

I guess "sex seeking" is in the eye of the beholder. If one is constantly looking for sexual undertones one may find them where none is intended.

[Murphy101]

No, not at all. We're over 40. Perky is not sexual. Perky is preferable to saggy. Pretending one is not concerned with outward appearances doesn't make it so. If I ask a friend how I look in a new outfit, I certainly don't want to hear "well rested" or "healthy."

 

I guess "sex seeking" is in the eye of the beholder. If one is constantly looking for sexual undertones one may find them where none is intended.

 

:001_huh: sure I'll ask how I look in an outfit.

 

I am not looking for perky adjectives.

 

A simple, "You look fine/good/nice/pretty." is sufficient.

 

Why would I give a care if she thinks I'm perky? If dh has a problem with my books, that's one thing. Everyone else's opinion on my perkiness is not even a bit important to me.

[Lovedtodeath]

Have you ever gone into a dressing room while shopping with a friend -- and then been prompted to tell her in some detail how hot she is?

 

Granted, your situation isn't perfectly comparable with a bisexual person's, but I see my platonic female friends naked or am intimate with them pretty often. It is natural enough for girlfriends to do this that we have to make a conscious effort to avoid those scenarios when crushes that can't be pursued are identified.

 

Oh my gosh, NO!!!

 

I think that some people are more prone to sexual feelings than others. We all have variable amounts of hormones. I also think that some of us are more prone to homosexual or bisexual feelings than others, whether we act on them or not. Our brains and bodies are not all the same after all.

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

:001_huh: sure I'll ask how I look in an outfit.

 

I am not looking for perky adjectives.

 

A simple, "You look fine/good/nice/pretty." is sufficient.

 

Why would I give a care if she thinks I'm perky? If dh has a problem with my books, that's one thing. Everyone else's opinion on my perkiness is not even a bit important to me.

 

Well, see, if I ask MY husband how my new bra looks, he would reply "it would look much better on the floor." :lol:

 

I would ask a female friend for an objective opinion, and I am concerned with perky, as in I don't want my breasts to be at my bellybutton, nor do I want a bra that makes me look like Mrs Unibreast. And my friends know my bodily concerns so they would go farther than "nice, pretty, etc" and say, "It makes your waist look small" or "that color really makes your eyes pop."

 

We women spend a lot of time and effort tearing one another down. I am beyond happy that I have a small circle of girlfriends who build me up and compliment me on my appearance (not that this is the only area in which we build each other up, but it is the area of discussion in this post).

[Lovedtodeath]

We women spend a lot of time and effort tearing one another down. I am beyond happy that I have a small circle of girlfriends who build me up and compliment me on my appearance (not that this is the only area in which we build each other up, but it is the area of discussion in this post).

In that case, you look ravishing today.;)

 

 

 

 

:D I am realizing what a spin-off we have gotten to. Whew!

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

In that case, you look ravishing today.;)

 

 

 

 

:D I am realizing what a spin-off we have gotten to. Whew!

 

Even online, it makes me smile. Thank you. I feel safe in assuming that you don't really want to ravish me, right? :tongue_smilie:

[Wheres Toto]

No, not at all. We're over 40. Perky is not sexual. Perky is preferable to saggy. Pretending one is not concerned with outward appearances doesn't make it so. If I ask a friend how I look in a new outfit, I certainly don't want to hear "well rested" or "healthy."

 

I guess "sex seeking" is in the eye of the beholder. If one is constantly looking for sexual undertones one may find them where none is intended.

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

As someone turning 41 in a couple weeks, I understand this too well. If I bother wearing a bra its because I'm trying to look perkier, fuller, more well endowed.... sometimes for DH but sometimes because it just makes me feel better even if I'm not leaving the house. Same thing with make-up - most of the time I do without, when I wear it it's not because I'm trying to attract a man, it just gives me a mental boost.

[Tea Time]

No, not at all. We're over 40. Perky is not sexual. Perky is preferable to saggy. Pretending one is not concerned with outward appearances doesn't make it so. If I ask a friend how I look in a new outfit, I certainly don't want to hear "well rested" or "healthy."

 

I guess "sex seeking" is in the eye of the beholder. If one is constantly looking for sexual undertones one may find them where none is intended.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think it is a coincidence that "perky" and "healthy" and "tailored" all describe the same basic idea. It means that the clothing generally looks nice and should feel more comfortable. The words indicate a good fit. I would use different words for different people though because some people are more touchy about that stuff, and I can respect that. No biggie.

 

I do find it somewhat frustrating that some conservative people are overly concerned with this type of thing just as I find it surprising that some more liberal types might fail to see where THIS slides into a whole other thing that IS problematic, especially for our young people...

[Lovedtodeath]

ROFL, well...

 

 

not at the moment.:001_huh::lol:

[dragons in the flower bed]

That's why we have many of the unwanted pregnancies today...seriously. Neither were thinking of it, it just 'happened'...

 

No, I don't think it is. I think a kid who enters a skinny dipping kind of event without being able to finger an exchange of sexual energy is at risk, but if our kids have been allowed to acknowledge and discuss crushes and whatnot, then they'll be armed with complete consciousness of if they are nudity-positive because they know they won't exchange sexual energy with each touch, or if they are nudity-positive because they want to exchange sexual energy. If it's the latter, they'll bring birth control! Then there won't be any unwanted pregnancies.

[Aubrey]

Are you of the mind that a man and woman cannot share an intimate friendship without it eventually turning into something sexual?

 

Well...yeah. The only guy friends I've ever had that I wasn't interested in...turned out they were interested in me. Ruined the friendship when I found out because they were NOT interested in "just" being friends.

 

If it were possible, marriage might be a lot easier. I'm more of a guy-friend kind of girl. :001_smile:

[Aubrey]

No, I don't think it is. I think a kid who enters a skinny dipping kind of event without being able to finger an exchange of sexual energy is at risk, but if our kids have been allowed to acknowledge and discuss crushes and whatnot, then they'll be armed with complete consciousness of if they are nudity-positive because they know they won't exchange sexual energy with each touch, or if they are nudity-positive because they want to exchange sexual energy. If it's the latter, they'll bring birth control! Then there won't be any unwanted pregnancies.

 

I hope you know I adore you. You're one of my favorite posters. But I disagree w/ you on this one point from the bottom of my heart. I'm good w/ ending my part of the discussion here, agreeing to disagree, dressing in separate dressing rooms ;), & returning to talk of MCT :D--unless someone specifically wants further discussion for some reason. :001_smile:

[ma23peas]

then they'll be armed with complete consciousness of if they are nudity-positive because they know they won't exchange sexual energy with each touch, or if they are nudity-positive because they want to exchange sexual energy. If it's the latter, they'll bring birth control! Then there won't be any unwanted pregnancies.

 

Sorry I have to call that foolish and irresponsible in a sensible vein not in a mocking one...I used birth control with all three of my pregnancies..luckily we were prepared and they weren't unwanted just unplanned...there is no 100% foolproof prevention of pregnancy other than abstinence...there is human nature that trumps 'I won't exchange sexual energy'...you may not, but the person you're with is only human.

 

Tara

[dragons in the flower bed]

I hope you know I adore you. You're one of my favorite posters. But I disagree w/ you on this one point from the bottom of my heart. I'm good w/ ending my part of the discussion here, agreeing to disagree, dressing in separate dressing rooms ;), & returning to talk of MCT :D--unless someone specifically wants further discussion for some reason. :001_smile:

 

I love you too Aubrey. Not in that way.

 

I agree here. It's been interesting and this is a good place to stop.

[Jenny in Atl]

Well...yeah. The only guy friends I've ever had that I wasn't interested in...turned out they were interested in me. Ruined the friendship when I found out because they were NOT interested in "just" being friends.

 

If it were possible, marriage might be a lot easier. I'm more of a guy-friend kind of girl. :001_smile:

 

That's sad... some of my best long-time friends are men, whom I've never had nor wanted to have sex with, nor have they wanted to have sex with me... How many here are living a life half lived. I'm not even sure how some here bathe themselves? Body=bad/dirty/ugly/only about sex... :confused:

[justamouse]

I have never and would never ask how my breasts look in anything. Would I choose your scenarios for my children? No, I do not encourage immodesty and pretty much all the scenarios you described were attaching a sexual tone to some of the most innocent actions. So in my view you're giving sexuality a higher value than modesty.

 

Tara

 

Wow. I'm not incredulous, I'm saddened. See, I see your comment as seeing sex in everything, so therefore any mention of body parts is immodest. I'm not immodest, but I'm very comfortable with bodies and my own. I don't see sex (or sexuality) in every situation like you do, therefore I don't have to tiptoe around perceived minefields. Kinda like eating meat sacrificed to idols.

 

I guess "sex seeking" is in the eye of the beholder. If one is constantly looking for sexual undertones one may find them where none is intended.

 

:iagree:

[silliness7]

I'm not even sure how some here bathe themselves? Body=bad/dirty/ugly/only about sex... :confused:

 

 

I think you've misunderstood "some here."

Chastity, Commitment, Love, Faithfulness, Modesty, Marriage, New Life - These things affirm the SACREDNESS and the HOLINESS of s*x. It's a beautiful and wonderful thing. Life is full of beautiful and wonderful things and as humans we like to share beautiful, wonderful things with friends and loved ones. But the sacredness and holiness of s*x means that you don't share this beautiful wonderful thing with just anybody. The more you see s*x as sacred and holy the MORE that narrows down the list of friends you share it with.

[Aubrey]

That's sad... some of my best long-time friends are men, whom I've never had nor wanted to have sex with, nor have they wanted to have sex with me... How many here are living a life half lived. I'm not even sure how some here bathe themselves? Body=bad/dirty/ugly/only about sex... :confused:

 

It is sad. And I've been offered soap, even received it as a gift, but I know the work of the devil when I see it, & any time I meet someone who smells really nice, I know they're one of those vile, depraved people who bathe. ;) They probably even enjoy it. :svengo:

[Lovedtodeath]

It is sad. And I've been offered soap, even received it as a gift, but I know the work of the devil when I see it, & any time I meet someone who smells really nice, I know they're one of those vile, depraved people who bathe. ;) They probably even enjoy it. :svengo:

:lol::lol::hurray:

[Murphy101]

Wow. I'm not incredulous, I'm saddened. See, I see your comment as seeing sex in everything, so therefore any mention of body parts is immodest. I'm not immodest, but I'm very comfortable with bodies and my own. I don't see sex (or sexuality) in every situation like you do

 

:confused: I know this wasn't directed at me, but you seem contradictory to me.

 

I certainly don't see sex in everything. That was partly my reason for saying I have no clue what you are getting at with your previous examples of interaction among people in lockers and such. To me those are not related to sex, yet you seem to think they are or at least can be. A person comfortable with their body does not need to ask friends how the books are hanging or feel compelled to comment on how hot a friend looks, naked or otherwise.

 

If anything you seem to see sex everywhere and lack confidence in physical appearance.:001_huh: (not saying that IS the case. Because I don't know you IRL. Just saying your views and examples here contradict to ME)

 

I wouldn't ask a friend about my books not for reasons of modesty or supposed virtue, but simply bc her opinion of my books are not important to me. I am happy with my books and my dh is happy with my books. No other opinions needed or likely to be appreciated, tyvm.

 

To me the simple suggestion that teens, people in general, be more aware of where a situation might lead them is practical common sense. It boils down to going one step further than the saying of getting out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat. In the case of sex, don't go in the kitchen at all if you know you don't want to get hot.;)

[Rosie_0801]

A person comfortable with their body does not need to ask friends how the books are hanging or feel compelled to comment on how hot a friend looks, naked or otherwise.

 

 

Who says it has anything to do with how comfy a person is with their body? Maybe they are the type who thrives on compliments and their body is as good a topic as any to compliment on. It's handy, after all. The one thing common to all face to face conversations is the bodies that are conversing.

 

:)

Rosie

Edited July 19, 2010 by Rosie_0801