Purity Culture is damaging and idolatrous

[BlsdMama]

You know I find this so interesting.  I don't understand the, "I must define myself by being part of a movement."  Christians need to just put out there what biblical teaching is, let God teach it, and not stack layers upon layers of STUFF up on it. Did I and do I teach my girls that the proper place for sex is within marriage? Absolutely.  I don't see how it's relevant in Elizabeth Smart's case.  I really don't understand EXCEPT that people stacked layers on actual teaching.  Why?  Because Elizabeth Smart was never sleeping around.  She never made any choices in her abduction or treatment.

 

People take a fine idea - that sex is good and healthiest when confined to the loving union of marriage - and then they pick it up, hoist it on their shoulders, and make that THE goal.

 

We gave our oldest daughter a ring when she was 15.  It was a ruby.  It was when purity rings were incredibly popular and we were careful to explain that it wasn't a purity ring.  It was because "her worth was far above rubies."  If a woman knows she is valued, she treats herself as though she is valued, and that includes not letting men use her and treat her badly.  If she knows her value in Christ comes from who she IS then she values herself and makes choices accordingly.

 

It's the cart before the horse.  People think it's easier to control choices and actions (by limiting those choices, or education, etc.) instead of grounding their kids in biblical principles and a heart  for God and then walking away and letting their child have the fullness of the relationship with God.  They don't recognize their child as a fully formed person instead of an extension or reflection of themselves.  

[fairfarmhand]

You know I find this so interesting.  I don't understand the, "I must define myself by being part of a movement."  Christians need to just put out there what biblical teaching is, let God teach it, and not stack layers upon layers of STUFF up on it. Did I and do I teach my girls that the proper place for sex is within marriage? Absolutely.  I don't see how it's relevant in Elizabeth Smart's case.  I really don't understand EXCEPT that people stacked layers on actual teaching.  Why?  Because Elizabeth Smart was never sleeping around.  She never made any choices in her abduction or treatment.

 

People take a fine idea - that sex is good and healthiest when confined to the loving union of marriage - and then they pick it up, hoist it on their shoulders, and make that THE goal.

 

We gave our oldest daughter a ring when she was 15.  It was a ruby.  It was when purity rings were incredibly popular and we were careful to explain that it wasn't a purity ring.  It was because "her worth was far above rubies."  If a woman knows she is valued, she treats herself as though she is valued, and that includes not letting men use her and treat her badly.  If she knows her value in Christ comes from who she IS then she values herself and makes choices accordingly.

 

It's the cart before the horse.  People think it's easier to control choices and actions (by limiting those choices, or education, etc.) instead of grounding their kids in biblical principles and a heart  for God and then walking away and letting their child have the fullness of the relationship with God.  They don't recognize their child as a fully formed person instead of an extension or reflection of themselves.  

 

This is excellent and exactly how I feel.

 

And for those of you who can't relate because you are not Christian, that's okay. You're raising your family according to your own standards.

 

 

[BlsdMama]

Gosh, feeling like such a rebel.

 

What about teaching about birth control.  So that sex before marriage won't end up with a pregnancy?

 

I didn't wait for marriage.  I don't expect my children to either.  With people (especially highly educated and professional women) getting married later and later in life, why would they wait to have an intimate relationship?

 

I am probably going to be scewered here...but I think that those relationships can also be casual, sometimes.  And serious, sometimes.  And kids should understand that a physical relationship is not the be all and end all of everything.

 

And "purity" - gah.  Having an intimate relationship doesn't make anyone "impure" and the very fact that we have to have this discussion in the US in this day and age is so disturbing.

 

 

You know, teaching abstinence was my rebellion.  I'm still pretty ticked off at my parents for not suggesting abstinence.  It was just expected that I wouldn't or couldn't practice self control.  Honestly, the idea wasn't even introduced.  Like teens can't make healthy, mature adults, to wait until marriage.  

 

I wouldn't disown my kids ;) but I do tell them what I think is healthiest and in their best interests, according to biblical principle, and I won't stop because of the huge conservative backlash.  It's not cool to be conservative in the homeschool community.  Sigh.  Wah.  Such is life.  I spent high school being popular.  It didn't do much for me.  I can now live, as an adult, without popularity. ;)  

 

The word pure aside, I believe it's healthiest, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, to abstain from intercourse outside of marriage.  And, like I said, I'm still pretty miffed that no one taught it or suggested it.  BTW, I went to a Catholic high school.  The irony there is pretty "amusing", no?

[Mimm]

 

We gave our oldest daughter a ring when she was 15.  It was a ruby.  It was when purity rings were incredibly popular and we were careful to explain that it wasn't a purity ring.  It was because "her worth was far above rubies."  If a woman knows she is valued, she treats herself as though she is valued, and that includes not letting men use her and treat her badly.  If she knows her value in Christ comes from who she IS then she values herself and makes choices accordingly.

 

I like this idea. :)

[gardenmom5]

You know, teaching abstinence was my rebellion.  I'm still pretty ticked off at my parents for not suggesting abstinence.  It was just expected that I wouldn't or couldn't practice self control.  Honestly, the idea wasn't even introduced.  Like teens can't make healthy, mature adults, to wait until marriage.  

 

I wouldn't disown my kids ;) but I do tell them what I think is healthiest and in their best interests, according to biblical principle, and I won't stop because of the huge conservative backlash.  It's not cool to be conservative in the homeschool community.  Sigh.  Wah.  Such is life.  I spent high school being popular.  It didn't do much for me.  I can now live, as an adult, without popularity. ;)  

 

The word pure aside, I believe it's healthiest, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, to abstain from intercourse outside of marriage.  And, like I said, I'm still pretty miffed that no one taught it or suggested it.  BTW, I went to a Catholic high school.  The irony there is pretty "amusing", no?

 

OMG yes!  it was *expected* we'd have s3x.  (and drink, and do drugs . . . . )

 

 

eta: the messages about the expectations made me feel even more worthless than I already did.

[MinivanMom]

Gosh, feeling like such a rebel.

 

What about teaching about birth control.  So that sex before marriage won't end up with a pregnancy?

 

I didn't wait for marriage.  I don't expect my children to either.  With people (especially highly educated and professional women) getting married later and later in life, why would they wait to have an intimate relationship?

 

I am probably going to be scewered here...but I think that those relationships can also be casual, sometimes.  And serious, sometimes.  And kids should understand that a physical relationship is not the be all and end all of everything.

 

And "purity" - gah.  Having an intimate relationship doesn't make anyone "impure" and the very fact that we have to have this discussion in the US in this day and age is so disturbing.

 

I don't think that families teaching their kids that sex within marriage is best excludes them from teaching their kids about birth control. I would guess that many of the people who are repulsed by the "purity" movement and its emphasis on virginity above all else (not just feeling icky about the rings & vows) are the same sort of people that believe in good sex ed. Maybe not all of them, but I don't think it's fair to assume that nobody is teaching their children about birth control just because it isn't discussed within a discussion on what's wrong with the purity movement.

 

For "sex within marriage is best" folks reading along . . . nothing . . . nothing . . . pushed me more toward abstinence than my 7th grade public school sex-ed with my girls P.E. teacher. She taught it by the book: anatomy, maturation, the basics of sex, pregnancy, birth control, STD's, ways to prevent STD's. It was excellent instruction with no personal opinions about sex, abstinence, or lifestyle. But wowzers . . . nothing could have discouraged me more from premarital sex than memorizing a long list of STD's and their symptoms and learning the failure rates of various forms of birth control. This was not a conservative woman with an agenda under the surface (actually she was gay & in a long-term committed relationship with the woman who was my 5th grade teacher), but the facts spoke to me, so to speak.

 

Well taught sex-ed is a wonderful thing. Information is a wonderful thing. I want my kids to know that sexual feelings are good and normal. I want my kids to know that sexual intimacy is part of how we, as human being, express love and share emotional intimacy. That doesn't happen in one talk or with a set of rules to follow. It happens everyday as I model attitudes for my children and discuss with them the attitudes displayed in the media around us. Information about birth control, STD prevention, consent, etc. are all a part of that ongoing conversation. I also share my conviction that sex is so intimate that it is best saved before marriage, but I do so in a way that doesn't degrade those with different values. My kids will have to decide for themselves what their own convictions are about sexual intimacy.

[Murphy101]

I am not sure of any other threads on this topic but I can tell you what I was taught in Catholic school. **I** think it was effective. As far as I know, no one from our school (about 250 students) ended up pregnant before graduation.

We were basically taught to abstain but not for the reasons of purity. What I mean is, it wasn't framed in that light. We were taught the risks with the primary focus being pregnancy. For most, that is the main concern when you aren't focused on the purity side of things. We were taught about the realities of parenthood. They seriously broke it down. From the cost of prenatal vitamins and diapers to the cost of day care. The financial responsibilities, the emotional and physical responsibilities. All of it. They tried to teach us that parenthood was a BIG deal and, therefore, so was intercourse. It wasnt something you played at, you needed maturity, stability and a college education first. (Okay, not literally on the college education. But, they tried to show us how hard it would be on minimum wage high school income.) You needed to be an adult.

I am sure that some could find fault in this. But, it stuck with me and I didn't feel as though it shamed us into behaving.

I don't know if that helps any or if it even answers your question. Just my .02.

Well that would explain why so many Catholics use birth control I guess... If the focus was on how awful having babies and parenthood is, then just avoiding that aspect is the main message a whole lot of people seemed to have walked away with. (Not saying you particularly, just a general observation.)

 

I avoid the above and I never refer to the word pure or purity or even virginity in our discussions.

 

We do teach that sex is best saved and restricted for marriage, but we teach why - sex is risky stuff.

Because birth control fails.

Because relationships matter and someone I wouldn't want a child with, is likely someone I probably shouldn't have sex with whether I could or want to get pregnant or not.

Because STDs

Because sex is an emotional attaching event, even when they say it won't be. There's no such thing as "just meaningless fun sex". It always means something to someone, and it isn't always a good something. And even if it was meaningless, if relationships matter (and we teach they are the most important of matters) then we would not purposely devalue a relationship with something meaningless. We wouldn't want that.

[swimmermom3]

OMG yes!  it was *expected* we'd have s3x.  (and drink, and do drugs . . . . )

 

 

eta: the messages about the expectations made me feel even more worthless than I already did.

 

I wonder if that was a generational thing?  But that still seems weird for Catholic schools. At mine, we didn't have sex ed classes of course, but we did have marriage classes. We worked on budgets and purchasing vacuum cleaners with guys from the Catholic boys' high school. It made it all seem rather tedious at best. Abstinence before marriage was a given and NOT doing drugs was also a given. The nuns seemed to have faith that most of us could manage both of those things- at least until we were out of their hair.

[gardenmom5]

I wonder if that was a generational thing?  But that still seems weird for Catholic schools. At mine, we didn't have sex ed classes of course, but we did have marriage classes. We worked on budgets and purchasing vacuum cleaners with guys from the Catholic boys' high school. It made it all seem rather tedious at best. Abstinence before marriage was a given and NOT doing drugs was also a given. The nuns seemed to have faith that most of us could manage both of those things- at least until we were out of their hair.

 

this was my mother and grandmother. public school was more open, and more "do what you want" - but family seemed to expect it. 

[MaeFlowers]

How do you know the absence of pregnancies was a result of the abstinence teaching?

Many girls manage to avoid getting pregnant because they are conscientious about using birth control, not because they actually abstain. (And just because they went to a Catholic school that did not teach it does not mean that would have been their only resource for learning about bc)

Obviously, I don't. That was the point of my post about my history. It didn't necessarily make us abstain (some of my friends did, some didn't) but it definitely made me more conscientious about using bc.

[MaeFlowers]

Well that would explain why so many Catholics use birth control I guess... If the focus was on how awful having babies and parenthood is, then just avoiding that aspect is the main message a whole lot of people seemed to have walked away with. (Not saying you particularly, just a general observation.)

 

I avoid the above and I never refer to the word pure or purity or even virginity in our discussions.

 

We do teach that sex is best saved and restricted for marriage, but we teach why - sex is risky stuff.

Because birth control fails.

Because relationships matter and someone I wouldn't want a child with, is likely someone I probably shouldn't have sex with whether I could or want to get pregnant or not.

Because STDs

Because sex is an emotional attaching event, even when they say it won't be. There's no such thing as "just meaningless fun sex". It always means something to someone, and it isn't always a good something. And even if it was meaningless, if relationships matter (and we teach they are the most important of matters) then we would not purposely devalue a relationship with something meaningless. We wouldn't want that.

 

I think you're reading something into what I said that isn't there or at least I didn't mean to imply. They didn't focus on how awful having babies is...they focused on how big of a responsibility it is. There is a huge difference.

[Laura Corin]

There's no such thing as "just meaningless fun sex". 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

[fairfarmhand]

For those Christians who wonder about trying to teach kids the importance of waiting till marriage without making them feel dirty or like a failure if they mess up or something.

(thinking out loud here)

What about teaching waiting till marriage in the context of obedience to God's commands? I mean, he told us to do all kinds of stuff...be kind. Don't gossip. Worship with others. Don't steal.

 

And he didn't tell us to do these things because he wanted to ruin our fun. He just loves us and wants us to be happy. Part of that is obeying his commands.

 

So why not tie waiting till marriage in there with all of the other commands that, as Christ followers we are to do? It's a matter of obedience.

 

We don't obey to get God to love us more. (so when we screw up in any area, we don't miss out on God's love)

 

We don't obey to get the magic blessing fairy to sprinkle more fairy dust on our lives. (God's blessings are often not totally related to performance)

 

We obey because we love him. And he honors that obedience. He stays close to us when we are striving toward obedience. And we can remain close to him even if in the past we've messed things up. (Whether with premarital relations or gossip or stealing) So when we mess up, we ask forgiveness and vow to ourselves that we'll try not to do that again. Because we want him close to us. We want to hear his voice.

 

 

(I know, you who are not believers, don't follow my logic. It's okay. I think we can all be good mamas, seeking what is best for our kids even if we don't see eye to eye on such topics.)

[Katy]

For those Christians who wonder about trying to teach kids the importance of waiting till marriage without making them feel dirty or like a failure if they mess up or something.

(thinking out loud here)

What about teaching waiting till marriage in the context of obedience to God's commands? I mean, he told us to do all kinds of stuff...be kind. Don't gossip. Worship with others. Don't steal.

 

And he didn't tell us to do these things because he wanted to ruin our fun. He just loves us and wants us to be happy. Part of that is obeying his commands.

 

So why not tie waiting till marriage in there with all of the other commands that, as Christ followers we are to do? It's a matter of obedience.

 

We don't obey to get God to love us more. (so when we screw up in any area, we don't miss out on God's love)

 

We don't obey to get the magic blessing fairy to sprinkle more fairy dust on our lives. (God's blessings are often not totally related to performance)

 

We obey because we love him. And he honors that obedience. He stays close to us when we are striving toward obedience. And we can remain close to him even if in the past we've messed things up. (Whether with premarital relations or gossip or stealing) So when we mess up, we ask forgiveness and vow to ourselves that we'll try not to do that again. Because we want him close to us. We want to hear his voice.

 

 

(I know, you who are not believers, don't follow my logic. It's okay. I think we can all be good mamas, seeking what is best for our kids even if we don't see eye to eye on such topics.)

 

 

I love this, and this is pretty much what I say, except I also get into Galatians 5- the law is made to serve us, not us the law; and that if they choose to have sex they need to do so responsibly.

 

ETA:  I know a lot of Christians who ended up pregnant because they refused to be responsible for their choices- because that would be planning to sin.

[AmandaVT]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

[fairfarmhand]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

Like I said, no skewering from me. We're all trying to raise our kids as we see best. So, I look at things from a different frame of reference. It's okay.

 

 

[Ottakee]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

I don't agree. I see intimacy as much more than just the physical act. Esp in the beginning it isn't likely to be mind blowingly wonderful. It is something that takes time and experience. In a marriage that intimacy comes from learning together, treasuring each other, being sensitive to the desires of each other, etc.

 

I hold nothing against Elizabeth Smart or others that have been abused. They have nothing to be ashamed of and have no less value in the Lord's sight.

 

I can see the focus on purity as the highest goal being harmful.

 

Our youth pastor used the example of likening fire to s*x. Within the proper boundaries it is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed (in marriage) but like fire outside of the proper boundaries (camp fire ring, fireplace, furnace, etc) it can be dangerous and have long lasting ci sequences. A fire might destroy a home, forest, or burn someone. S*x outside of marriage can result in STDs, unplanned pregnancy, broken hearts, etc.

 

I am having a hard time putting this into words but hope you can understand.

[Sneezyone]

Again though, all this emphasis on following God's commands still makes it the fault of the victim and a personal flaw if the choice of abstinence is taken from them. You do not need to ask forgiveness for not being abstinent through no fault of your own but elevating abstinence still makes the lack of virginity a shameful condition. There is no way, given some of the 'biblical' teaching examples above, to get around that. I think Elizabeth Smart does an excellent job of explaining that.

[regentrude]

 S*x outside of marriage can result in STDs, unplanned pregnancy, broken hearts, etc.

 

 

Marriage is no guarantee against unplanned pregnancies and broken hearts.

 

I would agree with you insofar  that sex should belong into a committed relationship, but I don't share this idyllic view that marriage magically makes all problems go away, nor that non-married relationships are not equipped to handle the problems that arise.

 

[Sneezyone]

Marriage is no guarantee against unplanned pregnancies and broken hearts.

 

I would agree with you insofar  that sex should belong into a committed relationship, but I don't share this idyllic view that marriage magically makes all problems go away, nor that non-married relationships are not equipped to handle the problems that arise.

 

 

Heck, there's no guarantee that sex within marriage won't result in STDs either.

[regentrude]

Heck, there's no guarantee that sex within marriage won't result in STDs either.

 

well, I purposely left that one out, because it wouldn't if both parties restricted sex to their marriage only. Alas, marriage does not prevent unplanned pregnancies.

 

 

[bibiche]

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

 

I'm going to have to agree with you here. ;)   There is absolutely "just meaningless fun sex" and it does not harm a soul. 

[Heidi]

For those Christians who wonder about trying to teach kids the importance of waiting till marriage without making them feel dirty or like a failure if they mess up or something.

(thinking out loud here)

What about teaching waiting till marriage in the context of obedience to God's commands? I mean, he told us to do all kinds of stuff...be kind. Don't gossip. Worship with others. Don't steal.

 

And he didn't tell us to do these things because he wanted to ruin our fun. He just loves us and wants us to be happy. Part of that is obeying his commands.

 

So why not tie waiting till marriage in there with all of the other commands that, as Christ followers we are to do? It's a matter of obedience.

 

We don't obey to get God to love us more. (so when we screw up in any area, we don't miss out on God's love)

 

We don't obey to get the magic blessing fairy to sprinkle more fairy dust on our lives. (God's blessings are often not totally related to performance)

 

We obey because we love him. And he honors that obedience. He stays close to us when we are striving toward obedience. And we can remain close to him even if in the past we've messed things up. (Whether with premarital relations or gossip or stealing) So when we mess up, we ask forgiveness and vow to ourselves that we'll try not to do that again. Because we want him close to us. We want to hear his voice.

 

 

(I know, you who are not believers, don't follow my logic. It's okay. I think we can all be good mamas, seeking what is best for our kids even if we don't see eye to eye on such topics.)

Exactly. This is what I was taught and will teach my children.

[fairfarmhand]

Again though, all this emphasis on following God's commands still makes it the fault of the victim and a personal flaw if the choice of abstinence is taken from them. You do not need to ask forgiveness for not being abstinent through no fault of your own but elevating abstinence still makes the lack of virginity a shameful condition. There is no way, given some of the 'biblical' teaching examples above, to get around that. I think Elizabeth Smart does an excellent job of explaining that.

 

I don't see it that way at all. If you were raped, but still yearned after God's highest good, then you are not at fault at all. You are pure. You are holy. You are loved and beautiful.

 

ETA: It's not about your personal parts being untouched. It's about your heart and where your heart is RIGHT NOW.

 

 

ETA2: Even if you did make a choice that went against God's command, you are truly repentant and have turned from that, you are holy, and pure.  That's what grace is.

[gardenmom5]

Again though, all this emphasis on following God's commands still makes it the fault of the victim and a personal flaw if the choice of abstinence is taken from them. You do not need to ask forgiveness for not being abstinent through no fault of your own but elevating abstinence still makes the lack of virginity a shameful condition. There is no way, given some of the 'biblical' teaching examples above, to get around that. I think Elizabeth Smart does an excellent job of explaining that.

no - it does not.  there are some groups (e.g. ATI/gothard/ who seem to be very prurient.) who engage in victim blaming, BUT they are not the majority.

Elizabeth Smart had a public school teacher who was an idiot.   the message she was taught by her parents was she had worth just because she was who she was, and it did give her strength.

that age can also be very impacted by something an outsider says, even if it's contrary to what they've been taught at home.  it just sticks as you try to figure it out.  she never got to figure it out so she could throw it out - she was kidnapped first. 

 

LDS doctrine does not engage in victim blaming (indeed considers victims to have done nothing wrong) - and she is still a very active member.  

LDS teachings on this subject is one of the things that helped me to understand *I* had worth *for myself*.  I sure as hades didn't get it in my *liberal* (and atheist) home growing up!

(I won't go into detail - but there was an expectation teen girls would have meaningless s3x because they either have no self-control or value. - btw: my father died when I was 12.  that message was coming from *liberal* WOMEN.) 

[Guest]

That's how I was taught and how we go about it. This whole virginal purity worship bit is really to foreign to me, and nothing I saw much of in churches growing up, let alone heard from my parents. This is new to me since chat boards!

 

 

For those Christians who wonder about trying to teach kids the importance of waiting till marriage without making them feel dirty or like a failure if they mess up or something.

(thinking out loud here)

What about teaching waiting till marriage in the context of obedience to God's commands? I mean, he told us to do all kinds of stuff...be kind. Don't gossip. Worship with others. Don't steal.

 

And he didn't tell us to do these things because he wanted to ruin our fun. He just loves us and wants us to be happy. Part of that is obeying his commands.

 

So why not tie waiting till marriage in there with all of the other commands that, as Christ followers we are to do? It's a matter of obedience.

 

We don't obey to get God to love us more. (so when we screw up in any area, we don't miss out on God's love)

 

We don't obey to get the magic blessing fairy to sprinkle more fairy dust on our lives. (God's blessings are often not totally related to performance)

 

We obey because we love him. And he honors that obedience. He stays close to us when we are striving toward obedience. And we can remain close to him even if in the past we've messed things up. (Whether with premarital relations or gossip or stealing) So when we mess up, we ask forgiveness and vow to ourselves that we'll try not to do that again. Because we want him close to us. We want to hear his voice.

 

 

(I know, you who are not believers, don't follow my logic. It's okay. I think we can all be good mamas, seeking what is best for our kids even if we don't see eye to eye on such topics.)

[QueenCat]

no - it does not.  there are some groups (e.g. ATI/gothard/ who seem to be very prurient.) who engage in victim blaming, BUT they are not the majority.

Elizabeth Smart had a public school teacher who was an idiot.   the message she was taught by her parents was she had worth just because she was who she was, and it did give her strength.

that age can also be very impacted by something an outsider says, even if it's contrary to what they've been taught at home.  it just sticks as you try to figure it out.  she never got to figure it out so she could throw it out - she was kidnapped first. 

 

LDS doctrine does not engage in victim blaming (indeed considers victims to have done nothing wrong) - and she is still a very active member.  

LDS teachings on this subject is one of the things that helped me to understand *I* had worth *for myself*.  I sure as hades didn't get it in my *liberal* (and atheist) home growing up!

(I won't go into detail - but there was an expectation teen girls would have meaningless s3x because they either have no self-control or value. - btw: my father died when I was 12.  that message was coming from *liberal* WOMEN.) 

 

Worth for yourself is so incredibly important. I'm glad you found it. Just please know that just because you didn't get it in a liberal home doesn't mean that is the "norm". Most liberals, some Christians, some atheists, that I know well, do build a sense of worth in their children, both boys and girls. And I know plenty of conservatives who do the same, and then some of each who do not. It's the home, the individual parents, not whether they are liberal or conservative, Christian or atheist or something else.

 

[gardenmom5]

Worth for yourself is so incredibly important. I'm glad you found it. Just please know that just because you didn't get it in a liberal home doesn't mean that is the "norm". Most liberals, some Christians, some atheists, that I know well, do build a sense of worth in their children, both boys and girls. And I know plenty of conservatives who do the same, and then some of each who do not. It's the home, the individual parents, not whether they are liberal or conservative, Christian or atheist or something else.

 

 

my biggest regret in my father's death . . .  (he was an atheist back in the 60's. -before it was common.  his death hit me very very hard.)

He was the one who taught me - some people are nice, and some aren't.  it has nothing to do with whatever "group" they belong to.

and I've seen for myself as an adult - some people are nice, and some people aren't.  some people are sincerely trying to live by their ideals (even if they sometimes fall short), and some people just spout them to impress others - but do whatever is convenient in the moment everyone else be d4mned.   and it has nothing to do with whatever "group" they belong to.

 

I've also seen a few too many comments from liberal atheists which come across as trying to lump all Christians in the same boat as the duggars/ati/gothard/etc.  no, not even close.

[Murphy101]

I'm going to have to agree with you here. ;) There is absolutely "just meaningless fun sex" and it does not harm a soul.

*shrug* Obviously I disagree. I think reducing an intimate act to nothing more than personal gratification demeans both parties, which I do view as harmful to souls.

 

Not expecting anyone to agree with me, but this is what I teach all my kids.

[Murphy101]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

I doubt you are the only one with that opinion. I just don't share it.

 

Physical compatibility changes over the years, sometimes it changes a lot. And I'm not even sure what that means I guess. Do you mean mutual sexual satisfaction? That sure changes too, but isn't the compatibility in this area more about the willingness of each partner to make the other happy? Wouldn't a partner who tends to be center and selfish focused be apparent in other ways too, not some surprise in the bedroom?

 

Nm. I don't want details!

[Laura Corin]

*shrug* Obviously I disagree. I think reducing an intimate act to nothing more than personal gratification demeans both parties, which I do view as harmful to souls.

 

Not expecting anyone to agree with me, but this is what I teach all my kids.

Sex can mean different things at different times. Even within a marriage, it can mean transcendent passion or a way to get to sleep.

 

A glass of wine can just be a fun end to the day. That does not mean that it can't also be a tender toast between a newly engaged couple, or part of a religious Communion. Having one pleasure with several significances does not demean any one of them, unless the participants choose to think of it that way.

[Katy]

I doubt you are the only one with that opinion. I just don't share it.

 

Physical compatibility changes over the years, sometimes it changes a lot. And I'm not even sure what that means I guess. Do you mean mutual sexual satisfaction? That sure changes too, but isn't the compatibility in this area more about the willingness of each partner to make the other happy? Wouldn't a partner who tends to be center and selfish focused be apparent in other ways too, not some surprise in the bedroom?

 

Nm. I don't want details!

 

I know you said you didn't want details.  But I wasn't always Christian and I did have a boyfriend once that wasn't compatible.  He had a micropenis.  Literally.  And he didn't even try to make up for it. He was completely selfless outside of the bedroom and completely selfish inside of the bedroom. The relationship didn't last long after we finally got together. 

 

I've also had some friends who waited until marriage only to find the reason the man was so amenable to waiting was impotence.  I know that used to be something you could get an annulment for, but I don't know if you can anymore.  In this case both women stayed with their husbands only to later find out the reason for the impotence was porn addiction.  For both of them.  In one case that led to divorce, and in another last I heard they're now separated.  

[gardenmom5]

 

 

I've also had some friends who waited until marriage only to find the reason the man was so amenable to waiting was impotence.  I know that used to be something you could get an annulment for, but I don't know if you can anymore.  In this case both women stayed with their husbands only to later find out the reason for the impotence was porn addiction.  For both of them.  In one case that led to divorce, and in another last I heard they're now separated.  

 

there's a much bigger problem than the p**n addiction - it's called LYING and misrepresenting who they are. (doesn't matter why - they were).  they were lying before - and only afterwards couldn't hide it anymore most likely due to proximity. 

 

one of the points of getting married is to be who you really are with your partner. there is no hiding things you don't want *a spouse* to see.  ('cause it's not going to stay hidden forever). to be safe enough to be (emotionally) vulnerable.

[Sneezyone]

I guess I cannot reconcile the idea that virginity until marriage is the ideal, highest virtue with the idea that falling short, for whatever reason, is not a horrific personal failure or character flaw. I see folks saying that it's possible to hold both views. I just don't believe victims experience this blamelessness that folks intend.

 

I can't think of a time when I have ever even used the words virginity or purity with my children, even as we've had several frank puberty discussions. I do not want to elevate virginity or purity (and honestly I have no idea what this means outside of the context of virginity) over wisdom, kindness, goodness, patience, stewardship, joy or self-control. Virginity at marriage may be a way of expressing self-control but it's not the only one or even the most important one. Delaying gratification re:purchases or buckling down to earn straight A's in college are other means of demonstrating self-control.

 

I am much more concerned with whether or not my children exhibit, overall, the fruits of the spirt in their lives than whether or not a hymen is intact upon marriage. *shrug* So, assault or no assault...willing or unwilling...their self-worth is always preserved because it's tied to so much more than sex.

[bolt.]

It's possible to reconcile the idea that virginity before marriage is *a* virtue, with the idea that 'idea that falling short, for whatever reason, is not a horrific personal failure or character flaw.' With as easy of logic as we apply to driving... Like this.

 

It's a good thing to have no collisions or accidents, but everybody can tell that ( a ) when someone smashes into *you* that that has nothing to do with your 'driving virtue', and ( b ) that people make silly mistakes while driving that lead to significant or even massive consequences... And that doesn't make the mistake extrodinary, just because they have the potential for significant results.

 

As for the rest, I agree. I'm no supporter of "purity" ideology... But I do see both wisdom and virtue in premarital chastity. I wanted to help explain how people manage to think in that way.

[Garga]

For those Christians who wonder about trying to teach kids the importance of waiting till marriage without making them feel dirty or like a failure if they mess up or something.

(thinking out loud here)

What about teaching waiting till marriage in the context of obedience to God's commands? I mean, he told us to do all kinds of stuff...be kind. Don't gossip. Worship with others. Don't steal.

 

And he didn't tell us to do these things because he wanted to ruin our fun. He just loves us and wants us to be happy. Part of that is obeying his commands.

 

So why not tie waiting till marriage in there with all of the other commands that, as Christ followers we are to do? It's a matter of obedience.

 

We don't obey to get God to love us more. (so when we screw up in any area, we don't miss out on God's love)

 

We don't obey to get the magic blessing fairy to sprinkle more fairy dust on our lives. (God's blessings are often not totally related to performance)

 

We obey because we love him. And he honors that obedience. He stays close to us when we are striving toward obedience. And we can remain close to him even if in the past we've messed things up. (Whether with premarital relations or gossip or stealing) So when we mess up, we ask forgiveness and vow to ourselves that we'll try not to do that again. Because we want him close to us. We want to hear his voice.

 

 

(I know, you who are not believers, don't follow my logic. It's okay. I think we can all be good mamas, seeking what is best for our kids even if we don't see eye to eye on such topics.)

This is exactly how I was raised. Exactly. I knew what the scriptures said that sex was for marriage. There was nothing about purity. I was taught that lying is a sin, stealing is a sin, sex outside of marriage is a sin, gossip is a sin. My parents only talked about this a couple of times with me and then were confident in my own personal walk with God that I'd choose to be true to my faith.

 

Easy. That's my plan for my own sons. And I also will teach them about condoms. I'll tell them that if they are going to choose to do what they know is wrong not to compound it by being idiots about it.

[QueenCat]

my biggest regret in my father's death . . .  (he was an atheist back in the 60's. -before it was common.  his death hit me very very hard.)

He was the one who taught me - some people are nice, and some aren't.  it has nothing to do with whatever "group" they belong to.

and I've seen for myself as an adult - some people are nice, and some people aren't.  some people are sincerely trying to live by their ideals (even if they sometimes fall short), and some people just spout them to impress others - but do whatever is convenient in the moment everyone else be d4mned.   and it has nothing to do with whatever "group" they belong to.

 

I've also seen a few too many comments from liberal atheists which come across as trying to lump all Christians in the same boat as the duggars/ati/gothard/etc.  no, not even close.

 

Your father sounds like a smart and loving man. Comments can be extreme from both sides. I've seen what you say from some liberal atheists but I've also seen plenty of Conservative Christians label all liberals as being atheist, and/or all liberals being evil. Sad that people spend more time deciding how others think than getting to know each other to find out what's really on the inside.

[Murphy101]

Sex can mean different things at different times. Even within a marriage, it can mean transcendent passion or a way to get to sleep.

 

A glass of wine can just be a fun end to the day. That does not mean that it can't also be a tender toast between a newly engaged couple, or part of a religious Communion. Having one pleasure with several significances does not demean any one of them, unless the participants choose to think of it that way.

That could be accurate if my husband were an inanimate object, but he isn't. He is another person. People are not meant to just be use to expedite our desires. I'm well aware they can be and often, maybe even usually, are used that way inside and outside of marriage. It's simply not what I am teaching my kids is preferred in loving relationships. And I'm not much interested in teaching them anything about non-loving relationships other than how to stack the odds against having one.

 

That aside....

 

Um? To go to sleep?! I guess I learned something new bc I have never associated sex with getting to sleep other than as a euphemism.

[Audrey]

That could be accurate if my husband were an inanimate object, but he isn't. He is another person. People are not meant to just be use to expedite our desires. I'm well aware they can be and often, maybe even usually, are used that way inside and outside of marriage. It's simply not what I am teaching my kids is preferred in loving relationships. And I'm not much interested in teaching them anything about non-loving relationships other than how to stack the odds against having one.

 

That aside....

 

Um? To go to sleep?! I guess I learned something new bc I have never associated sex with getting to sleep other than as a euphemism.

 

 

Well, yes.  A good vigourous session with a rousing strong climax is an excellent end to a day and a sure bet for a sound sleep after all that exertion.  This is not an uncommon experience for many, many people, both male and female.

[Joker]

I try to be very honest with my dds. Sometimes sex is a very emotional, amazing experience. Sometimes it is about desires and is just fun. Dh nor I feel that we devalue the other when it is about desires and fun. That's part of the awesomeness of being married and having this person you know better than anyone else and who knows you the same in return. They don't just know you, but they love you. I don't believe it lessens the act at all and I would feel horrible if I didn't let my dds know it was okay. I would hate for them to feel shame or feel it's wrong later.

 

And, yes, sex relaxes me and helps me sleep. If I am restless and can't settle down, dh has always been willing to help out there.

[Murphy101]

I know you said you didn't want details. But I wasn't always Christian and I did have a boyfriend once that wasn't compatible. He had a micropenis. Literally. And he didn't even try to make up for it. He was completely selfless outside of the bedroom and completely selfish inside of the bedroom. The relationship didn't last long after we finally got together.

 

I've also had some friends who waited until marriage only to find the reason the man was so amenable to waiting was impotence. I know that used to be something you could get an annulment for, but I don't know if you can anymore. In this case both women stayed with their husbands only to later find out the reason for the impotence was porn addiction. For both of them. In one case that led to divorce, and in another last I heard they're now separated.

Wowza. I'm not sure how sex before marriage could have saved much of that though.

 

I guess my question is:

Did they marry these men for sex?

What if the man had become impotent 2 years after they married or had an injury to the penis?

Don't get me wrong, I think the main problem is they married a man who LIED and MISLED them over a major facet of their future together, not the sex factor.

 

Selfish jerks happen, but I'm not sure how sex before marriage avoids that. For example, I could argue that a man who is a selfish lying jerk in the bedroom probably isn't the kind of guy who is going to patiently wait until you are married for sex, the kind of jerk who would break up with a girl for not putting out. Maybe not, but selfish people aren't known for waiting kindly to get what they want either.

 

I wasn't always Christian either. For us, we just never understood the try it before you commit concept. We never considered moving in together instead of getting married even though both our parents would have been far more supportive of that. To us, if we weren't sure, then why only have sex or move in together and if we were sure, why wait to make the commitment we were sure of. Like I said, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I don't think that attitude has to be a Christian one.

[Murphy101]

Well, yes. A good vigourous session with a rousing strong climax is an excellent end to a day and a sure bet for a sound sleep after all that exertion. This is not an uncommon experience for many, many people, both male and female.

Okay I comprehend that, but I have never heard anyone say that goal was the sole reason WHY they were having sex with someone.

[albeto.]

Okay I comprehend that, but I have never heard anyone say that goal was the sole reason WHY they were having sex with someone.

 

Likely the people with whom you connect socially share your views. You might find this article interesting insofar as it simply explains why the author was happy she had lots of casual sex. 

[Laura Corin]

Okay I comprehend that, but I have never heard anyone say that goal was the sole reason WHY they were having sex with someone.

Within a marriage, which is what I said, I don't think that it would be unusual. A person is tired but they can't slow their brain down for sleep, so they make love for the relaxation. If both spouses enjoy it, then why not?

[HRAAB]

Within a marriage, which is what I said, I don't think that it would be unusual. A person is tired but they can't slow their brain down for sleep, so they make love for the relaxation. If both spouses enjoy it, then why not?

 

Works better than a sleeping pill - no hangover effect in the morning.  Plus, sex is the best ever stress reducer.  Now I'm not about to go find some man on the street to help me sleep or reduce stress, but it's not unusual for dh or me to nudge the other and say "having some trouble sleeping, you want to snuggle?"  Of course, either of is free to say no without worry, no obligation, but we understand each other and view our sex life in the same way.  Sometimes it's profound spiritual experience; sometimes it's just two people coming together to relax and destress.

[LucyStoner]

Okay I comprehend that, but I have never heard anyone say that goal was the sole reason WHY they were having sex with someone.

Have you ever suffered from chronic, unrelenting insomnia?

 

Perhaps not the sole reason but yes, there were times I asked my husband to help me out on that front, primarily for that reason. Easiest way to be almost positive that sleep will come before 5am.

[Murphy101]

Have you ever suffered from chronic, unrelenting insomnia?

 

Perhaps not the sole reason but yes, there were times I asked my husband to help me out on that front, primarily for that reason. Easiest way to be almost positive that sleep will come before 5am.

Yep. My whole life. If I ever sleep a solid 6 hours or go to bed before midnight or 2am, my dh presumes I'm really sick.

 

And sure we've had sex when I had insomnia, but I just never really thought of it like that. I don't think that makes the sex meaningless or casual though. Especially as convienence and comfort level is based nearly entirely in that we are not casual and uncommitted to each other.

 

Which was when this was brought up. As an example of casual meaningless sex that doesn't have commitment or relationship.

[LucyStoner]

Yep. My whole life. If I ever sleep a solid 6 hours or go to bed before midnight or 2am, my dh presumes I'm really sick.

 

And sure we've had sex when I had insomnia, but I just never really thought of it like that. I don't think that makes the sex meaningless or casual though. Especially as convienence and comfort level is based nearly entirely in that we are not casual and uncommitted to each other.

 

Which was when this was brought up. As an example of casual meaningless sex that doesn't have commitment or relationship.

If I could have been asleep by 2am when I suffered from insomnia, that would have been a much needed relief. I wouldn't be able to sleep until the next morning or later at times.

 

The person who mentioned this example has been married a long time and I didn't get the impression that it was brought up as an example of casual, meaningless sex. Just an example of sex having a variety of purposes, not all profound.

[Laura Corin]

Sex can mean different things at different times. Even within a marriage, it can mean transcendent passion or a way to get to sleep.

 

 

 

Which was when this was brought up. As an example of casual meaningless sex that doesn't have commitment or relationship.

 

No, actually not.  If you re-read my post, I was describing the many forms that sex can take within a committed relationship.  

 

As Katie said, I've been faithfully and lovingly with the same man since 1988, more than half my life, and married for twenty-three years.  There's nothing casual or meaningless about making love with my husband, for whatever immediate purpose.

[Murphy101]

No, actually not. If you re-read my post, I was describing the many forms that sex can take within a committed relationship.

 

As Katie said, I've been faithfully and lovingly with the same man since 1988, more than half my life, and married for twenty-three years. There's nothing casual or meaningless about making love with my husband, for whatever immediate purpose.

Okay then. I would agree with that.

 

I guess I'm confused then bc all these such comments were in response to my assertion that there is no such thing as meaningless just for fun sex. It seemed to me you were posting giving an example of how yes it can be, even in marriage, such as just wanting sex bc we are too tired to sleep. I guess I misread that connection to the conversation. Sorry.