13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[shoganai]

That is an awful lot of harm that is happening in our country. You seem to be saying that it is worthwhile having that much unwanted pregnancy and venereal disease because it produces more emotionally and spiritually healthy kids on balance (amongst the ones who don't suffer that). Is that basically right?

My argument is that having lower rates of pregnancy and disease aren't necessarily worth celebrating when rates of sexual activity are through the roof.

There are other symptoms that I think can be just as damaging as disease and pregnancy that sexually active kids are going to suffer from whether they use condoms or not.

Unfortunately, any kind of moral standard beyond abuse is irrelevant to a lot of people these days. The only standard is preventing pregnancy and disease. From a secular view that's just fine, but in the long run I don't think we're truly doing kids any favors by steering them to one type of sex over another.

[UtahDan]

My argument is that having lower rates of pregnancy and disease aren't necessarily worth celebrating when rates of sexual activity are through the roof.

There are other symptoms that I think can be just as damaging as disease and pregnancy that sexually active kids are going to suffer from whether they use condoms or not.

Unfortunately, any kind of moral standard beyond abuse is irrelevant to a lot of people these days. The only standard is preventing pregnancy and disease. From a secular view that's just fine, but in the long run I don't think we're truly doing kids any favors by steering them to one type of sex over another.

I wonder whether there is any middle ground. On the one hand I don't want my kids having sex before they are married. On the other hand, given the choice, I would rather deal with emotional and spiritual problems with a child that come from premarital sex than I would a pregnancy or HIV. How do I teach my kids that I expect them to be chaste but that I equally expect them to use a condom in the event they are not. Not sure how you give both messages. Maybe it is as simple as "you better not, but if you do, there are some in my night stand." I don't know.

How do those of you with teens deal with this?

[pellegrino]

My argument is that having lower rates of pregnancy and disease aren't necessarily worth celebrating when rates of sexual activity are through the roof.

There are other symptoms that I think can be just as damaging as disease and pregnancy that sexually active kids are going to suffer from whether they use condoms or not.

Unfortunately, any kind of moral standard beyond abuse is irrelevant to a lot of people these days. The only standard is preventing pregnancy and disease. From a secular view that's just fine, but in the long run I don't think we're truly doing kids any favors by steering them to one type of sex over another.

I think your point about the potential psychological damage has merit and it's something that I've thought as well, but it goes without saying that STD and unwanted pregnancy have a direct and devastating impact upon those who engage in sexual activity outside of marriage and indirectly upon the whole of society. In short, you need to have some sort of study or authority to make the assertion that the potential psychological damage of sexual activity outside of marriage is actually worse than STD and unwanted pregnancy. That's a tough task, as the difficulty in making that assertion is twofold; first you have to prove that psychological damage is occurring and second you have to demonstrate that the damage is a result of sexual activity(which came first, the sexual activity or the psychological damage?).

[shoganai]

I wonder whether there is any middle ground. On the one hand I don't want my kids having sex before they are married. On the other hand, given the choice, I would rather deal with emotional and spiritual problems with a child that come from premarital sex than I would a pregnancy or HIV. How do I teach my kids that I expect them to be chaste but that I equally expect them to use a condom in the event they are not. Not sure how you give both messages. Maybe it is as simple as "you better not, but if you do, there are some in my night stand." I don't know.

How do those of you with teens deal with this?

I think you imply a good point. Kids can - and do - make a lot of stupid mistakes once or twice.

Having sex once or twice probably won't cause irreparable emotional harm. That usually happens when it becomes a lifestyle. But pregnancy and disease only take once...

[woot]

I think you imply a good point. Kids can - and do - make a lot of stupid mistakes once or twice.

Having sex once or twice probably won't cause irreparable emotional harm. That usually happens when it becomes a lifestyle. But pregnancy and disease only take once...

Just so we're clear, you're completely making this up, right?

[CardiacCoug]

Having sex once or twice probably won't cause irreparable emotional harm. That usually happens when it becomes a lifestyle.

Uhh... I'm pretty sure having sex not just once or twice but many, many, many times is a "lifestyle" for most normal people.

Take the guilt and religion out of the equation and I'm not sure there is any evidence of psychological/emotion harm from extramarital, even fairly promiscuous sex.

In some very conservative religious cultures (fundamentalist Islam), kissing a bunch of different people outside of marriage would be considered morally objectionable and emotionally harmful. In LDS culture, we draw the line at extramarital sex (and foreplay activites I suppose). But I think that is equally arbitrary and nonsensical to non-religious people and can't possibly have scientific support.

The only argument against extramarital sex that I find somewhat compelling is that I think for people who have sex with many, many partners before marriage it would probably be more difficult to remain faithful after marriage.

[LA Ute]

I liked that blog post and I think most of the 13 suggestions make a lot of sense. These two don't, however, IMO:

4. Stop talking about modesty as anything other than a sign of self respect. Make boys guardians of their own virtue, girls have no stewardship over boys' thoughts or actions.

This misses the point, I think. Of course girls have no stewardship over boys' thoughts or actions, but they have stewardship over their own, and over whether they tempt the boys. It's not fair for YW to make life more difficult for YM by, for example, showing up at seminary dressed in a way that is going to make it pretty hard for the boys (if they are awake) to concentrate on anything but what the girls are showing them. I think LDS YW do have a responsibility not to set traps for YM, intentionally or not. It's surprising to me how naive many LDS YW seem to be about how female immodesty affects YM.

6. Root out references to the myth of male weakness. Emphasize that men can control themselves.

The assumption here (that raging male teen hormones are difficult for YM to deal with is a "myth") is a huge one, I think, and I don't buy it. And sure, men can control themselves, but that doesn't mean YM should feel free to give YM frequent opportunities to test their self-control.

I have not read the whole thread, so I am sorry if I repeated anything.

[marsupial]

I liked that blog post and I think most of the 13 suggestions make a lot of sense. These two don't, however, IMO:



This misses the point, I think. Of course girls have no stewardship over boys' thoughts or actions, but they have stewardship over their own, and over whether they tempt the boys. It's not fair for YW to make life more difficult for YM by, for example, showing up at seminary dressed in a way that is going to make it pretty hard for the boys (if they are awake) to concentrate on anything but what the girls are showing them. I think LDS YW do have a responsibility not to set traps for YM, intentionally or not. It's surprising to me how naive many LDS YW seem to be about how female immodesty affects YM.

Also, there are some girls that no matter what they wear, they're going to make those boys horny. Shoul we make them feel ashamed because they're well-endowed? Should we say, "Hey, if you're C cup or bigger, you can only wear really baggy sweatshirts and sweatpants, because otherwise the boys can't control themselves"?


The assumption here (that raging male teen hormones are difficult for YM to deal with is a "myth") is a huge one, I think, and I don't buy it. And sure, men can control themselves, but that doesn't mean YM should feel free to give YM frequent opportunities to test their self-control.

I have not read the whole thread, so I am sorry if I repeated anything.

You just don't get it. That you consider the girls "setting traps," is putting the blame on them for the boys' thoughts or behavior. At what point do you say, OK girls, you're covered enough so if the boys are still thinking about sex, it's their fault and you're off the hook. In some parts of the world where women are completely covered in burqas, a bare ankle can be scandalous and sexy and can lead a man to sin.

Maybe because you are a Ute, you haven't read some of the crazy letters that get sent to the Daily Universe regarding modesty and the effect it can have on the minds of men. Apparently one-strap backpacks can lead men to sinful thoughts. Really? If a woman chooses to wear her purse diagonally across her chest, she is setting a "trap" for a young man? What if her shoulders are exposed--she's wearing something sleeveless--just another boy trap? Where does the female's responsibility end and the male's responsibility start?

[Rosebud]

I liked that blog post and I think most of the 13 suggestions make a lot of sense. These two don't, however, IMO:

They make sense from a woman's perspective. Did you read the whole blog post?

****

My son is going in for his 12-yo priesthood interview very soon. We've made it clear to the bishop that any discussions about sex are off the table.

We have a really good relationship with our son. He knows that we've told the bishop not to bring up sex and that if the bishop does, he should let us know what was said. We also told our son that if he ever has any questions about sex and would like to talk to someone besides us about them, the bishop would be an okay person to ask.... but that our son should be the one who instigates the conversation. He rolled his eyes the thought of ever doing that, so I'm feeling pretty good about where things stand.

I don't actually think an ecclesiastical leader is a good person to go to with sex questions, it's just that I don't think that we as parents have the power to forbid him from talking to the bishop about sex if he feels like he has something he needs to talk about. The thing is, though, that there's about a zero chance he'll ever have a need to go to the bishop because he has parents who are there for him.

Not all kids are as lucky as my son, though (if I do say so myself). For those who aren't, it's too bad we don't have a more supportive system in place.

[marsupial]

Some girls make the boys horny no matter what they wear. Modesty can be taught without going into the "you don't know what you do to boys when you wear that," discussion. The author makes a good point. Teaching modesty is not about telling girls that they have the power to "trap" boys, but teaching them self respect. You dress modestly because you are a young woman who knows how to carry herself with confidence, dignity and in a way that would please God.

[LA Ute]

They make sense from a woman's perspective. Did you read the whole blog post?

I did, RB. These are issues on which reasonable people disagree, and I simply disagree. For example, this paragraph is eminently debatable:

This myth of male weakness is a pernicious lie that we have to eradicate from our culture. It manages to be both anti-male and anti-female. Anti-male because it teaches that men are wild beasts instead of noble agents of their own destinies. I do not mean to imply that it is a myth that teenaged boys think about sex, a lot. But it is a harmful lie to say sex is the only thing boys want. Boys are just as complex and moral and strong as girls are. And No girl can make a boy think or do anything. Boys make their own choices and are exclusively responsible for those choices.

The myth of male weakness is anti-female because it blames girls for boys thoughts and choices. And that is wrong. Period.

There's lots of hyperbole there. In our brood we have boys (now adults) and a girl (13). We find the idea that men are wild beasts repugnant in the extreme and certainly don't teach that, but we still think male weakness in sexual matters (especially that of young men) is a reality, not a myth.

Claiming that anyone in the church teaches that "sex is the only thing boys want" is simply a straw man. That's not taught in our church, nor is teaching it sanctioned. Period.

My son is going in for his 12-yo priesthood interview very soon. We've made it clear to the bishop that any discussions about sex are off the table.

We have a really good relationship with our son. He knows that we've told the bishop not to bring up sex and that if the bishop does, he should let us know what was said. We also told our son that if he ever has any questions about sex and would like to talk to someone besides us about them, the bishop would be an okay person to ask.... but that our son should be the one who instigates the conversation. He rolled his eyes the thought of ever doing that, so I'm feeling pretty good about where things stand.

I don't actually think an ecclesiastical leader is a good person to go to with sex questions, it's just that I don't think that we as parents have the power to forbid him from talking to the bishop about sex if he feels like he has something he needs to talk about. The thing is, though, that there's about a zero chance he'll ever have a need to go to the bishop because he has parents who are there for him.

Not all kids are as lucky as my son, though (if I do say so myself). For those who aren't, it's too bad we don't have a more supportive system in place.

I didn't have anything to say about the blogger's #13. I think how to handle that one is up to the parents. In our case we have tried to team up with the bishop by having a discussion with him about how he intends to approach such matters, how we approach them in our family, and how we want him to deal with our kids. It's worked well for us. Looks like you are doing something similar.

You just don't get it.

Have you been talking to my wife?

That you consider the girls "setting traps," is putting the blame on them for the boys' thoughts or behavior. At what point do you say, OK girls, you're covered enough so if the boys are still thinking about sex, it's their fault and you're off the hook. In some parts of the world where women are completely covered in burqas, a bare ankle can be scandalous and sexy and can lead a man to sin.

Fair points, M. "Traps" was probably the wrong word. How about "stumbling blocks?" Both sexes can do that to the other. We teach our daughter to beware of dressing in a way that draws attention to her because of her body. (The guidelines in "For the Strength of Youth" seem sensible in that regard.) It's kind of a rule of thumb and calls for the application of lots of judgment.

Maybe because you are a Ute, you haven't read some of the crazy letters that get sent to the Daily Universe regarding modesty and the effect it can have on the minds of men. Apparently one-strap backpacks can lead men to sinful thoughts. Really? If a woman chooses to wear her purse diagonally across her chest, she is setting a "trap" for a young man? What if her shoulders are exposed--she's wearing something sleeveless--just another boy trap? Where does the female's responsibility end and the male's responsibility start?

To be clear, I think the man's responsibility is never-ending and that it cannot be transferred to any woman. After all, David had to keep looking at Bathsheba. I just think YW should avoid making it more difficult for YM than it already is - give them a break, so to speak. YM have the same responsibility.

I think I am sounding more like a mullah here than I really am, but that's a result of my simply making some counter-points. At least I hope so.

[Surfah]

They make sense from a woman's perspective. Did you read the whole blog post?

****

My son is going in for his 12-yo priesthood interview very soon. We've made it clear to the bishop that any discussions about sex are off the table.

We have a really good relationship with our son. He knows that we've told the bishop not to bring up sex and that if the bishop does, he should let us know what was said. We also told our son that if he ever has any questions about sex and would like to talk to someone besides us about them, the bishop would be an okay person to ask.... but that our son should be the one who instigates the conversation. He rolled his eyes the thought of ever doing that, so I'm feeling pretty good about where things stand.

I don't actually think an ecclesiastical leader is a good person to go to with sex questions, it's just that I don't think that we as parents have the power to forbid him from talking to the bishop about sex if he feels like he has something he needs to talk about. The thing is, though, that there's about a zero chance he'll ever have a need to go to the bishop because he has parents who are there for him.

Not all kids are as lucky as my son, though (if I do say so myself). For those who aren't, it's too bad we don't have a more supportive system in place.

[Rosebud]

heh heh... you misunderstand me. Read it from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that it's helpful for kids to feel like they need to "confess" sexual "sins" to ecclesiastical leaders.

[Babs]

[Rosebud]

There's lots of hyperbole there.

Agreed about the hyperbole, but i'll still stick with thinking that you don't get how damaging these things can be to YW. That's okay. You have your perspective and I don't expect that you'll change it.