"Experiment that convinced me online p@rn is the most pernicious threat facing children today"

[shawthorne44]

I will never forget the time that I was at my MIL's and I asked to use their computer for a work emergency.  They said to use Niece's login, "everyone does".  Niece and niece's mother lived with my MIL.  Niece was a fresh-faced 16-year-old.  Her internet home page was disgusting porn and seared into my brain.  Someone otherwise female had extra parts that went in circles.  I really really really did not want to see that.  I know her, and I know that was just her way of showing her annoyance that everyone was using her internet login.  But, the casual nature of it really bothered me. 

[Joanne]

I didn't even imply that 'moderate "use" is harmful', I was pointing out the fact that pornography troubles millions of people over the age of 18 simply because porn has been available to people for a few generations now--and therefore, it is reasonable to assume abused

by some fraction of those using it.

 

Factoring in the idea that every year sees more people being introduced to pornography (which started in the 1900's and grew noticeably during the 60s, 70s and 80s) it is reasonable to assume that many teens and kids today have parents that are porn viewers and a smaller portion (which is still a sizable population) addicts. Many articles fail to talk about the millions of young men and women ages 18-50 who feel that pornography is negatively effecting their lives. Also, sexual addictions and specifically pornography addiction isn't even well understood by many professionals in the fields, its likely that porn addiction has been undiagnosed, misdiagnosed and improperly treated for years.

Where is your objective, empirical data for these assertions?

[Rosie_0801]

 ( Although all of us are filthy compared to God!!!) 

 

Nope. 

 

 Human and filthy are not synonyms.

[bolt.]

Most people tend to use euphemisms when we have to talk about sex and virginity, but I find the use of the moral concept of "purity" as a euphemism for virginity (for either gender) to be terribly misguided and definitely damaging. In fact I find fault with the entire concept of virginity being something that matters.

 

As a Christian I think sexual chastity matters -- but chastity is about what you are *doing* right now: whether or not you are sexually active, currently. Virginity is about some (supposedly permanent) status that is changed at the point of your first sexual experience.

 

It's like sex is the only sin that (supposedly) changes forever an aspect of your identity. In reality, if a sexually active person ceases their sexual activity, they are just as chaste as the person who has never been sexually active. That's important. If you want to bring "practical theology" into the life of plausibly promiscuous young adults, it's terribly important to refrain from the idea that one's first sexual experience turns you forever into 'something else' that can't be changed back. That's not Christian. If the "horses" are out of the barn, why would anyone be motivated to shut the barn doors at that point? What really needs to be said is, "Come home. There is purity here for all, flowing from the cross of a Saviour who will make all things new. You are not ruined. You can do something different today, and that matters." To say, 'sin no more' is more powerful than to say, 'don'ch'a wish you weren't already ruined?' <-- That is exactly the message inherent in every sex talk that warns young adults not to loose-forever their precious pure virginity -- As if it's a one-shot deal! As if we've forgotten the meaning of redemption.

[Heather in Neverland]

I do not teach my 15yo about "purity"...I teach him about SELF-CONTROL. That is what is missing from this world. People with self-control. Yes teenagers have sexual urges. But they CAN control it. We talk about them like they are no better than dogs in heat and my ds finds that insulting.

 

The world tells me that because I think porn is dangerous and should be abolished and people should wait until marriage for sex, I am "sexually repressed."

 

Really?

 

Sex is great. I love sex. But I don't like hearing what "sexual" beings we are all the time. Why are we so obsessed with that one small facet of our lives? We let an urge control us when we should be controlling our urges.

 

I love sex but I am not a sexual being. I am a human being.

[nmoira]

Another rebuttal to Sales' Vanity Fair article:

 

Just blame social media: Vanity Fair's sad and ugly teen sex panic

 

 

Sales promises to expose "a world where boys are taught they have the right to expect everything from social submission to outright sex from their female peers." But for a 6,000-word essay that’s ostensibly about male expectations and male desires, it’s telling that it only directly names and quotes one boy. Three other nameless male teens are given single throwaway lines. One of them, despite the article’s virtually exclusive focus on heterosexual sex, is talking about gay hookups. And that quote isn’t even a firsthand account.

 

If we were actually interested in looking at how boys are "taught" to expect sex, we might consider asking a few of them. But instead, we treat them like mute forces of nature, incapable of empathy when given access to sexting. We assume that men exploiting women is inevitable the moment we let girls onto the internet or out of the house. Social media amplifies the kind of sexual double standard the interviewees describe, but Sales never seems to consider questioning the double standard itself. If anything, she plays right into it.

 

I particularly like the bolded:

 

 

If you want a real story about how social media hurts girls, look at cyberbullying victim Rehtaeh Parsons. Parsons, 15, was allegedly gang-raped while blacked out at a party by four boys, who took pictures of the incident and posted them online. The case against the boys was dropped for lack of evidence, though it was later reopened and child pornography charges were filed. Parsons, meanwhile, was mocked as a slut by fellow students both online and offline, her parents said. "Her friends turned against her, people harassed her, boys she didn’t know started texting her and Facebooking her, asking her to have sex with them since she had had sex with their friends." At age 17, she committed suicide.

 

Parson’s story underlines a blunt truth: technology and social media can be brutal tools in the wrong hands. But online communication isn't a gun — it has many, many uses that are neither dehumanizing nor isolating, and suggesting that the internet is raising a generation of callow sociopaths whitewashes problems that have always existed offline. When we talk about cybersex or even "hookup culture" in general, we end up taking aim at sex while giving sexism a pass.

 

The internet created a forum for Parsons’ classmates to shame her. It made it almost impossible for her to escape the comments. But should we really argue that smartphones are a bigger problem than rapists? Should we pretend that boys who assume any non-virginal girl is fair game, or girls who relentlessly police their friends’ sexuality, weren’t just as common 10 — or a hundred — years ago?

 

Why is it so much easier to blame Facebook than look at the misogyny and hatred it reflects?

 

[Dory]

I do not teach my 15yo about "purity"...I teach him about SELF-CONTROL. That is what is missing from this world. People with self-control. Yes teenagers have sexual urges. But they CAN control it. We talk about them like they are no better than dogs in heat and my ds finds that insulting.

 

The world tells me that because I think porn is dangerous and should be abolished and people should wait until marriage for sex, I am "sexually repressed."

 

Really?

 

Sex is great. I love sex. But I don't like hearing what "sexual" beings we are all the time. Why are we so obsessed with that one small facet of our lives? We let an urge control us when we should be controlling our urges.

 

I love sex but I am not a sexual being. I am a human being.

 

I pretty much agree with you, although I say that yes, I am a sexual being. I also have an emotional side to my being, a mental side to my being, a spiritual side to my being, and a physical side to my being. They are all meant to work together. When the focus is just on the sexual side of who I am, that's unhealthy and unbalanced. When how I act and what I say shows all sides of that working together, I tend to be a lot happier, more balanced individual. I am female. I can act and think in ways that are normal to my gender and normal hormones. That would be acknowledging my sexual side. I can enjoy my husband, that would also be acknowledging my sexual side. But if I let my hormones get out of control than I am no longer expressing my spiritual, emotional, or mental sides of my being in a balance with my sexual side.

[albeto.]

I do not teach my 15yo about "purity"...I teach him about SELF-CONTROL. That is what is missing from this world. People with self-control. 

 

I don't agree. Spousal abuse has decreased. That's self control.

Beating the snot out of children because they did something annoying has decreased. That's self control.

Coercing employees to "put out or get out" has decreased. That's self control.

Yelling "hubba hubba" to the female employee at work has all but disappeared in most work environments. That's self control.

Walking back to school after being shot in the freaking head for daring to be a girl walking to school takes the kind of self control I cannot fathom. It actually takes my breath away.

The world isn't missing self control. It's just no longer in agreement that enjoying sex outside the parameters of marriage is a dangerous, unpleasant, or immoral thing.

[Heather in Neverland]

I don't agree. Spousal abuse has decreased. That's self control.

Beating the snot out of children because they did something annoying has decreased. That's self control.

Coercing employees to "put out or get out" has decreased. That's self control.

Yelling "hubba hubba" to the female employee at work has all but disappeared in most work environments. That's self control.

Walking back to school after being shot in the freaking head for daring to be a girl walking to school takes the kind of self control I cannot fathom. It actually takes my breath away.

The world isn't missing self control. It's just no longer in agreement that enjoying sex outside the parameters of marriage is a dangerous, unpleasant, or immoral thing.

Well if that is your version of self-control then we will just have to agree to disagree. I set the bar for self-control quite a bit higher than that and we humans are still far below where we should be.

 

People letting their urge for sex reign without being tempered by self-control... That's a big contributor to the world's problems.

[albeto.]

Well if that is your version of self-control then we will just have to agree to disagree. I set the bar for self-control quite a bit higher than that and we humans are still far below where we should be.

 

People letting their urge for sex reign without being tempered by self-control... That's a big contributor to the world's problems.

 

Why do you think the boundaries of marriage is the thing that determines self control? If we understand self control to be the ability to control one's emotions, behavior, and desires, what does a marriage license have to do with any of that? Do you think people who don't want to be married cannot control their emotions, behaviors, and desires and just have sex with every willing (or unwilling) participant? Do you think they want to reserve sex for marriage but fail? I don't think I quite understand.

 

I think unfettered capitalism, and a refusal to let women have equal status politically, economically and socially has contributed to the world's problems pretty horrifyingly myself, but I digress.

[Joanne]

Well if that is your version of self-control then we will just have to agree to disagree. I set the bar for self-control quite a bit higher than that and we humans are still far below where we should be.

 

People letting their urge for sex reign without being tempered by self-control... That's a big contributor to the world's problems.

 

Really?

 

I'm not seeing it. Pollution, poverty, ill health, war, violence, addiction?

 

IMO the overwhelming majority of people have and use boundaries and impulse and self control with regard to sex.

[Heather in Neverland]

I think unfettered capitalism, and a refusal to let women have equal status politically, economically and socially has contributed to the world's problems pretty horrifyingly myself, but I digress.

I think we have raised generations of people who think they can and should have whatever they want whenever they want it. Period. That is a lack of self-control. That is also behind unfettered capitalism and oppression of women and debt and a host of the world's ills.

[Joanne]

I think we have raised generations of people who think they can and should have whatever they want whenever they want it. Period. That is a lack of self-control. That is also behind unfettered capitalism and oppression of women and debt and a host of the world's ills.

 

Oppression of women has existed since ancient times.

 

Usually played out through religion.

[Joanne]

I do not teach my 15yo about "purity"...I teach him about SELF-CONTROL. That is what is missing from this world. People with self-control. Yes teenagers have sexual urges. But they CAN control it. We talk about them like they are no better than dogs in heat and my ds finds that insulting.

 

The world tells me that because I think porn is dangerous and should be abolished and people should wait until marriage for sex, I am "sexually repressed."

 

Really?

 

Sex is great. I love sex. But I don't like hearing what "sexual" beings we are all the time. Why are we so obsessed with that one small facet of our lives? We let an urge control us when we should be controlling our urges.

 

I love sex but I am not a sexual being. I am a human being.

 

 

Some people don't agree that "controlling" sexual urges looks the same as you do. I think making respectful, conscious, prepared and heartfelt decisions about sex is control. I personally don't see anyone - here, in real life, in my job talk about teens as if they "were no better than dogs in heat." Of course, I don't have the same reaction to sexual content as you do, so how I process sexual content is going to be different.

 

I don't see anyone who does not understand why and how a person would be against porn. Even if they don't share the opinion, the overwhelming majority of people I know totally get the stand against porn. (I, for one, am against the porn *industry*)

 

Who says "all the time" that we are sexual beings? Certainly in these threads, it is the topic. But in every day, face to face daily life? I talk about Dr. Who, minecraft, honors classes, driving school, college plans, spirituality, and dozens of goofy topics with the teens at my school. I almost never talk about sex in face to face life with my adult circle. In what world do you live that sex is so consuming?

 

[nmoira]

I think we have raised generations of people who think they can and should have whatever they want whenever they want it. Period. That is a lack of self-control. That is also behind unfettered capitalism and oppression of women and debt and a host of the world's ills.

 

I'm curious where you place the dividing line was between the generations of people who lack self-control and the generations with. Is this something that cycles throughout history, or is this transition a unique occurrence?

[Free]

I do not teach my 15yo about "purity"...I teach him about SELF-CONTROL. That is what is missing from this world. People with self-control. Yes teenagers have sexual urges. But they CAN control it. We talk about them like they are no better than dogs in heat and my ds finds that insulting.

 

In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings - as if they are somehow wrong or dirty. When kids find themselves experiencing these very same feelings which they know they are supposed to control but often fail in doing so it can lead to unhealthy shame about themselves. It can lead to a belief that they have somehow acted like dogs in heat.

 

Some people don't agree that "controlling" sexual urges looks the same as you do. I think making respectful, conscious, prepared and heartfelt decisions about sex is control.

 

I prefer to frame sexual urge in itself as normal. If my child finds himself acting on sexual impulses I definitely do not want him to think of himself as a dog in heat. Joanne has said it much better and I agree. I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner.

[Dory]

In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings - as if they are somehow wrong or dirty. When kids find themselves experiencing these very same feelings which they know they are supposed to control but often fail in doing so it can lead to unhealthy shame about themselves. It can lead to a belief that they have somehow acted like dogs in heat.

 

 

I prefer to frame sexual urge in itself as normal. If my child finds himself acting on sexual impulses I definitely do not want him to think of himself as a dog in heat. Joanne has said it much better and I agree. I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner.

 

I'm not sure why self control is considered a bad thing. I have lots of desires and urges that I control. Many of them are not bad in and of themselves. In fact many of them are things that I enjoy and can bring enjoyment to others regularly, but they still have to be controlled to some extent. Controlling emotions and hormones is a good and healthy thing.

Thinking that controlling equals negative would be like saying, I have to control my 16HH Thoroughbred ex-race horse, therefore he must be a bad horse. He isn't, it's just that the very thing that makes him such an amazing horse, can also get the better of him and end up hurting himself and his rider.

[Joanne]

In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings - as if they are somehow wrong or dirty. When kids find themselves experiencing these very same feelings which they know they are supposed to control but often fail in doing so it can lead to unhealthy shame about themselves. It can lead to a belief that they have somehow acted like dogs in heat.

 

 

I prefer to frame sexual urge in itself as normal. If my child finds himself acting on sexual impulses I definitely do not want him to think of himself as a dog in heat. Joanne has said it much better and I agree. I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner.

 

 

Yes. And even as bombarded with chemically induced sexual energy teens are, I don't believe that leads to promscuity, poor choices, lack of control. I've shared in similar threads that I can't believe in a god that will create the teen body while saying "be pure" and "control yourself" to the degree that teens are not supposed to enjoy flirting, affection, and sexual contact if they want to. It would be a cosmic joke. Similarly, though, I also can't believe in a design (by god or nature) that would create a developmental stage that automatically leads to excessive, obsessive, consuming behavior.

 

Teens I know (and I've known many) are typically balanced, healthy, engaged in a variety of activities. Romance is one of them, but not the consuming one. And that's been true regardless of religious perspective.

[Joanne]

I'm not sure why self control is considered a bad thing. I have lots of desires and urges that I control. Many of them are not bad in and of themselves. In fact many of them are things that I enjoy and can bring enjoyment to others regularly, but they still have to be controlled to some extent. Controlling emotions and hormones is a good and healthy thing.

 

 

Who is advocating lack of control?

[Dory]

Who is advocating lack of control?

 

I was going off of this

"In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings"

Saying that we shouldn't say it is something to be controlled, would mean that we are saying is not something to be controlled. Not controlling something is a lack of control.

 

[nmoira]

I was going off of this

"In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings"

Saying that we shouldn't say it is something to be controlled, would mean that we are saying is not something to be controlled. Not controlling something is a lack of control.

 

But there's more:

"I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner."

[Heather in Neverland]

But there's more:

"I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner."

 

Prefer being the key word. That is what you prefer. What I prefer is something entirely different. I teach my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to his partner as well... we just define "partner" differently. 

 

As to Joanne's comment about what kind of world I live in where sex is talked about all the time... Are you kidding? Who isn't living in that world? I live in a world where I cannot turn on the TV or the radio or the computer or go to the mall or drive past billboards, etc., without myself and my family being bombarded by the message that "if it feels good, do it" ... "you are sexual being... don't deny your urges"... and that anyone who stands in the way of that is intolerant or repressed or old-fashioned or trying to shame them.

 

If you like your world where teens having sex with whomever, whenever is perfectly acceptable, great. Have at it. My children will be raised to treat sex and sexuality the way God intended it.

[Free]

I was going off of this

"In my experience when we frame sexual urges as something to be controlled, it attaches a negative value to these feelings"

Saying that we shouldn't say it is something to be controlled, would mean that we are saying is not something to be controlled. Not controlling something is a lack of control.

 

 

Sorry, that is fallacious. Failing to explicitly forbid something does not mean that I am actively advocating it.

 

And in any case, that is besides my point. I was talking about how to effectively frame the discussion with our children, not advocating lack of self control. I believe telling kids that this is a self control issue, or a will power issue is ineffective. Who among us has not given in to an extra slice of cake, or spent hours on the internet when we knew we shouldn't? There may indeed be a few among us who have wills of steel, but for most ordinary people momentary lapses in self control is something we have to deal with everyday. Making a child's sexuality a self control issue is setting himself up for failure.

 

I believe instead that talking to my child about what sex should mean, and about safety, health and respect in sexual matters would be more effective in encouraging the self control that we are seeking.

[Angie in VA]

Unfortunately this is not news to me. :crying: I truly believe that this type of hardcore porn being more easily accessible is a big contributing factor to the problems we are seeing like the Steubenville incident where girls are treated with such little regard and respect. Then it is deemed normal to post it for the world to see just like porn is seen readily . Porn like this makes women seem like playthings with no will of their own and are made to be 'played' with in whatever fashion desired. It is horrifying and disgusting.

I was just talking to DH about Audrie Pott's suicide

http://m.rollingstone.com/culture/news/sexting-shame-and-suicide-20130917/?page=2

 

and Steubenville and expressed the same thing. :(

[Excelsior! Academy]

In what way does this post suggest society has forgotten some things are right and wrong? Society is constantly fighting with itself to preserve the status quo and liberate those oppressed by the status quo. I don't think you mean to suggest the status quo that oppresses women is the "right" that society is forgetting, but I'm not sure how the information in my post would be used to support such an idea otherwise. I'm just confused! :)

 

By the way, I'm glad you enjoyed your experience with sex. Not everyone is so lucky to have a beautiful "first time." However, I think it's misleading to suggest that waiting until marriage is the only way to avoid STDs and emotional pain. You know what they say, purity pledges break more than condoms. ;) People who know how to be safe, will reduce risks. People who have good social skills and support, will likewise reduce the risk of lasting emotional trauma.

 I am a big proponent of waiting until marriage for sex.  It is so emotional and the risk of creating a dependent life is so great.  The bolded made me laugh and it is so true!

 

I was just talking to DH about Audrie Pott's suicide

http://m.rollingstone.com/culture/news/sexting-shame-and-suicide-20130917/?page=2

 

and Steubenville and expressed the same thing. :(

That is tragic beyond words.  How disgusting!

[bolt.]

There are two strategies for "urges"

 

1. Fight the urge, repress the urge, deny the urge -- use self control and/or will power, and hope you've got enough of it to endure every urge, every time.

 

2. Acknowledge the urge, accept that the urge exists, don't expect it to go away -- use intelligence, forecasting, and ethical reasoning to decide what to do about the urge, then apply your decision to each situation.

 

I go with strategy #2, which is not a "self-control" strategy, but rather a "sensible choices" strategy. It's likely that both strategies yield the result that some/all sexual activity is off limits, it's just that people who use strategy #2 are more likely to stick with their decision long-term, regardless of their urges. They are also likely to feel less stressed about it and more at peace with themselves (rather than battling themselves) over this issue.

[Dory]

There are two strategies for "urges"

 

1. Fight the urge, repress the urge, deny the urge -- use self control and/or will power, and hope you've got enough of it to endure every urge, every time.

 

2. Acknowledge the urge, accept that the urge exists, don't expect it to go away -- use intelligence, forecasting, and ethical reasoning to decide what to do about the urge, then apply your decision to each situation.

 

I go with strategy #2, which is not a "self-control" strategy, but rather a "sensible choices" strategy. It's likely that both strategies yield the result that some/all sexual activity is off limits, it's just that people who use strategy #2 are more likely to stick with their decision long-term, regardless of their urges. They are also likely to feel less stressed about it and more at peace with themselves (rather than battling themselves) over this issue.

 

I would say that #2 is self control. Controlling something doesn't mean denying it, or repressing it. It means understanding it for what it honestly truly is and what you would see as a healthy expression of it and then actively working towards that goal. Repressing feelings and emotions never works. Acknowledging them is a must. Planning for them is also a must. If one doesn't plan for the inevitable, than one will end up caving in to the desires of the moment. Self control means understanding ones self and ones tendencies and working towards expressing them in a way that is healthy for all involved and that meet up with who you are as a whole being, not just in a way that satisfies the craving or expresses that one part of yourself to the detriment of all the other parts.

[goldberry]

As a Christian I think sexual chastity matters -- but chastity is about what you are *doing* right now: whether or not you are sexually active, currently. Virginity is about some (supposedly permanent) status that is changed at the point of your first sexual experience.

 

It's like sex is the only sin that (supposedly) changes forever an aspect of your identity. In reality, if a sexually active person ceases their sexual activity, they are just as chaste as the person who has never been sexually active. That's important. If you want to bring "practical theology" into the life of plausibly promiscuous young adults, it's terribly important to refrain from the idea that one's first sexual experience turns you forever into 'something else' that can't be changed back. That's not Christian. If the "horses" are out of the barn, why would anyone be motivated to shut the barn doors at that point? What really needs to be said is, "Come home. There is purity here for all, flowing from the cross of a Saviour who will make all things new. You are not ruined. You can do something different today, and that matters." To say, 'sin no more' is more powerful than to say, 'don'ch'a wish you weren't already ruined?' <-- That is exactly the message inherent in every sex talk that warns young adults not to loose-forever their precious pure virginity -- As if it's a one-shot deal! As if we've forgotten the meaning of redemption.

 

Awesome post from a Christian perspective!  Thanks for sharing that. 

[nmoira]

Prefer being the key word. That is what you prefer. What I prefer is something entirely different. I teach my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to his partner as well... we just define "partner" differently. 

 

[snip]

 

If you like your world where teens having sex with whomever, whenever is perfectly acceptable, great. Have at it. My children will be raised to treat sex and sexuality the way God intended it.

 

Who here is advocating indiscriminate sex for teens? You would like your views to be respected and not misrepresented, no? Well, it goes both ways. You probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that I'm not going to teach my children that there is virtue in "saving" oneself for marriage, but that doesn't mean I'll be throwing them a Have At It Party at 16.  :001_rolleyes:

[albeto.]

I think we have raised generations of people who think they can and should have whatever they want whenever they want it. Period. That is a lack of self-control. That is also behind unfettered capitalism and oppression of women and debt and a host of the world's ills.

 

Unfettered capitalism and oppression of women is not necessarily a lack of self control when one is applying the fundamentals of an ideology as accurately as they know how. Capitalism seeks to gain profit, not address the ills of society. One can be fully in control and ignore the impoverished conditions created by seeking profit well within the legal and ethical boundaries of the ideology. Oppression of women looks differently to different people, so what you I may consider oppression, you may consider morally superior (for example, access to abortion). So you see, I don't think there's any simple explanation for these issues, they come about because the last problems being solved led to new and unexpected problems. No doubt when we solve today's challenges, we will have paved the way for our grandchildren and their grandchildren to face problems we could never conceive of.

 

If you like your world where teens having sex with whomever, whenever is perfectly acceptable, great. Have at it. My children will be raised to treat sex and sexuality the way God intended it.

 

I think what you're ultimately after is respect, respect for self and respect for others. I think what you support is women being treated as valuable by virtue of their humanity, not by virtue of how they can service a man. If that's the case, I think we're all on the same page. Where we disagree is the idea that marriage and your religion is the missing link. 

 

A portion of May's Journal of Adolescent Health (as reported by the Washington Post),

 

 

 

"In many European countries -- Switzerland in particular -- sexual intercourse, at least from the age of 15 or 16 years, is considered acceptable and even part of normative adolescent behavior." Switzerland, he noted, has one of the world's lowest rates of abortion and teen pregnancy. Teens there, like those in Sweden and the Netherlands, have easy access to contraceptives, confidential health care and comprehensive sex education.

 

A 2001 Guttmacher Institute report, drawing on data from 30 countries in Western and Eastern Europe, concluded: "Societal acceptance of sexual activity among young people, combined with comprehensive and balanced information about sexuality and clear expectations about commitment and prevention childbearing and STDs [sexually transmitted diseases] within teenage relationships, are hallmarks of countries with low levels of adolescent pregnancy, childbearing and STDs." The study cited Sweden as the "clearest of the case-study countries in viewing sexuality among young people as natural and good."

 

Treating sex and sexuality "the way God intended it" is problematic. For example, how can you know what God intended? Biblical marriages given the thumbs up by God include polygamy, enslaved captives, human trafficking, and command the wife to be subservient to the husband (trusting the husband to be subservient to God the right way). The moral landscape of the bible includes rationalization of genocide, abortion as punishment, and a blood sacrifice of an innocent victim to appease the wrath of an angry god. Regardless of how you personally interpret the portions of the bible that do advocate these things (the portions that were, and are read literally by no small portion of the faithful), the fact remains, its persuasiveness with regard to being a beacon of moral value is constantly being rejected, bit by bit, more each passing year. In response, Christians no longer support slavery. Christians no longer support shunning nonchristians. Christians no longer oppose miscegenation. Christians are moving towards no longer supporting homophobia, slowly but surely. These issues have all been supported at one time by the majority of Real Christians using biblical morals as "God intended it." How can you be sure that Christians in 50 years won't reject your beliefs as being not what God really intended?

 

Rejecting the bible doesn't mean teens having sex with whomever, whenever. It means looking to a different source for ethics than blind faith in a god who declares himself more powerful and important than all the other gods (largely forgotten over time).

 

[Heather in Neverland]

How can you be sure that Christians in 50 years won't reject your beliefs as being not what God really intended?

 

Rejecting the bible doesn't mean teens having sex with whomever, whenever. It means looking to a different source for ethics than blind faith in a god who declares himself more powerful and important than all the other gods (largely forgotten over time).

You do not have the same understanding of God or the Bible as I do and therefore, there will be no way we will ever agree on this topic. You place your "blind faith" in statistical morality (altered, discarded, and replaced time and again throughout history) and I will place my "blind faith" in God. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I can live with that.

[Χά�ων]

You do not have the same understanding of God or the Bible as I do and therefore, there will be no way we will ever agree on this topic. You place your "blind faith" in statistical morality (altered, discarded, and replaced time and again throughout history) and I will place my "blind faith" in God. If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I can live with that.

Wow, what a way to side step the question by playing the "Holier than thou" card and thus attempting to end a debate that challenges you to think "what if I am wrong" rather than have a rational dialogue.

[mommaduck]

I didn't even imply that 'moderate "use" is harmful', I was pointing out the fact that pornography troubles millions of people over the age of 18 simply because porn has been available to people for a few generations now--and therefore, it is reasonable to assume abused

by some fraction of those using it.

 

Factoring in the idea that every year sees more people being introduced to pornography (which started in the 1900's and grew noticeably during the 60s, 70s and 80s) it is reasonable to assume that many teens and kids today have parents that are porn viewers and a smaller portion (which is still a sizable population) addicts. Many articles fail to talk about the millions of young men and women ages 18-50 who feel that pornography is negatively effecting their lives. Also, sexual addictions and specifically pornography addiction isn't even well understood by many professionals in the fields, its likely that porn addiction has been undiagnosed, misdiagnosed and improperly treated for years.

 

Do people really believe pornography is THAT new? Uhm, there are works of pornography from the 1700's and plenty from the 1800's. The Kamasutra is from between 400 BCE and 200 CE and collected into current form abt the 2nd century. And that is just ONE example.

[laughing lioness]

It occurs to me that it sets some people up to be very sexually frustrated and lonely. Because sex IRL is totally different and if porn is their ideal, they are going to have trouble finding it.

 

Actually, dh (psychologist) says that internet porn is the sex of choice for a lot of guys these days- they don't have to pay for dinner, they don't have to make anyone happy and they get to watch a rockstar as they get thier needs satisfied. It's just a LOT easier.

[Scarlett]

But there's more:

"I would prefer to talk to my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to both himself and to his partner."

 

 

But this is just a level of control.  Some people are raising kids to control themselves until marriage.  Others say make careful and conscious choices. 

[Scarlett]

Wow, what a way to side step the question by playing the "Holier than thou" card and thus attempting to end a debate that challenges you to think "what if I am wrong" rather than have a rational dialogue.

 

 

It wasn't sidestepping.  It was acknowledging there is no meeting in the middle between her beliefs and Albetos.  It is not a fruitful discussion and it never will be.

[Audrey]

Prefer being the key word. That is what you prefer. What I prefer is something entirely different. I teach my child about making careful and conscious choices that are respectful to his partner as well... we just define "partner" differently. 

 

As to Joanne's comment about what kind of world I live in where sex is talked about all the time... Are you kidding? Who isn't living in that world? I live in a world where I cannot turn on the TV or the radio or the computer or go to the mall or drive past billboards, etc., without myself and my family being bombarded by the message that "if it feels good, do it" ... "you are sexual being... don't deny your urges"... and that anyone who stands in the way of that is intolerant or repressed or old-fashioned or trying to shame them.

 

If you like your world where teens having sex with whomever, whenever is perfectly acceptable, great. Have at it. My children will be raised to treat sex and sexuality the way God intended it.

 

 

I agree with everything you are saying here, Heather (except your last sentence).   I think it is important to keep communicating with your kids and letting them know how to have a healthy relationship. Period.  Relationships are not all about sex.  That is an important part of some relationships and important to discuss a healthy view of it, but it isn't the sum total of a relationship and it certainly isn't the sum total of who we are as human beings.  It is one part of a whole, and it bothers me that some people make it the main focus of everything.  It isn't a liberal or conservative problem.  There are people from all points on that spectrum who are so focused on their children's sexuality or potential sexuality that it is obsessive and disturbing. 

 

 I also think we are inundated with sexual imagery all over the place.  It is unavoidable. That's why the communication is key.  We want our son to understand how we feel about sex and sexuality in a way that is healthy and appropriate to his developmental level at all stages of his life with us.  This is in hopes that he will be able to enjoy full and healthy relationships when he is appropriately mature enough to do so.

 

I feel much the same way about violent imagery.  It is everywhere, and just like sex, it is important to communicate to our children what is healthy and what is not. 

[albeto.]

You do not have the same understanding of God or the Bible as I do

Part of the problem here is... no one does. No one can. You can find people with similarities to your understanding, but ultimately you come to your understanding through personal experiences that are, well, personal. No one else can have shared all you have experienced. It's the same with every. single. believer. This is why Christians will never find agreement across the board (across time, across the globe, across town). This is why Christians must decide what issues are important ("salvation issues"), so you know what to agree on ignoring. It's why Christians have to tread carefully when judging - it opens their own beliefs and behaviors to judgement. Ultimately, there is no other rationalization for one's understanding of God and the bible than personal faith. How do you "prove" to someone else the holy spirit really conveyed some knowledge or insight to you? You can't. You trust yourself, you trust certain other people, but ultimately no one can have the same understanding of God or the bible as you do, but you cannot have the same understanding I did, or any one of the hundreds of millions of Christians who believe, just like you, that the holy spirit is guiding them personally. So right there, the idea that you will instruct your children to understand sexuality the way in which God intended is suspect. What you can offer is to teach your children what you think God intends.

 

and therefore, there will be no way we will ever agree on this topic.

Yeah, it's quite impossible, isn't it? You can quote bible verses and I can quote bible verses. I can show you historical evidence for accepted behavior and you can show me historical evidence for other accepted behavior. You and I can use the bible and history to back up diametrically opposing ideas, and they would both be perfectly accurate. The bible *does* say everything you would likely claim. But it also does say everything *I* claim, too. Therein lies the problem, and that's one of the reasons people have rejected the bible as a source of morals and information - it simply lacks credibility. There is a problem when so many opposing ideas can be supported with the same source.

 

You place your "blind faith" in statistical morality (altered, discarded, and replaced time and again throughout history) and I will place my "blind faith" in God.

I have no blind faith. I never (not since leaving my religion) tell myself, "this doesn't make sense, but nevertheless I will believe it. Or, as I used to pray, "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief." If something doesn't make sense I don't have a desire to believe it anyway. I can look to the information available and modify my opinion. I can change it 100% and not experience any anxiety for abandoning my faith, or worry about the implications for eternity if I'm wrong even though I feel like I'm right.

 

If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. I can live with that.

If you're wrong, you could lose the respect of your children. If they decide that your opinions are as baseless as the "false" religion that surrounds them, they may very well interpret your religion as deceitful, untrustworthy, and by extension, you. If you're wrong you could impose a false sense of fear in your children, causing them to worry about eternity, setting them up for a lifetime of traumatic emotional experiences every time they think they are going to suffer physically and emotionally for ever and ever and ever. If you're wrong, you could be encouraging your kids to hide any sexual behavior you have taught them is inappropriate, not only possibly inspiring them to equate it with a sense of moral negativity, control, or burden, but to be ignorant of protecting themselves from risk. If you're wrong, you're helping a whole community of kids internalize guilt for something completely beyond their control - "sin." If you're wrong, you wouldn't know it because you believe on faith. If you're wrong, a lot of innocent people can get hurt.

 

But Goddess is right. You completely ignored the question - how can you tell that in 50 years, Real Christians won't reject your understanding of God and the bible? What about 150 years from now? If you were to go back in time 150 years, do you think you would find people who believe as you do? Keep in mind that 150 years ago, a woman wearing pants, or an interracial marriage, was not only illegal, it was against "God's Law," as understood by people who were also, ironically, personally guided by the holy spirit.

[albeto.]

Actually, dh (psychologist) says that internet porn is the sex of choice for a lot of guys these days- they don't have to pay for dinner, they don't have to make anyone happy and they get to watch a rockstar as they get thier needs satisfied. It's just a LOT easier.

 

That's absurd, and offensive.

 

People do things for all kinds of reasons. Human behavior is so much more complex than your husband's comment reflects. People choose porn for so many, many reasons. People are not equally gifted with social skills and confidence and positive experiences, and to imply everyone is, but some are so lazy they'd rather not be bothered with small talk with a date, is to trivialize not only the real social challenges many people face in secret, but to stereotype men as being universally shallow.

[Jennifer3141]

Actually, dh (psychologist) says that internet porn is the sex of choice for a lot of guys these days- they don't have to pay for dinner, they don't have to make anyone happy and they get to watch a rockstar as they get thier needs satisfied. It's just a LOT easier.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure that argument is as old as the first stick drawing of a line with two circles and nipples poking out...

 

I've heard that argument about the internet and Playboy magazine too. And yet, I still go out to eat and see people dating so there you go. There are still marriages happening. Babies seem to still pop out too.

 

Is it possible there's a subclass of sexually dyfsunctional folks out there touching themselves right now? Sure. But since religion has been trying to outlaw the, "spilling of seed" for thousands of years and the threat of eternal damnation hasn't stopped it, I'm pretty sure it's here to stay.

[shawthorne44]

But, much of the stuff on the internet is sick stuff.  I was disturbed just reading the article.  A teen or preteen looking at Playboy, and the same kid watching a video featuring a "nugget" aren't in the same ballpark.  They aren't even in the same state. 

[nmoira]

But, much of the stuff on the internet is sick stuff. I was disturbed just reading the article. A teen or preteen looking at Playboy, and the same kid watching a video featuring a "nugget" aren't in the same ballpark. They aren't even in the same state.

You don't think the teens in question might have been enjoying the shock value of their assertions? Even a bit? :)

[Scarlett]

You don't think the teens in question might have been enjoying the shock value of their assertions? Even a bit? :)

 

 

But he had to be aware of the term to offer up the shock.

[nmoira]

But he had to be aware of the term to offer up the shock.

 

I knew of similar terms when I was in highschool; terms with shock value tend to get around. :)

 

Heard any good dead baby jokes lately?

[Laura Corin]

I continue to worry about the source of the article in the OP.  The Daily Mail is a nasty combination of right wing scare tactics and celebrity gossip.

 

L

[nmoira]

I continue to worry about the source of the article in the OP. The Daily Mail is a nasty combination of right wing scare tactics and celebrity gossip.

 

L

And according to the review I posted, the science in the show being advertised in the article was not strong; its use of a fMRI study not yet even peer reviewed as "proof" of an assertion being particularly egregious.

[Heather in Neverland]

Wow, what a way to side step the question by playing the "Holier than thou" card and thus attempting to end a debate that challenges you to think "what if I am wrong" rather than have a rational dialogue.

There is a very big difference between "side stepping" a question and knowing when a debate will go nowhere. I am logical enough to know that people who hate God or call my deeply held religious convictions "blind faith" will never be "challenged" to think what if THEY are wrong? They have already determined that they are not wrong. I know that I am not wrong. Where does this conversation go from there?

[Χά�ων]

The is a very big difference between "side stepping" a question and knowing when a debate will go nowhere. I am logical enough to know that people who hate God or call my deeply held religious convictions "blind faith" will never be "challenged" to think what if THEY are wrong? They have already determined that they are not wrong. I know that I am not wrong. Where does this conversation go from there?

I am on my phone and not able to type up as much as I would like but I want to adress the "Hate God" comment. I do not hate God. I have not heard ayone say they hate God. If they did would you please point me to a post number? Like I said I am on my phoneand I may have missed it. I will come back to this and expand when I have a screen larger than 2 inches and a real keyboard. Because real keyboards rock IMHO.

[nmoira]

How can I hate something I don't believe in? :)

[Heather in Neverland]

I am on my phone and not able to type up as much as I would like but I want to adress the "Hate God" comment. I do not hate God. I have not heard ayone say they hate God. If they did would you please point me to a post number? Like I said I am on my phoneand I may have missed it. I will come back to this and expand when I have a screen larger than 2 inches and a real keyboard. Because real keyboards rock IMHO.

Come now, you are smarter than that. Just because no one used the actual word "hate" doesn't mean you can't read between the lines. The way God, Christianity, Christians, Christian beliefs, Christian values, the bible, etc., have been described by some posters here it is clear that their beliefs about God are quite "negative". Use whatever verb you want if "hate" offends you. The effect is still the same.

 

People who feel that way about God and Christianity and people who feel the way I do about it will never agree. End of story.