Did you have the S*# talk with your teenager?

[Marylou]

An ideal doesn't have to be experienced in 100% of the population for it to be pervasive in society. Slut-shaming is pervasive enough that schools organize assemblies around it, churches reinforce it (with lessons like teaching kids that getting married to someone who had sex is like chewing someone else's old piece of gum), whole schools are run by religious organizations that embrace it (the state of Louisiana helps to fund it with taxes!). It's pervasive in that it's wide spread, it's found in many, many places in our society.

 

I disagree.  I hear more "You're a slut" talk in p.s, FB and pop culture than anywhere else.

 

I have heard about the chewed gum (or licked Oreos) thing in church youth settings (I'm not sold on it), but I believe it is used to get the one who is thinking of acting married though single to think twice before hooking up.  In other words, "Why make yourself less desirable"~not "Don't ever marry someone who has had premarital sex because he/she is worthless."   I don't think it is the best way to persuade a young person.

 

Some things done by people ARE shameful, but that doesn't mean the person should be shamed.  There is a difference.

 

 And people are not animals.  

 

And I am surprised how many parents buy birth control for their children.  If a "child" is old enough to become a mom or dad, he/she is old enough to buy her own personal items.

[Marylou]

I don't actually think that your virginity is your most prized possession.   I do think that *you* are your most prized possession.  I believe that you are vulnerable during s*x.  You are naked-- physically emotionally and spiritually--.  I truly do believe you give a part of yourself away when you have s*x.

I want my children to understand that this is more than a physical release.

 

So you need to be with someone you trust to take care of you.--all of you.

 

You can be injured physically by a more powerful person.  You can be belittled by someone who is callus with your feelings.  Too many times young people act without thinking of the consequences.  I think there are soooo many more consequences to s*x that have nothing to do with babies.  It has to do with you.  Are you strong enough for this?  I think that having s*x with "just anyone" can do a lot of damage to your self.

 

Your partner can:-- never speak to you again after one night--- can you handle that rejection?

They can:-- spread rumors about what you did--- can you handle that?

 

You could get pregnant--- do you want to be tied to this person for the rest of your life?  Will you have nothing but heartache parenting with this person?

 

Too many people are controlled by emotions (fear of rejection, need for love and acceptance, desire for power)  All of those are also in the bedroom.

 

It makes a difference who you are paired with.  The Bible talks about being unequally yoked.  This is more than just about marriage to an unbeliever--- this is about being on equal footing with your relationships.

 

 

So -- I want my children to be sure they have the right person to be with (married or not) I want them to be sure they can trust them with their selves.

With their emotions, feelings, any children that might come along.

 

S*x inside marriage is supposed to be this way, but not if you married the wrong person. 

 

.

 

I want my children to be happy afterwards, glad that shared themselves with this person. I want them to have picked an honorable person, who likes them and wants to continue the relationship. I want it to have been loving and not rushed and pressured.

 

This is not about virginity, or marriage-- but about being true to yourself.

 

I really enjoyed your post until the last three words!  What does it mean~true to yourself?  Couldn't people take that and say that anything they want to do is okay and morally good because after all they are being true to themselves?  I really don't know what that means?!

 

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. 1 Cor. 6:18-

 

I realize not everyone believes that God's glory is the ultimate motivator, but that is what we teach our children.  And I agree with what  Scarlett said earlier.  I will not confuse my children.  "Glorify God in all things.  But if you choose to not glorify Him in this one area, here's some birth control".  :confused1: 

[Marylou]

Well, you can call yourself an animal; I'll stick with being a person :laugh: .

 

And I would feel extremely sad if my husband asked me to separate my emotions from the act of marriage.  I wouldn't even want to do it in that case  :mellow:

[I.Dup.]

Actually, yes.

 

I don't agree that  degradation, humiliation, and emotional problems result from *mutual* and *consentual* informed, mature choices regarding sexual activity.

 

 

And you think a 13, 14, 15...year old is capable of making this mature, mutual, consensual decision in our current society? Social media fallout is one of the first things that pops into my head that could be the most devastating "consequence," if you will. We didn't even have social media when I was in high school and word still got around who I slept with and the consequences were absolutely horrifying for me. I was 16.

 

Biologically speaking, yes. Yes we are. But we're highly intelligent, rational animals with amazing executive functions and the ability to recognize patterns, and make accurate predictions. This includes the patterns of human behavior. In other words, we're really, really clever animals. ;)

 

I know that biologically we have a lot in common with animals. But I want people to believe we are more than animals. I want my children to rise above being an animal.

 

I realize people go around having sex for fun, and have since the beginning of time. That was me, once. :) I just do not see ANYTHING good that results in having sex for fun. Maybe in a different time or age, but especially not now.

 

And condoms do not protect from all diseases. Many diseases can be spread just through skin-to-skin contact and oral contact. I'm not aware of anyone who gets ready for sex by putting on a full-body condom. :P

[Scarlett]

And you think a 13, 14, 15...year old is capable of making this mature, mutual, consensual decision in our current society? Social media fallout is one of the first things that pops into my head that could be the most devastating "consequence," if you will. We didn't even have social media when I was in high school and word still got around who I slept with and the consequences were absolutely horrifying for me. I was 16.

 

 

I know that biologically we have a lot in common with animals. But I want people to believe we are more than animals. I want my children to rise above being an animal.

 

I realize people go around having sex for fun, and have since the beginning of time. That was me, once. :) I just do not see ANYTHING good that results in having sex for fun. Maybe in a different time or age, but especially not now.

 

And condoms do not protect from all diseases. Many diseases can be spread just through skin-to-skin contact and oral contact. I'm not aware of anyone who gets ready for sex by putting on a full-body condom. :P

I will say, that within my marriage sex is definitely fun. And bonding. Brings us back to US when bills, family, kids, problems get us distracted. And you probably didn't mean it shouldn't be fun in marriage...just wanted to clarify that point....

 

To the rest of your thoughts ITA. The consequences are often times severe. To reputation, to health, unplanned pregnancy, and to ones conscience.

[Lara in Colo]

Being true to yourself means just that.

 

If you believe that sex before marriage is wrong, then stay true to that and pair yourself with someone who also believes that--- don't be pressured to change your beliefs.

 

Stay true to you.

Honor yourself.  Find someone that honors you.

 

Honor isn't about staying a virgin-- and someone that is "patient" til marriage still may not honor YOU.  Your dreams, your hopes, your beliefs.

 

I have seen good respectful relationships outside of marriage and terrible Christian relationships that are demeaning within the confines of marriage.

 

I watched my niece wait until marriage (19) and she was so caught up about the wedding and the wedding night-- she failed to see the man was controlling and disrespectful of her. ---- but he "honored" her enough to wait---but he pressured her to marry too soon.

Now she has LOTS of emotional scars from the mistreatment from this man--plus a child she has to raise with a man who teaches her son to disrespect women.

 

I watched my cousin date her now husband who loves her and respects her and they were living together before marriage.  They are now married and have 4 children and are active in their church.  You can see by the way he treats her that he adores her and she treats him like a beloved husband.

 

 

This was supposed to be a thread about what I told my children about s*x-- not a discussion on slut shaming and morality.

 

I told my children to love themselves enough to find someone who loves them before sharing a very private and special part of you--- this way you can hopefully avoid the emotional. physical and spiritual damage that comes from giving too much of yourself to the wrong person.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

I believe it is used to get the one who is thinking of acting married though single to think twice before hooking up.  In other words, "Why make yourself less desirable"~not "Don't ever marry someone who has had premarital sex because he/she is worthless."

What is desirable about virginity? Why does premarital sex make one less desirable?

 

Valuing virginity contributes to the shaming by suggesting one is "less desirable" for not being a virgin. It claims one's intrinsic value is diminished because they have behaved sexually. Just the fact that we have a word for this, when we have no such word for other first-time experiences (swimming in the ocean, riding a horse, jogging a mile, etc) contributes to the idea that sex is a valuable commodity and as such, contributes to the value of the person.

 

And people are not animals.

In the taxonomic classification (which is the organization method that applies to all biological species), all primates (of which homo sapiens is one) are classified in the kingdom animalia. This is what is meant by "people are animals." It's not a moral comment but a biological one.

[albeto.]

I know that biologically we have a lot in common with animals. But I want people to believe we are more than animals. I want my children to rise above being an animal.

 

What does that mean, "rise above being an animal"? Is the kingdom plantae "above" animalia? Is another kingdom "above" animalia?

[Lara in Colo]

What does that mean, "rise above being an animal"? Is the kingdom plantae "above" animalia? Is another kingdom "above" animalia?

 

This last comment does it---

I am done with you-- you are just stirring the pot and being an irritant.

[albeto.]

This was supposed to be a thread about what I told my children about s*x-- not a discussion on slut shaming and morality.

I know, and again, I'm sorry if it looked like I was picking on you. I hoped this question would be received as an open question for anyone to respond, and I believe that's happened. I do hope you don't feel like I'm trying to put you on the spot. What you posted about telling your children got lots of positive attention. It's clearly a concept that has a lot of support. Nevertheless, the concept itself contributes to the slut-shaming that happens, and interestingly, it seems no one seems realizes when they're contributing to it. I wondered if there was another way to interpret this ideal of yours. You've explained that when you call virginity a persons' "most prized possession," you don't really mean that, so that helps me understand. Thanks. :)

[I.Dup.]

What does that mean, "rise above being an animal"? Is the kingdom plantae "above" animalia? Is another kingdom "above" animalia?

 

 

Please.

 

I don't know, Albeto, what would the world look like if we all behaved as animals? Ate our young, defecated all over the place, had sex with anything attractive that happened to be walking by, humped each other, killed each other over a quarrel on a regular basis, etc, etc, etc.

[albeto.]

This last comment does it---

I am done with you-- you are just stirring the pot and being a irritant.

Not at all. In a discussion in which ideas are being explained, it only makes sense to clarify what an idea means if there is confusion. I'll understand if my questions are frustrating to you, but please know my intent is not to stir the pot and be an irritant.

[Scarlett]

What is desirable about virginity? Why does premarital sex make one less desirable?

 

Valuing virginity contributes to the shaming by suggesting one is "less desirable" for not being a virgin. It claims one's intrinsic value is diminished because they have behaved sexually.

.

The reason that virginity is valued is because it is a line in the sand that once crossed is hard to not repeatedly step across. I don't think a person is less valuable because they are no longer a Virgin in the physical sense. However, sex with who ever because it feels good at that moment in time is not a healthy way to live. The consequences have been mentioned on this thread many times. And since hormones get in the way as to when it might be a good idea, we have this institution called marriage that helps define when it is actually a good idea....based upon commitment and security instead of hormones. It protects the security of any children that come from the sex and that as we know creates a better chance for a strong family which creates strong societies.

[Scarlett]

Also to suggest that you should value yourself and not sleep with just anyone because it feels good....that applies to both sexes. I certainly am not telling my son to go sow wild Oates and then find a virgin to marry.

 

And I know lots of people who have lived a certain way in their past that they aren't proud of but it is what they are doing now that is important to me. And I believe to God.

[Joanne]

Please.

 

I don't know, Albeto, what would the world look like if we all behaved as animals? Ate our young, defecated all over the place, had sex with anything attractive that happened to be walking by, humped each other, killed each other over a quarrel on a regular basis, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

This is an inaccurate portrayal of animals of all kinds.

 

Many animals deficate away from living space. Many mate seasonally, and mate selectively. Many, many animals don't kill over a quarrel and many avoid quarrels.

[Joanne]

The reason that virginity is valued is because it is a line in the sand that once crossed is hard to not repeatedly step across. I don't think a person is less valuable because they are no longer a Virgin in the physical sense. However, sex with who ever because it feels good at that moment in time is not a healthy way to live. The consequences have been mentioned on this thread many times. And since hormones get in the way as to when it might be a good idea, we have this institution called marriage that helps define when it is actually a good idea....based upon commitment and security instead of hormones. It protects the security of any children that come from the sex and that as we know creates a better chance for a strong family which creates strong societies.

 

 

I don't see anyone in this thread advocating the bold. It's a common jump some conservative minded folks make, but it presents a false dichotomy. The choices aren't "value virginity until marriage or screw every time you think about it."

[Miss Marple]

An ideal doesn't have to be experienced in 100% of the population for it to be pervasive in society. Slut-shaming is pervasive enough that schools organize assemblies around it, churches reinforce it (with lessons like teaching kids that getting married to someone who had sex is like chewing someone else's old piece of gum), whole schools are run by religious organizations that embrace it (the state of Louisiana helps to fund it with taxes!). It's pervasive in that it's wide spread, it's found in many, many places in our society

 

The definition by Merriam Webster of "pervasive" -existing in or spreading through every part of something.   Do you really think religious institutions shouldn't address sex outside of marriage?  That would be incredibly naive, IMO, unless your goal would be to push your agenda on all segments of society.  I stand by my assertion that what you call slut-shaming is not pervasive in our society.

 

I would even go so far as to say there is far more "virginity" shaming than slut-shaming in our society.  So a school has an abstinence program?  Usually schools that have that are religious, private (and in keeping with the parents' desires), or the program was chosen with the approval of the school board.  Why would you call it "slut shaming" when the programs are in keeping with the desires of those attending?  Sure there will be "sluts" there who may find it offensive.  There is offensive in all sectors of society.  

 

I'm sure there are people who administer these programs and do it is a less than desirable way, but in the same way, there are plenty of sex ed classes (I was involved in many) that are offensive as well to those who are virgins making them extremely uncomfortable and subject to ridicule.  

 

Would you be equally offended by the "virginity-shaming" that plenty of us have experienced?  I'm old enough to think you would not :)  Consequences have actions.  You might not like the consequences or the reputation one gets (ie being called a "slut") but that's all part of the decision making process required to be an effective adult.  If you want everyone to be kind and supportive of an action they find wrong, sinful, offensive, dangerous...well, that's just naive (and can be applied to far more topics than just pre-marital sex).

[Scarlett]

This is an inaccurate portrayal of animals of all kinds.

 

Many animals deficate away from living space. Many mate seasonally, and mate selectively. Many, many animals don't kill over a quarrel and many avoid quarrels.

And yet....humans are set apart.

[Scarlett]

I don't see anyone in this thread advocating the bold. It's a common jump some conservative minded folks make, but it presents a false dichotomy. The choices aren't "value virginity until marriage or screw every time you think about it."

Well how do non conservative folks want to phrase it? What is the standard?

 

. Ultimately my kids know we have two rules: Don't be pressured (including self-pressure); Don't be stupid (prevent STD's as well as pregnancy). So far, none of my kids are sexually active, but if they do become so while living at home, conversations will naturally evolve to incorporate more info, ideas, concerns, etc.

The above...as well as the posters who supply or will supply their underage children with condoms....sure sounds permissive and encouraging to me.

[jessicalb]

The above...as well as the posters who supply or will supply their underage children with condoms....sure sounds permissive and encouraging to me.

 

It is not permissive if it's not a devastating problem in your home if your teen is sexually active.

[lllll]

..

[Scarlett]

It is not permissive if it's not a devastating problem in your home if your teen is sexually active.

If you permit it is permissive. Obviously if you permit it you don't think it is a problem.

 

I really am shocked, morality aside, at how many people think it is ok for teens to have sex. Their brains are not even fully developed and hormones are raging making it unlikely they will make good decisions....do you (collective You) also provide alcohol for them too?

[marbel]

If you permit it is permissive. Obviously if you permit it you don't think it is a problem.

 

I really am shocked, morality aside, at how many people think it is ok for teens to have sex. Their brains are not even fully developed and hormones are raging making it unlikely they will make good decisions....do you (collective You) also provide alcohol for them too?

 

I don't find it shocking anymore.  I think it is typical of our current (US) culture. 

 

Last year I read a book about raising happy, successful teens.  (I can't remember the name of it right now.) It treated sexual activity over the age of about 16 as perfectly normal and even desirable as part of their development.  I think the word "affection" was used to describe the feelings one ought to have for their sexual partners.  And of course there was mention of disease and birth control.  But overall, it was very positive about it all. 

 

What shocks me is the talk of slut-shaming. I see zero shame in US culture over teen sex, extra-marital sex, etc.  (Maybe some pseudo-shame as when a politician gets caught and has to apologize.)

[jessicalb]

If you permit it is permissive. Obviously if you permit it you don't think it is a problem.

 

I really am shocked, morality aside, at how many people think it is ok for teens to have sex. Their brains are not even fully developed and hormones are raging making it unlikely they will make good decisions....do you (collective You) also provide alcohol for them too?

 

It is not permissive to permit something. If you allow your children to read books I wouldn't allow my kid to read, that doesn't make you permissive, it makes us different kinds of parents.

 

I don't provide alcohol but my son knows that if he were to make a poor decision and be stuck someplace, he and any of his friends can call me for a ride, no lecture included. Most of them think drinking is stupid and as far as he and I know, none of his friends are having sex yet. So I am not worried that this encouragement of good decision making paired with a safety net is creating drunken sex crazed teens.

[Scarlett]

It is not permissive to permit something. If you allow your children to read books I wouldn't allow my kid to read, that doesn't make you permissive, it makes us different kinds of parents.

 

I don't provide alcohol but my son knows that if he were to make a poor decision and be stuck someplace, he and any of his friends can call me for a ride, no lecture included. Most of them think drinking is stupid and as far as he and I know, none of his friends are having sex yet. So I am not worried that this encouragement of good decision making paired with a safety net is creating drunken sex crazed teens.

I think a lot of what teens will do is what teens want to do. But when they grow up and their brains mature, if they have made bad decisions and are suffering consequences due to those decisions, at least I can hold my head up because I taught them what I feel is the proper way to live and did not enable improper behavior. But of course you think it is right to let kids have sex, so really nothing more to discuss.

[Scarlett]

I don't find it shocking anymore. I think it is typical of our current (US) culture.

 

Last year I read a book about raising happy, successful teens. (I can't remember the name of it right now.) It treated sexual activity over the age of about 16 as perfectly normal and even desirable as part of their development. I think the word "affection" was used to describe the feelings one ought to have for their sexual partners. And of course there was mention of disease and birth control. But overall, it was very positive about it all.

 

What shocks me is the talk of slut-shaming. I see zero shame in US culture over teen sex, extra-marital sex, etc. (Maybe some pseudo-shame as when a politician gets caught and has to apologize.)

I wonder why they chose age 16 to make it ok? I don't get how they come up with the standard. Probably because 16 is the age kids can't really be easily controlled so if you can't control them endorse it? In don't know. I feel like I am living in the twi light zone

[jessicalb]

It might be because 16 is the legal age of consent in a lot of places. I don't really know how you can put an age on it. People are so different.

[jessicalb]

I think a lot of what teens will do is what teens want to do. But when they grow up and their brains mature, if they have made bad decisions and are suffering consequences due to those decisions, at least I can hold my head up because I taught them what I feel is the proper way to live and did not enable improper behavior. But of course you think it is right to let kids have sex, so really nothing more to discuss.

 

You might be misunderstanding me. I think what my kid does with his body when I am not there is well out of my control, so I tell him my ideas about best practices and give him suggestions for how to mitigate problems if he is choosing less than best practices. It's not a question of "let". It's a question of doing my best to prepare him for all the things he will face in the world, arming him with information, and giving him the best shot at a good life that I can.

[Joanne]

If you permit it is permissive. Obviously if you permit it you don't think it is a problem.

 

I really am shocked, morality aside, at how many people think it is ok for teens to have sex. Their brains are not even fully developed and hormones are raging making it unlikely they will make good decisions....do you (collective You) also provide alcohol for them too?

 

How old was Mary, Christ's mother? And her young mrried peers?

 

Younger than many of the teens represented by moms in this thread. Teens have been having sex forever not out of lack of morality because their bodies are designed for it.

[Rosie_0801]

An ideal doesn't have to be experienced in 100% of the population for it to be pervasive in society. Slut-shaming is pervasive enough that schools organize assemblies around it, churches reinforce it (with lessons like teaching kids that getting married to someone who had sex is like chewing someone else's old piece of gum), whole schools are run by religious organizations that embrace it (the state of Louisiana helps to fund it with taxes!). It's pervasive in that it's wide spread, it's found in many, many places in our society.

And yet what Miss Marple said about virgin shaming is also widespread. So doesn't the problem become that there is no way for a girl to "win."

 

 

If virginity is not the most prized possession, is it a prized possession? Does it have value in and of itself?

I wonder if that depends on personality.

[HRAAB]

How old was Mary, Christ's mother? And her young mrried peers?

 

Younger than many of the teens represented by moms in this thread. Teens have been having sex forever not out of lack of morality because their bodies are designed for it.

 

This is the thing.  Our bodies are designed for sex.  I recognize that and discuss it with my teens.  That doesn't mean I think teen sex is good or ok.  It is a fact.  It happens.  Teens aren't usually mature enough to deal with the emotional commitments that are involved in a sexual relationship nor are they financially able to support the child that could result from the relationship. None of that changes the fact that teens have had sex in the past, do now, and will in the future.  Recognizing that fact and dealing honestly with it doesn't mean that a parent thinks teen sex is OK or good or fine.  It just means they're dealing with reality.

[Scarlett]

How old was Mary, Christ's mother? And her young mrried peers?

 

Younger than many of the teens represented by moms in this thread. Teens have been having sex forever not out of lack of morality because their bodies are designed for it.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question but even if she was young her life was strictly controlled...she did not have to depend upon her hormones or underdeveloped brain to make decisions on who she should have sex with.

[albeto.]

Please.

 

I don't know, Albeto, what would the world look like if we all behaved as animals? Ate our young, defecated all over the place, had sex with anything attractive that happened to be walking by, humped each other, killed each other over a quarrel on a regular basis, etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps you've missed my point. The fact is, as biological species, humans are classified in the kingdom animalia. We act "like animals" because we are animals, by definition. The idea of a hierarchy is one that may be thrown out as a point of habit, but what is it that's really being said? That humans are not animals? We're not mammals? We're not a complex and fantastic carbon-based life form? The fact that we are classified as animals shouldn't detract from the beauty and wonder of humanity, the fantastic accomplishments and variety throughout the different cultures. Information shouldn't be denied or avoided in order to maintain that sense of wonder and joy at who we are and what we can do and how we interact with each other, kwim?

 

 

[albeto.]

Do you really think religious institutions shouldn't address sex outside of marriage?

I have to confess, I don't know where this came from. Religious institutions exist to address their patrticular beliefs and that includes virginity and marriage, but that's irrelevant to the topic.  

 

 

I would even go so far as to say there is far more "virginity" shaming than slut-shaming in our society.  So a school has an abstinence program?  Usually schools that have that are religious, private (and in keeping with the parents' desires), or the program was chosen with the approval of the school board.  Why would you call it "slut shaming" when the programs are in keeping with the desires of those attending?  Sure there will be "sluts" there who may find it offensive.  There is offensive in all sectors of society.

Having a program that was chosen with the approval of the school board and is in keeping with the beliefs and desires of the citizens of the school district doesn't mean it's not slut-shaming. One has nothing to do with the other. The offense is in identifying, sexually active teens as "sluts" That's offensive because "slut" is an intentionally offensive word that exists to label someone as not being sexually "pure" or "pure enough," whatever that means.

 

 

Would you be equally offended by the "virginity-shaming" that plenty of us have experienced?  I'm old enough to think you would not :)

Whatever you based this prediction on was incorrect. I find bullying in any form to be offensive. Should a school district get state and federal funding to provide a program that systematically shames virgins for being virgins, I would find that problematic and at least speak out when I became aware of it.

 

 

Consequences have actions.  You might not like the consequences or the reputation one gets (ie being called a "slut") but that's all part of the decision making process required to be an effective adult.  If you want everyone to be kind and supportive of an action they find wrong, sinful, offensive, dangerous...well, that's just naive (and can be applied to far more topics than just pre-marital sex).

The question about virginity and "effectiveness" as an adult aside, I understand people find sex outside of marriage to be wrong, sinful, offensive, and dangerous. I think that's what inspires the shaming. Shame works because humans are social animals, we don't want to be shamed, we don't want to be ostracized by our community. That doesn't address whether shaming is effective in keeping sexual behavior within the parameters of legal marriage (it doesn't), nor does it address whether shaming women is ethically justified. It just happens to be all a part of the same belief. This is why I asked for clarification of Lara's well-received post. She mentioned the one half of the ideal (virginity is related to value, high character, whatever), and I wondered if there was a way to separate that from the other half of the ideal (sexual behavior is shameful outside marriage). Explaining to me how sinful sex outside of marriage is doesn't help me separate the two halves of this ideal.

[albeto.]

Well how do non conservative folks want to phrase it? What is the standard?

 

Try this: Imagine if I said some people exercise and are proactive with their health. Those who do not go to the gym at least 3 times a week are all lazy farts who lay on the sofa all day watching day time tv. Certainly those people exist, but it's illogical to suggest everyone who doesn't go to the gym 3 times a week do nothing but lam on their sofas watching day time tv. In the same way, not all young adults are virgins when they are married. Some adults have sex casually, in open relationships, with friends, people they've just met and enjoyed, complete strangers, multiple partners at once, both genders, etc, but not all non-virgins behave in this way. Some adults only have monogamous sexual relationships, some have a few before finding someone they want to spend their life with exclusively. There's not an either/or component to sexual behavior.

 

The above...as well as the posters who supply or will supply their underage children with condoms....sure sounds permissive and encouraging to me.

Teens have sex, even teens of parents who are sure their teens won't. Abstinence only policies are ineffective, statistically speaking. That's not to say a teen who has been encouraged to wait until marriage will fail, but to say when considering the population of teens nation wide, it's not as effective as providing information and birth control. You might think of it like teaching a child to brush their teeth even though your family focuses on the value of not eating sugary foods (imprecise analogy, I understand, but I hope you understand the point being made). Sex is a biological urge that can be hard to resist, and not every teen wants to maintain that goal once they learn the value of sex. Learning the value of protection, on the other hand, is working with one's nature, not against it. 

[albeto.]

I wonder why they chose age 16 to make it ok? I don't get how they come up with the standard. Probably because 16 is the age kids can't really be easily controlled so if you can't control them endorse it? In don't know. I feel like I am living in the twi light zone

 

I don't like to be controlled either.   ;)

[albeto.]

And yet what Miss Marple said about virgin shaming is also widespread. So doesn't the problem become that there is no way for a girl to "win."

There are public policies in effect that impose slut-shaming as a method of education. This is not true of abstinence. The is no public policy that imposes teaching abstinence as a loss of personal value in effect in school districts or women's health clinics. I am unaware of churches or other private organizations that teach such a thing.

 

 

I wonder if that depends on personality.

I think it's a learned response. People are taught to equate virginity with value, it's not a natural connection.

[Marylou]

What is desirable about virginity? Why does premarital sex make one less desirable?

 

Valuing virginity contributes to the shaming by suggesting one is "less desirable" for not being a virgin. It claims one's intrinsic value is diminished because they have behaved sexually. Just the fact that we have a word for this, when we have no such word for other first-time experiences (swimming in the ocean, riding a horse, jogging a mile, etc) contributes to the idea that sex is a valuable commodity and as such, contributes to the value of the person.

 

 

In the taxonomic classification (which is the organization method that applies to all biological species), all primates (of which homo sapiens is one) are classified in the kingdom animalia. This is what is meant by "people are animals." It's not a moral comment but a biological one.

 

:001_huh: No.  Valuing one thing does not necessarily lead to shaming something else.  

 

Call me rude and shallow, but if there were 2 men proposing marriage to me and I loved them both and could see myself living with either one of them for the rest of my life. . .  And if one of them was a virgin and the other not, I'm going with the virgin.  

 

And most people (no matter what religious affiliation or bio-self-identification :p ) understand that.  Both men have the same intrinsic value, however one is more desirable (to me).

[Marylou]

There are public policies in effect that impose slut-shaming as a method of education. This is not true of abstinence. The is no public policy that imposes teaching abstinence as a loss of personal value in effect in school districts or women's health clinics. I am unaware of churches or other private organizations that teach such a thing.

 

 

I think it's a learned response. People are taught to equate virginity with value, it's not a natural connection.

 

No.  It is not a learned response.  

 

Good night.

[Joanne]

:001_huh: No.  Valuing one thing does not necessarily lead to shaming something else.  

 

Call me rude and shallow, but if there were 2 men proposing marriage to me and I loved them both and could see myself living with either one of them for the rest of my life. . .  And if one of them was a virgin and the other not, I'm going with the virgin.  

 

And most people (no matter what religious affiliation or bio-self-identification :p ) understand that.  Both men have the same intrinsic value, however one is more desirable (to me).

 

 

Ew. Sorry, but Ew.

Virginity status would not be a factor for me at all. (Well, unless they were "older" and then an older virgin would creep me out, frankly)

 

My determining factors would be character issues such as kindness, courtesy, integrity, money management. Or practical concerns such as education. Or family history (addiciton, disease risk). Work history. Service to the communitiy.

 

But virginity? Ew. Just Ew.

[albeto.]

:001_huh: No.  Valuing one thing does not necessarily lead to shaming something else.

I have no quarrel with this statement, and it's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that shaming comes from a position of valuing virginity as an element in one's overall value. Does that make sense? I'm not saying everyone who values virginity shames those who are sexually active outside marriage. I am seeing people who shame those who are sexually active outside marriage do so because they first value virginity. Does that make sense?

 

Call me rude and shallow, but if there were 2 men proposing marriage to me and I loved them both and could see myself living with either one of them for the rest of my life. . .  And if one of them was a virgin and the other not, I'm going with the virgin.

Your comment supports my premise, but in any case, I won't call you such names. :)

 

And most people (no matter what religious affiliation or bio-self-identification :p ) understand that.  Both men have the same intrinsic value, however one is more desirable (to me).

 

"Bio-self-identification"?

 

Anyway, there is a well-known correlation between religious beliefs and how a culture and individual values virginity.

 

No.  It is not a learned response.  

 

Good night.

Your source for this belief?

[Marylou]

Ew. Sorry, but Ew.

Virginity status would not be a factor for me at all. (Well, unless they were "older" and then an older virgin would creep me out, frankly)

 

My determining factors would be character issues such as kindness, courtesy, integrity, money management. Or practical concerns such as education. Or family history (addiciton, disease risk). Work history. Service to the communitiy.

 

But virginity? Ew. Just Ew.

 

 

I didn't say it was the determining factor.  I said (or implied) all other things being EQUAL, I'd go with the virgin.  I know I'm not alone on that one.  Flame away!

 

My "Ew, Sorry Just Ew" moment(s) would (theoretically) be when I picture myself with Mr. Experienced and wonder how I measure up compared to Sally, or Jane or Mollly or Nancy or, or , or . . . .

 

Twenty two years ago I married a virgin just a few months shy of 37 y.o.  He is a wonderful husband and my best friend.  So I find your comment about older virgins "creeping" you out distasteful.  But it is your opinion, so no offense taken.  Good night!

[unsinkable]

I don't know. I mean, I made it through the wilderness. Somehow I made it through. I didn't know how lost I was. I think slutshaming did that to me. Made me lost and not even knowing it.

 

It's like I needed something, like a retroactive virginity program, something to make me feel, MAKE me FEEL, shiny and new, like a virgin.

 

Touched for the very first time, it was like I was saving it all for something. Something, like love, that would make me bold and thaw out what was scared and cold.

[Rosie_0801]

There are public policies in effect that impose slut-shaming as a method of education. This is not true of abstinence. The is no public policy that imposes teaching abstinence as a loss of personal value in effect in school districts or women's health clinics. I am unaware of churches or other private organizations that teach such a thing.

No, but it's not as though the only influences in a person's life come from organisations either. Bullying for being frigid has rather an impact on someone's person when it is dished up regularly from peers. For years on end.

 

 

 

I think it's a learned response. People are taught to equate virginity with value, it's not a natural connection.

I'm not altogether sure about that, but whether it is a natural connection or not is a little hard to test. I had a friend who was ready to go on the war path when she thought my boyf was pressuring me. And this was when we were 22. You'd think a sex goddess type would be last in line for caring about someone's virginity, so perhaps it is something some people naturally value. I was brought up with the no sex before marriage thing, wasn't given a reason other than "God said so," so when that reason lost validity, I wasn't left with any other reason. My boyfriend told me it didn't matter, and since I had no other information, I accepted that. It turns out that *for me* that was incorrect. Hence my thoughts that it may depend on personality. Apparently it wasn't important to him. *shrug*

 

For those who think caring about someone's status as a virgin is creepy, it really isn't nice to be compared to anyone else.

[extendedforecast]

I'm jumping in here to say my piece, and then I'm out of here.

 

I think the previous posters who were against teen sex, citing immaturity, risk of disease and pregnancy, etc. make a good point. It is not "slut-shaming" to encourage responsible behavior and to discourage risky behavior like having sex before one is ready to deal with the consequences. It's just good parenting. I discourage other risky behaviors, such as driving while texting, underage drinking, or running into the street without checking for cars.

 

I haven't decided whether I'm going to go so far as to provide contraception just yet, but I have so far explained all the risks and consequences of sex, and I plan on discussing this topic even more in the future.

 

ETA: to be clear, it shouldn't matter whether ADULTS choose virginity, casual sex, monogamous sex-you get the point. They are equipped to deal with the consequences mentioned earlier in this thread.

In the scenario the PP gave, I'd go with the virgin, all other things being completely equal. Now if you'd asked me that question when I was 18, I would probably be torn, as long as the non-virgin didn't have a long list of previous sexual partners.

 

 

There was one more thing I wanted to add, but I can't remember due to being interrupted numerous times while editing. I will come back and edit again if it comes to me.

[marbel]

Ew. Sorry, but Ew.

Virginity status would not be a factor for me at all. (Well, unless they were "older" and then an older virgin would creep me out, frankly)

 

My determining factors would be character issues such as kindness, courtesy, integrity, money management. Or practical concerns such as education. Or family history (addiciton, disease risk). Work history. Service to the communitiy.

 

But virginity? Ew. Just Ew.

 

Why "ew?" 

 

She said if everything else was the same/equal, she'd prefer the virgin.  Here's someone expressing her own preference for her own life, and you're telling her it's icky?

[jhschool]

I think teaching one's own kid to wait for marriage

and to not have sex while still a child

is NOT slut-shaming.

 

Slut-shaming never even occurred to me.

 

I never even heard the term before this thread.

 

 

[Dana]

I think teaching one's own kid to wait for marriage

and to not have sex while still a child

is NOT slut-shaming.

 

Slut-shaming never even occurred to me.

 

I never even heard the term before this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming

 

I've heard it in other places before. The first time you encounter the term it may seem like a stretch, but then you do see it in practice in our society a lot. The emphasis on purity and watching women's attire but not men's...it's there.

 

We have conversations about sex with our son. I've currently got a sexuality text and an anatomy text out in our school room for him to flip through if he wants based on our earlier discussion last week. We will be buying condoms so any mystery about them will be taken away. I prefer he wait until he's in a committed relationship to have sex, but I definitely want him using birth control, so having it available hopefully makes it more likely that it'll be used.

[Miss Marple]

I think teaching one's own kid to wait for marriage

and to not have sex while still a child

is NOT slut-shaming.

 

Slut-shaming never even occurred to me.

 

I never even heard the term before this thread.

I agree.  I've learned so many new terms from my years on this board :p  And I've learned that there are issues in our society that are so pervasive, but I've never encountered them.  I guess I've lived under a rock for 51 years :)  (Should I mention that I was secretary to a  FNP who also was a certified sex therapist? LOL!  I've heard just about everything)

 

What *is* pervasive in our society is Hollywood, music, peers who push a sexual agenda on our kids at ages far too young for them to understand or deal with.  The most popular TV shows today show that a healthy sex appetite is normal and appropriate.  Someone who does not engage in sex frequently and with many partners is shown to be frigid or...OMG! religious!!!  Horrors!  That poor person had a religious upbringing that did not allow for the "natural" tendencies and must have been "shamed" into that behavior.  It could not be that the person has made a decision not to engage for whatever reason (and whose business is it anyway *why* she chose not to engage?).  People prize many things - virginity, youth, health, rigorous academics, shoes, hair, the list is endless.  I could make a case that the mayor of NY prizes "thinness" due to his public policy eliminating the option for purchasing large sodas - is that not "obese-shaming"?  

 

Perhaps those advocating against "slut-shaming" should enlarge their platform to include "obesity-shaming", "non-nursing mothers shaming", "non-natural childbirth-shaming", "naturally grey hair shaming", "ddisposable diaper users shaming" etc.  For every action there is an opposite action (reaction) - Fat/thin; nursing/bottle feeding, etc. and there are proponents of each.  Being a proponent of one side does not mean that the other side must be doing something wrong or is suppressing natural traits.  It means that they have made an educated decision (which separates us from the animals)  to do something different from what you've decided to do.  But human nature doesn't like that.  It makes us question our own decisions when we see others do something different.  And you react and conclude that someone must be doing something horrible (bullying) to induce such decisions because it isn't the same decision you came to.

[Marylou]

Yes!  

 

Just because I use disposable diapers doesn't mean I will shame your family cloth use!

 

Carry on!