Smarmy self-righteousness? Check!

[ErinE]

Yes, this was for platinum members only, and since there are nice, polite, appropriate, not happy trampy mommy people on this thread, I'm not going to reiterate what I did to earn mine. I've probably embarassed myself enough and you just know someone here has that thread tagged and can go straight to it and look it up.

 

Rum and coke...dangerous thing...and I only indulge about twice per year. Wouldn't you know it. The planets aligned and my indulgence and that thread coincided in some sort of cosmic collision as only can happen on the WellTrained Mind Chat board.

 

I really need to make it a habit to learn from my mistakes!

 

Anyway, yes, if you were particularly naughtly, you could earn rhinestones on your hiney. Bill, has rhinestones, pearls, sequins, tassles, rubies, and any number of special items on his, but I'm not going to say what he did to be bestowed with such a high honor! :lol:

 

Dying, just dying!

 

May I one day be worthy of such a high (or low) honor!

[mommymilkies]

So if we have no fashion sense and we're totally oblivious to things like dark panties showing through clothes or an inadvertently too low cut shirt, do we get a gold star? Or should we be demoted because it's unintentional?

[FaithManor]

So if we have no fashion sense and we're totally oblivious to things like dark panties showing through clothes or an inadvertently too low cut shirt, do we get a gold star? Or should we be demoted because it's unintentional?

Well, I don't know that we've had a ruling on that. Since I hate to be judgmental :biggrinjester: , I would be more than happy to accept new members based on such a faux pax regardless of it being a mere blunder! But, one would have to embrace the spirit of the group, so those who would die in embarassment and beat themselves inferally over such a mistake, may not enjoy our mirth. :lol:

[unsinkable]

So if we have no fashion sense and we're totally oblivious to things like dark panties showing through clothes or an inadvertently too low cut shirt, do we get a gold star? Or should we be demoted because it's unintentional?

I thought the club was p@nties optional?

[*Lulu*]

So if we have no fashion sense and we're totally oblivious to things like dark panties showing through clothes or an inadvertently too low cut shirt, do we get a gold star? Or should we be demoted because it's unintentional?

 

There is no such thing as an unintentionally low cut shirt. Putting one on is clearly the work of a perverse mind and, could it be, Saaaaaatan?

 

(Does the a church lady pout- not to be confused with teenage sexy-fail duck face)

[Reflections]

I'm a little late to this party, but I just checked out the blog. It sounds to me like the mom may have been targeting her sons' specific female acquaintances who posted what she considered to be trashy photos on their FB pages, and wanted to send them a message without "naming names."

 

But then she ruined the whole effect by posting beefcake-style photos of her boys as part of the post.

 

What an idiot.

 

Someone should tell her than once girls see those half-n*ked boys, they can't unsee them. And those boys should realize that the girls will now think about s*x every time they see those boys, because the boys were clearly advertising their wares. :rolleyes:

 

I would have respected her opinion a whole lot more if she hadn't exhibited such an obvious double standard.

 

Look, I think it's pretty awful that 13yo girls are posting photos online of themselves in their underwear, but I'd feel exactly the same way if my ds posted pictures of himself posing in his undies.

 

Realistically, I saw nothing wrong with the photo of the boys goofing around at the beach and posing for the photo with their muscles flexed. They were kidding around and it looked completely innocent. BUT... that particular blog post was a very dopey place to feature that photo, because the text leads the reader to assume that if it was a group of teenaged girls in bikinis (with the very real potential for n*pples to be showing through the fabric! :eek:) it would have been horrible and sinful and those girls would no longer be permitted to have contact with those perfectly pure Hall boys.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the mom about wishing teenaged girls would stop posting the sultry selfies, but I absolutely disagree with the reasoning behind her opinion. Teenaged girls have no responsibility to protect those special snowflake Hall boys from impure thoughts... and that mom has quite a shock in store for her if she thinks she can magically prevent her teenagers from having impure thoughts by never letting them see a picture of a girl in her pjs.

 

 

Stop stealing the thoughts out of my head!  Is nothing sacred anymore?  Especially the special snowflake part....Good Gravy!  I almost feel....violated.

 

 

 

 

:lol:

[Joanne]

I personally hate the whole concept that women have some duty to protect men from their impure thoughts. It's nonsense and places responsibility in the wrong place.

 

 

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

[Pretty in Pink]

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

 

Exactly this.

[Reflections]

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

 

 

What?!?!?!  Are you WTM people like hard-wired into my brain today?  I'm going to go put my aluminum colander on my head.

 

 

See, I have no problem with my kids entertaining these thoughts.  I mean, that's how they got here and I assume that is how I will one day get grandchildren.  Not to imply that s*x needs to be for only procreation... please leave that thought for another thread.... this one shouldn't be locked.  But one day and one day soon my kids and yours will be adults...

 

 

And like my other post to Catwoman - one cannot read the minds of others NOR can they be controlled.  

[Danestress]

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

I agree and and thought about that as I was posting. But I hold two things in my mind - the idea that its normal to think about sex and to think about it A LOT. But then also that Jesus taught that our thoughts do matter and Paul's admonition to take thoughts captive. So I agree with you but also have some idea that we can and should choose what to think about (thanks David Foster Wallace) so I just decided to post from a 'assuming some thoughts might be impure' perspective.

[goldberry]

Ok, I'm sayin' it.....am I the only one who doesn't really know what a "duck-face" is???  Is it just the pouty lip thing?

[twoxcell]

 

Ok, I'm sayin' it.....am I the only one who doesn't really know what a "duck-face" is???  Is it just the pouty lip thing?

You are not alone. I have no idea what that means. :leaving:

[Ipsey]

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

 

I agree. 

I think in Christianity it comes to the "sinning in th heart."

Jesus said to "look at a woman with lust in one's heart" is adultery.

That's pretty strong.

So, it's understandable conservative Christians doing everything to keep boys from having lustful thoughts--as they are adulterous. Seeing a woman, no matter her state of dress/undress/attractiveness/unattractiveness, etc. is dangerous for him if he's aroused. And, it's not as if they can help it.

 

Pubescence in particular is a very trying time sexually for young people, (particularly boys, if I may say so. Most studies I've read say women reach sexual peak a little later, but still are sexually mature in their teens.) 

 

Poor boys, every time they're turned on and have a sexual impulse, they're sinning.

 

And so, some people have to saddle women/girls with the burden. Presumably, only shrouding them from head to foot and only allowing them to stand or sit up straight would be the way to save boys from committing adultery in their hearts.

And maybe not even that.

 

Nevermind the girls.

[PeacefulChaos]

Please tell me you are not friendless on fb today. I feel so responsible now. 

 

Lo and behold, I'm not!  Though I didn't get any 'likes' or comments on my sharing of the link.  ;)

And go figure, an hour later, yet another of my fb friends posted mrs. hall's blog! 

So what is the intent of a shirtless male who flexes his muscles in classic bodybuilder poses for pictures?

 

Good, clean fun, right?

 

So would it be totally weird here for me to say I find such pictures gross?  Seriously. 

Like, when we were watching the Wolverine movie, I turned to DH and was like, 'I just think he looks really... gross.'  :ack2:  muscles and veins and *ew* ... idk.  Guess bodybuilding types must just not be my thing.  :lol:

I personally hate the whole concept that women have some duty to protect men from their impure thoughts.  It's nonsense and places responsibility in the wrong place.

 

But males or females who post sultry  body displaying photos on facebook are sending (perhaps unintentionally) the same message in my opinion.  "Hey, look at me.  Don't I look awesome?  I enjoy knowing that you might be aroused and desirous when you see this, and I want you to think about me in a sexual way, if you haven't already."

 

Whether the poster is male or female, certain kinds of sultry photos are going to be received that way by some people.  Lets face it, even very modest pictures on FB are often seen as showing off.   There are tons of people who get upset just looking at a relatives vacation photos, expensive toys, or gourmet creations.   So naturally if people think photos of your first grader in front of your Lexus is showing off, they are going to think bikini shots are showing off.  It's human nature.  Our kids just need to understand that some people will always see the worst in everyone, and other people will be especially quick to condemn things that smack of sexuality, but that everything they post on FB opens them up to comment from a much larger audience than they might realize.  And they have to decide for themselves whether that bothers them.  

 

I just think girls need to also understand that that's how many people might "read" the subtext of their photos.  I don't think its "slut shaming" to point that out, and its true both for boys and girls, though girls might be more sensitive to being accused of displaying their assets/availability on purpose.  I think my boys would be happy to concede that they purposely are displaying their assets in hopes of receiving the admiration of the opposite sex.  Some girls might feel the same, but others might be deeply bothered by the accusation that they are engaging in what is essentially a mating ritual.

 

Just wanted to say that I totally agree with the bolded! 

And, I do see pictures like that from both boys and girls on my fb feed.  I don't think much of them - usually the girls at least look cute, and the boys I'm thinking, ok, look, dude, no one wants to see you in the bathroom mirror lifting your shirt to show off your six pack - or your keg - whatever.  :ack2:  But overall?  I don't really care.  Though if I get to where they post multiple pics per day, I do hide them, just because I find them annoying.    I figure I'm not their intended audience, anyway.

I don't think I'm being obtuse. Deliberate or otherwise. I have 7 sons and 3 daughters.

 

I see people all the time being completely oblivious to their "clowning" son and slamming down girls for doing typical equally stupid silly crap. We have absolutely no more reason to presume those girls were purposely trying to entice anyone. And she didn't mention anyone half naked in dim lighting posed seductively on their bed. She mentioned a fully dressed in pajamas girl without a bra and a gal in a towel.she mention red carpet poses (and again, what freak red carpet shows are ya'll watching?!).

 

I see boys on FB all the time posing flex shots and tough guy shots and all other kind of crap. I've never once seen or heard anyone ever comment on it.

 

Boys don't clown around like that to impress mom. They do it purposely (tho probably unconsciously) to get attention from girls. Mamas who think otherwise need to get a clue.

 

It's normal stupid silly immature teen stuff and it's nothing new to this generation.

 

And it's nothing new to tell girls they better be careful lest they be branded a scarlet letter for it and to ignore boys behaving in similar fashion as boys will be boys clowning around.

Ok, I'm NOT trying to be argumentative.  Remember, I agree with what's being said by most of the people on this thread.  ;)

I just can't help but think that this woman REALLY didn't know what she was doing when she wrote this blog post.  I mean, I know she knew in her head and based on what SHE thought and what her community of believers feels/thinks, but I don't think she had any real idea of how the post would come across to others outside of her normal circle, kwim?  And I can say firsthand that it's shocking when you first hear all the things that people are saying, because you just haven't ever heard it before (like the stuff about boys/girls/modesty/etc) - you've only heard things from your circle.  Though in the end, many people do realize that these points are logical and make a heck of a lot more sense.  Did that make any sense at all?  :lol:  I guess in a way I just sort of feel bad for Mrs. H.  I really don't think she knew what she was getting herself into... or maybe she did, in which case... well, whatever.  :p

I will say, too, that my first thought upon reading the blog - before I saw anything about it on here - was that the girls she was seeing were dressed in pjs like this or similar or skimpier, which make it pretty easy to see whether one is wearing a bra or not.  That said, I like those pjs - I wear something similar, as do most people I know.  So that was the outfit in my head, combined with a pose something like this (second picture down), turned either the way she is in the picture or facing forward (back arched type pose).  NOT that I'm saying this makes what she said ok, but I'm just saying - I do have girls in my feed who pose as such. 

Girls know that duck faces aren't cute or sexy.  Usually if they do duck faces, they're being stupid.    (in a silly way, not stupid in a stupid way)

 

This is a step closer, but I have gotten to where the whole idea of "impure thoughts" disturbs me.

 

I think it is normal, natural, and healthy to play with sexual thoughts. It doesn't bother me at all that my sons and dd have and entertain those thoughts or that their peers may think of them similarly.

I just wanted to comment on this because it kind of blows my mind.  Not in a bad way... I don't think these statements are wrong.  They're just so outside of what I've always heard, when I read them I was like, 'whoa...' in a kind of realization way.  :p

 

Ok, I'm sayin' it.....am I the only one who doesn't really know what a "duck-face" is???  Is it just the pouty lip thing?

Duck Face

 

Oh, and just for kicks - found this when I googled duck face.  :D :D

[Ipsey]

DOUBLE POST

 

 

[Ipsey]

 

Ok, I'm NOT trying to be argumentative.  Remember, I agree with what's being said by most of the people on this thread.  ;)

I just can't help but think that this woman REALLY didn't know what she was doing when she wrote this blog post.  I mean, I know she knew in her head and based on what SHE thought and what her community of believers feels/thinks, but I don't think she had any real idea of how the post would come across to others outside of her normal circle, kwim? 

 

********Added (I don't know how to get out of this quote, but this is Ipsey commenting here)*****

 

I have to agree. I don't have a blog, and I tell you, I'd never want to address anything even vaguely controversial online because I know if I feel on a specific "wrong" side of an issue, I could easily be dragged from one end of the online 'verse to the other. Really, the internet is one huge dogpile, I think.

 

I do feel bad for this lady. I imagine she'd never have posted this had she had any idea of the response.

 

I.

[bobbeym]

Oh, and just for kicks - found this when I googled duck face.  :D :D

 

Now that's a perfectly acceptable duck face. :laugh:  In general I think it's a stupid look and don't get why kids today think it's cute or funny or sexy or whatever.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree. 

I think in Christianity it comes to the "sinning in th heart."

Jesus said to "look at a woman with lust in one's heart" is adultery.

That's pretty strong.

 

 

I know you aren't the one actually making this argument, but I'm using your post as a jumping off point.

 

But I think it had a VERY specific meaning that people are missing. In fact, by imposing the idea on girls that they must keep boys from sinning? They would be totally and completely getting the point of Jesus wrong. In this passage Jesus is talking about food rules. He is explaining that sin doesn't come from eating the wrong thing. He is saying that sin starts in your heart-on the inside. Sin doesn't start with *anything* external. http://biblia.com/books/esv/Mt15.8

 

The passage you are talking about is here: 

 

It doesn't read as anyone who has a sexual feeling is sinning. It says "everyone who looks at a woman with *lustful intent* has already committed adultery with her in his heart." What does that mean? Lustful intent? To me, it means *exactly* what this mom is (and maybe her sons are, but who knows?) doing. They are assigning lustful, impure thoughts to photos of girls who may (we don't know, we haven't seen the photos and don't know the girls) have not been meant to be sexy and alluring. Trying to get a gaze down a girl's shirt or peering intently at her behind as she bends over, thinking about how you can get with her, coveting another person-those are things that fall under lustful intent. It isn't arousal that falls under lustful intent, IMO. Assigning impure thoughts to girls providing external stimuli is the *opposite* of how Jesus says that sin happens. 

 

[Pretty in Pink]

I just can't get behind the idea that a teen becoming aroused is somehow sinful. I can't get behind that world view. The attachment of shame and guilt to sexuality has no place in my home. It's things like this that keep me out of church, to be perfectly honest.

[nmoira]

I think VIP members even have rhinestones on theirs

 

I think you mean "upon thars."   :D

 

Can we just be done with the slut shaming? It's seriously tired. If you don't want your boys to see girls, keep *them* in the house. Oh, and the beach would be a good place to avoid. And you could find a better activity for family fun night than scouring FB albums of teenage girls and discussing breasts and cracks & crevices.

[kitten18]

Are you drinking yet?

 

:lol:

I am, but I don't have anything funny to say.

[*Lulu*]

I am, but I don't have anything funny to say.

It's okay; that lampshade you're sporting says it all!

 

:P

[kitten18]

What? Nothing embroidered on the seat of shorts? Tsk, tsk. Obviously you're not an elite member.

I have an embroidery machine...

[nmoira]

It's okay; that lampshade you're sporting says it all!

 

:p

 

Yes, yes it does.

 

 

[kitten18]

I am, but I don't have anything funny to say.

I could definitely see that happening later. I've had a vodka and diet ginger ale and two beers and I live in CA and its not quite 5:00pm here yet.

 

My disclaimer is that I've had a very stressful two days, my issue is now resolved, and I'm blowin off steam.

[kitten18]

I could definitely see that happening later. I've had a vodka and diet ginger ale and two beers and I live in CA and its not quite 5:00pm here yet.

 

My disclaimer is that I've had a very stressful two days, my issue is now resolved, and I'm blowin off steam.

Hey, I quoted myself. I didn't mean to do that. Drinking and posting on my phone is a bad combination.

[*Lulu*]

I could definitely see that happening later. I've had a vodka and diet ginger ale and two beers and I live in CA and its not quite 5:00pm here yet.

 

My disclaimer is that I've had a very stressful two days, my issue is now resolved, and I'm blowin off steam.

The two pressing questions are (in no particular order):

 

Are you wearing a bustiere to match your lampshade?

 

Are you trying to strike a red-carpet-come-hither-I've-got-a-duck-face pose?

[kitten18]

The two pressing questions are (in no particular order):

 

Are you wearing a bustiere to match your lampshade?

 

Are you trying to strike a red-carpet-come-hither-I've-got-a-duck-face pose?

I have some lingerie in the drawer but not a bustier quite like that.

 

I'm pretty sure my come-hither duck-face pose would look as ridiculous as the teen girls'.

 

So, I guess that is a no.

[I.Dup.]

I just can't get behind the idea that a teen becoming aroused is somehow sinful. I can't get behind that world view. The attachment of shame and guilt to sexuality has no place in my home. It's things like this that keep me out of church, to be perfectly honest.

 

See, and I don't get this world view. Not that I want to infuse my children with shame and guilt, but how does your home handle things like masturbation, sleeping with various boyfriends/girlfriends, getting sexual at home or in front of siblings (making out with boyfriend/girlfriend) or in their bedroom, etc. I remember feeling like once things got started, it was very hard for it to be stopped. It would have been much easier to be "kept away" from all of that. And no, not every teen naturally knows how to masturbate. I never did. My dh didn't (truly. He didn't. He would have no problem telling me if he did. This is not something he learned until after he was sexually active). Many of my friends didn't.

 

*I* feel shame and guilt because I truly felt like the sexual things I did as a teenager were shameful. My parents never told me that. I was just intrinsically embarrassed, I guess. *shrug*

[FaithManor]

Wearing a lampshades to a public place without a whole lot else will definitely get you a platinum

membership in the Happy Trampy Mommy club. The duck pose face will get you demoted!

[Mrs Mungo]

See, and I don't get this world view. Not that I want to infuse my children with shame and guilt, but how does your home handle things like masturbation, sleeping with various boyfriends/girlfriends, getting sexual at home or in front of siblings (making out with boyfriend/girlfriend) or in their bedroom, etc. I remember feeling like once things got started, it was very hard for it to be stopped. 

 

What do you mean? I think it starts with early training. When little kids stick their hands down their pants, then you say "we don't put our hands down our pants in front of people." Sleeping with various girlfriends/boyfriends in the home (or even having a boy/girl friend in their bedroom) is way outside of my experience of how teens act (even those from non-religious families), so I'm not sure what you mean.

[Pretty in Pink]

See, and I don't get this world view. Not that I want to infuse my children with shame and guilt, but how does your home handle things like masturbation, sleeping with various boyfriends/girlfriends, getting sexual at home or in front of siblings (making out with boyfriend/girlfriend) or in their bedroom, etc. I remember feeling like once things got started, it was very hard for it to be stopped. It would have been much easier to be "kept away" from all of that. And no, not every teen naturally knows how to masturbate. I never did. My dh didn't (truly. He didn't. He would have no problem telling me if he did. This is not something he learned until after he was sexually active). Many of my friends didn't.

 

*I* feel shame and guilt because I truly felt like the sexual things I did as a teenager were shameful. My parents never told me that. I was just intrinsically embarrassed, I guess. *shrug*

 

Speaking for myself, of course:

 

How do we handle masturbation? Do it in private. Wash your own sheets. It's healthy, normal, natural.

 

...sleeping with various people? Well, my eldest is still a virgin. We keep the lines of communication open, discuss sexual situations we see on television shows or in movies -- not lecture him, but if he makes a comment about something he's seen then I take that cue to open a dialogue with him on the topic. I do not and would not encourage him to sleep around. It's dangerous from an emotional and physical standpoint.

 

...getting sexual at home? He would not be punished for it.

 

...in front of sibs? Hand holding or a quick kiss on the cheek would be fine. Anything else needs to be done in private, not in front of family members. I don't mean that I'd send him off to his room to make out. If I saw him kissing a girl passionately then I'd have a discussion with him about it, of course. That discussion would include a reminder that some things are meant to be done in private, not in front of one's siblings.

 

...boy/girl in bedroom? Door open, yes.

 

I think it's safe to say that *most* teens know how to masturbate or they figure it out at some point. Why did you feel shame about sex as a teen? What did your parents tell you about sex?

 

I remember trying not to get caught as a teen because my parents shamed me heavily for it, and perhaps because my earliest exposures were before age 5 through pornography and inappropriate touches from a handsy "uncle." I did not grow up in a home with an open dialogue. I grew up in a home where women were called sluts, where I was verbally and physically abused.

 

 

[bolt.]

"Lustful intent" is a sin because it inducates that the person's will is willing to have sex -- even if sex might not actually result.

 

If a person is feeling aroused but is not "actually willing to go ahead" -- that's not lust. Lust is "willing, but can't" or "would if I could" (or "willing and going to"). Not willing = not lusting

 

Example: I have a silly schoolgirl crush on David Tennant. However, if he walked into my bedroom this minute, wanting to sleep with me -- I'd slap his face and call the police if he didn't scamper. I'm attracted, possibly drooling, but absolutely not *willing* to be sexual. That means my crush feeling is not lust.

 

Lust is not a feeling of a thought -- it's an intent; a decision; a status. It is a sin of the will.

[mommymilkies]

"Lustful intent" is a sin because it inducates that the person's will is willing to have sex -- even if sex might not actually result.

 

If a person is feeling aroused but is not "actually willing to go ahead" -- that's not lust. Lust is "willing, but can't" or "would if I could" (or "willing and going to"). Not willing = not lusting

 

Example: I have a silly schoolgirl crush on David Tennant. However, if he walked into my bedroom this minute, wanting to sleep with me -- I'd slap his face and call the police if he didn't scamper. I'm attracted, possibly drooling, but absolutely not *willing* to be sexual. That means my crush feeling is not lust.

 

Lust is not a feeling of a thought -- it's an intent; a decision; a status. It is a sin of the will.

Can you send him my way instead? Kidding! Kind of...

[FaithManor]

"Lustful intent" is a sin because it inducates that the person's will is willing to have sex -- even if sex might not actually result.

 

If a person is feeling aroused but is not "actually willing to go ahead" -- that's not lust. Lust is "willing, but can't" or "would if I could" (or "willing and going to"). Not willing = not lusting

 

Example: I have a silly schoolgirl crush on David Tennant. However, if he walked into my bedroom this minute, wanting to sleep with me -- I'd slap his face and call the police if he didn't scamper. I'm attracted, possibly drooling, but absolutely not *willing* to be sexual. That means my crush feeling is not lust.

 

Lust is not a feeling of a thought -- it's an intent; a decision; a status. It is a sin of the will.

Thank you for saying this. I believe the same way, yet was struggling to create a

post this clear.

[bolt.]

OK, if he says, "Geee, sorry, I just thought I'd offer. We could have a cup of tea and chat instead -- yeah?"

 

That would totally be OK.

[Mrs Mungo]

"Lustful intent" is a sin because it inducates that the person's will is willing to have sex -- even if sex might not actually result.

 

If a person is feeling aroused but is not "actually willing to go ahead" -- that's not lust. Lust is "willing, but can't" or "would if I could" (or "willing and going to"). Not willing = not lusting

 

Example: I have a silly schoolgirl crush on David Tennant. However, if he walked into my bedroom this minute, wanting to sleep with me -- I'd slap his face and call the police if he didn't scamper. I'm attracted, possibly drooling, but absolutely not *willing* to be sexual. That means my crush feeling is not lust.

 

Lust is not a feeling of a thought -- it's an intent; a decision; a status. It is a sin of the will.

I agree with this too.

 

The point I was trying to make was that *Christianity* as a whole is not putting forth the idea that girls are causing boys to sin (just because some Christians do). The words of Jesus make it quite clear that our sin is entirely our own and that it starts with a heart willing to sin.

[bolt.]

A personal paraphrase of the verse might be something like:

 

"As soon as a person looks at someone else and decides that s/he would be sexual with that person if s/he could -- the sexual sin is already fully accomplished and real within the person, regardless of whether any sexual activity actually occurs."

[goldberry]

  :p

 

Duck Face

 

Oh, and just for kicks - found this when I googled duck face.  :D :D

 

Ooookay......now I'm even more confused over her blog.  I've seen some facebook pics that disturbed me, but that would just have me laughing.   Do girls really do that in a serious way?  To me that would just be like mocking or making fun of a sexy pose, instead of really trying to BE sexy.  I would absolutely take that in the same spirit as muscle flexing on the beach. 

 

(Oh - and David Tennant?  *sigh*  I've been watching Broadchurch only because I think that man is gorgeous in whatever he is in.  Even a duck face!)

[FaithManor]

Does anyone else here think it may be difficult from this day forth for Mrs. Hall's special snowflakes to

get a date? They may have to attend college a Loooooooooooong way from home and change their last name

poor kids!

[Joanne]

See, and I don't get this world view. Not that I want to infuse my children with shame and guilt, but how does your home handle things like masturbation, sleeping with various boyfriends/girlfriends, getting sexual at home or in front of siblings (making out with boyfriend/girlfriend) or in their bedroom, etc. I remember feeling like once things got started, it was very hard for it to be stopped. It would have been much easier to be "kept away" from all of that. And no, not every teen naturally knows how to masturbate. I never did. My dh didn't (truly. He didn't. He would have no problem telling me if he did. This is not something he learned until after he was sexually active). Many of my friends didn't.

 

*I* feel shame and guilt because I truly felt like the sexual things I did as a teenager were shameful. My parents never told me that. I was just intrinsically embarrassed, I guess. *shrug*

 

Masturbation: it's private. Fun, natural, and a way to learn about what feels good so that you can communicate that info with a partner.

 

Sleeping with various bf/gf: um? We talk about sexual activity, partnering, and sex often. I do not allow teens or young adults to have intimate contatct @ my home. At some point, I would allow an established couple to visit and share sleep space, but only if they live independently. Maybe later in college?

 

Making out: this has not been an issue. I believe "making out" or anything beyond a simple quick kiss innappropriate in public or company.

In private and in a mutual, consentual relationship, I don't believe that "it" needs to be avoided if both people are interested in expressing themselves physically.

 

Flirting? Fun!

[Joules]

Does anyone else here think it may be difficult from this day forth for Mrs. Hall's special snowflakes to

get a date?

!

Wasn't that the goal? I suspect that dating is bad, too. I think she plans to pick the perfect girl for each one (or create her in a lab) and arrange the marriage to her liking. Really if her boys are so weak that they can't unsee things or control themselves, maybe it's best. (I can't seem to do smileys on this thing, I'm being facetious here. As a matter of fact as I imagine her making the perfect dil, I can't get Rocky Horror out of my mind and I swear it's not Irish coffee I'm drinking.)

[FaithManor]

Wasn't that the goal? I suspect that dating is bad, too. I think she plans to pick the perfect girl for each one (or create her in a lab) and arrange the marriage to her liking. Really if her boys are so weak that they can't unsee things or control themselves, maybe it's best. (I can't seem to do smileys on this thing, I'm being facetious here. As a matter of fact as I imagine her making the perfect dil, I can't get Rocky Horror out of my mind and I swear it's not Irish coffee I'm drinking.)

True! She'll probably clone June Cleaver for them.

 

I wonder if they'll have the exact same clone? Probably not. Let's see, who would be on the approved list.

 

Ma Ingalls - of course, this could be dicey because Laura CHOSE Almanzo though I sometimes wonder if Pa may have had a hand in it. I don't think she'd be down with the anything other than an arranged marriage.

 

Marmee from Little Women? Nope, can't be her because she and hubby were into the transcendentalist movement of Concord.

 

So scratch Marmee...hmmmm....have got to find another one. Mrs. Brady Bunch would be too radical and had all of those short skirts.

 

I guess we'll have to hark back further...Abigail Adams or Martha Washington - but, did their corset style colonial dresses show cleavage?

 

It's going to be very difficult for her to find the perfect human female to clone.

[nmoira]

It's going to be very difficult for her to find the perfect human female to clone.

Impossible indeed. Only a woman as wholesome as herself would suffice, and it's likely there are no women as wholesome as the herself.

[Parrothead]

Teens think about sex - a lot. Teens flirt - a lot. To embrace a loving God who created teens to look, feel, and act that way but then to deny that reality strikes me as honoring a rather twisted God.

The reality is it can't be blamed on God. It is our modern society that says teens are not adults. Society dictates teens must be in school until 16. Marriages need parental permission. Society extends childhood to the age of 18 or in some cases even as late as 21 or 25.

 

Scholars know back in the day girls were married at 14. For us it is appalling that the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus as a 14 year old girl. Or that Muhammad married an 8-year old. Many children left home to make their way in the world much earlier too. Ten and 12 year old boys started as cabin boys on ships. Apprentices were sent to their masters just as early.

 

So what has gotten twisted isn't god's view on purity and sexuality, but societies view on when children become adults. Humans used to cut their children loose when they became sexually mature, same as other animals. Not so much anymore. That is society's issue. Not God's.

[Parrothead]

I agree.

I think in Christianity it comes to the "sinning in th heart."

Jesus said to "look at a woman with lust in one's heart" is adultery.

That's pretty strong.

So, it's understandable conservative Christians doing everything to keep boys from having lustful thoughts--as they are adulterous. Seeing a woman, no matter her state of dress/undress/attractiveness/unattractiveness, etc. is dangerous for him if he's aroused. And, it's not as if they can help it.

 

Pubescence in particular is a very trying time sexually for young people, (particularly boys, if I may say so. Most studies I've read say women reach sexual peak a little later, but still are sexually mature in their teens.)

 

Poor boys, every time they're turned on and have a sexual impulse, they're sinning.

 

And so, some people have to saddle women/girls with the burden. Presumably, only shrouding them from head to foot and only allowing them to stand or sit up straight would be the way to save boys from committing adultery in their hearts.

And maybe not even that.

 

Nevermind the girls.

I had this long post half way typed out pointing out the fallacies of the thinking and taking bible passages out of context to suit. Then I realized that ultimately it comes down to control. These uber religious parts of society want to control or be controlled. It is essentially a power trip for those in charge. Be it the family, the congregation, the society at large.

 

Without playing the my-religion-is-better-than-your-religion card I will say not all of Christianity is like that. I can't speak for Muslims or Jews because I'm not familiar enough with the teachings. And obviously religions that have someone other than capital G God as the head may or may not have different teachings on sexuality.

 

My point is, we can't blame religion. Religion without the twistings done by the humans (dare I say men) in charge has become something not nice.

[Wheres Toto]

See, and I don't get this world view. Not that I want to infuse my children with shame and guilt, but how does your home handle things like masturbation, sleeping with various boyfriends/girlfriends, getting sexual at home or in front of siblings (making out with boyfriend/girlfriend) or in their bedroom, etc. I remember feeling like once things got started, it was very hard for it to be stopped. It would have been much easier to be "kept away" from all of that. And no, not every teen naturally knows how to masturbate. I never did. My dh didn't (truly. He didn't. He would have no problem telling me if he did. This is not something he learned until after he was sexually active). Many of my friends didn't.

 

*I* feel shame and guilt because I truly felt like the sexual things I did as a teenager were shameful. My parents never told me that. I was just intrinsically embarrassed, I guess. *shrug*

 

 

Just because something isn't done in public, doesn't mean it's shameful.   As Mrs. Mungo said - you start with teaching them not to stick their hands in their pants in public.  Start with telling them that some things are meant to be done in private.   Continual discussion as they get older teaches them appropriate behavior without shame.   I'm not sure what you mean by "once things get started, it was very hard for it to be stopped"?  If you allow masturbation, you have to allow sex in your home?  That hasn't been my experience.  It's not an all or nothing.   My oldest and I have had many many discussions.  Allowing her to date, being aware of her "activity" doesn't mean I"m telling her it's okay to behave inappropriately in front of me or her younger siblings.   That's not even something that had to be said, she figured that one out on her own.

 

Ooookay......now I'm even more confused over her blog.  I've seen some facebook pics that disturbed me, but that would just have me laughing.   Do girls really do that in a serious way?  To me that would just be like mocking or making fun of a sexy pose, instead of really trying to BE sexy.  I would absolutely take that in the same spirit as muscle flexing on the beach. 

 

(Oh - and David Tennant?  *sigh*  I've been watching Broadchurch only because I think that man is gorgeous in whatever he is in.  Even a duck face!)

 

In my opinion/experience with teenage girls - no they are not doing it seriously.  It's something they do when they are being goofy/silly, usually with other girls.  They are aware of how goofy it looks.  It's partially a mocking of the strained faces boys make when they are making muscles.

[nmoira]

My point is, we can't blame religion. Religion without the twistings done by the humans (dare I say men) in charge has become something not nice.

And communism is humane, efficient and sensible, right up until it's put into practice. We can't separate people from their systems because they are part of them, religious systems included. There is no religion without people.

[Parrothead]

And communism is humane, efficient and sensible, right up until it's put into practice. We can't separate people from their systems because they are part of them, religious systems included. There is no religion without people.

Is it? Is communism humane, efficient and sensible?

 

Do you blame the fanatics or the system they have perverted? Do you condemn out of hand democracy or those who would force it upon everyone wether they wanted a democratic society or not? Every society has its so-called bad apples. To condemn the society or system or religion or family because of the perverted ideas of a few is not right. We lay blame where it belongs, with the individual. Not with the entire system. We don't condemn the entire family for cousin Bob's robbery of the liquor store. We don't condem every Muslim for the events of 9/11. We don't condemn every citizen in the former USSR just trying to get by for communism.

[nmoira]

Is it? Is communism humane, efficient and sensible?

 

Do you blame the fanatics or the system they have perverted? Do you condemn out of hand democracy or those who would force it upon everyone wether they wanted a democratic society or not? Every society has its so-called bad apples. To condemn the society or system or religion or family because of the perverted ideas of a few is not right. We lay blame where it belongs, with the individual. Not with the entire system. We don't condemn the entire family for cousin Bob's robbery of the liquor store. We don't condem every Muslim for the events of 9/11. We don't condemn every citizen in the former USSR just trying to get by for communism.

We're not talking about fanatics and outliers, but rather about systems built and refined by people.

 

My point about communism is to show not only the the gap between theory and practice, but also its inevitably when we don't take human nature into account. People develop a theory, people put it into practice, people adapt it. One person's perversion of the system is another's progression. You said you can't blame religion, but it's a system like any other that is molded my its members... whether perversion, progression, or an incremental change on the way to one or the other. Where you and I differ is in your seeing divine agency at the beginning. But if an omniscient and omnipresent God created people, he also knowingly created their predisposition towards hierarchy and systems: We are part of our systems.