Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not a theologian, or a liberal cleric. Since when did a Christian have to be a theologian or liberal cleric to not be conservative regarding sex? Also, what does it matter if fellow church members disapprove? It's none of their business what somebody else does with their sex life - that goes for anyone, church family is not excluded from this. Edited to ask how the other churchgoers would even know about my hypothetical child's sex life? Do some churches grill people about what they do with their genitals? How very strange. I have no idea what the other people in my church do with their sex life and I really don't need to know.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not a theologian, or a liberal cleric. Since when did a Christian have to be a theologian or liberal cleric to not be conservative regarding sex? Also, what does it matter if fellow church members disapprove? It's none of their business what somebody else does with their sex life - that goes for anyone, church family is not excluded from this. Edited to ask how the other churchgoers would even know about my hypothetical child's sex life? Do some churches grill people about what they do with their genitals? How very strange. I have no idea what the other people in my church do with their sex life and I really don't need to know.

---

I thought you were training or thinking of training for the ministry? I admit, I don't know how that works in your denomination. In the tradition I know, you need to have some theological training before you begin.

It's often said that in the mainstream churches the clergy and the theologians are more liberal than the laity. Despite the fact that anyone can be challenged by their children's behaviour I think that probably holds true for issues of sexual behaviour as with others. Maybe that's partly to do with age, since churchgoers can often be quite a bit older than their clergy these days.

As for churchgoers being expected to mind their own business, that must be an Anglican thing! Still, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have family secrets, but rather that they probably wouldn't choose to share their particular sexual theology with the rest of the church - especially not if they have a lay role in the church that does require a degree of mutual trust and respect.

I realise I'm talking out of the cultural and religious traditions I'm familiar with, which may be different from yours.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No prophet said sexual abuse, not child abuse. Plenty of adults are sexually abused.

And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex - where is Bill Clinton when you need him?

Is mutual masturbation sex?

Is oral sex, sex?

Or is only penetrative sex, sex?

If only PIV [Penis in Vagina] sex is 'real' sex then I am a virgin - I'm not sure how I feel about that, I surely don't feel deprived.

I didn't experience penetrative sex until I was 27 so did this mean I postponed sex? Does this mean all the other "sex" I experienced in the previous 15 years was not really sex?

I have at least one friend who has never had [and never wants] any sort of penetrative sex and I don't think he feels deprived either.

Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.

Some years ago we had a friend stay and he brought with him the young daughter of a friend of his, she was early twenties and her take on virginity was that "most" of her contemporaries felt virginity was a burden that they were anxious to lose as soon as possible.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No prophet said sexual abuse, not child abuse. Plenty of adults are sexually abused.

And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

Well, I can't do anything about adult sex abuse either. Nonconsensual sex is irrelevant to the OP.

I said "often" not "always" with regard to emotional gap-filling. I think it is clear from context that I was dealing with the particular set of circumstances under discussion, not all possible sexual encounters for all time. However, thanks for laying out more reasons people have sex. As a person who has only had one loving partner, I clearly am naive and totally oblivious to all of this and need to be patronisingly educated.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Really, you should wait until you're in a committed relationship to have sex. It's the best decision all around. But, if for some reason you choose not to do this, please use a condom.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

Not certain I would. IMO, this would merely increase the desire for regular sex. BTW, masturbation is sex by any meaningful definition.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, masturbation is sex by any meaningful definition.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex - where is Bill Clinton when you need him?

Is mutual masturbation sex?

Is oral sex, sex?

Or is only penetrative sex, sex?

If only PIV [Penis in Vagina] sex is 'real' sex then I am a virgin - I'm not sure how I feel about that, I surely don't feel deprived.

I didn't experience penetrative sex until I was 27 so did this mean I postponed sex? Does this mean all the other "sex" I experienced in the previous 15 years was not really sex?

I have at least one friend who has never had [and never wants] any sort of penetrative sex and I don't think he feels deprived either.

Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.

Some years ago we had a friend stay and he brought with him the young daughter of a friend of his, she was early twenties and her take on virginity was that "most" of her contemporaries felt virginity was a burden that they were anxious to lose as soon as possible.

---

Oh I totally count non-PIV sex as sex, but AFAIK penetrative sex is what counts regarding the age of consent. The legal aspect is what I was talking about, sorry for the lack of clarity there.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


As for church members not knowing (or wanting to know!) about the sex life of other church members, I'd think that was a British (English?) thing rather than a strictly Anglican thing - I can't imagine anything else from a British WASP* mainline Protestant church! Large evangelical/charismatic churches that adopt American-style purity rings for their teenagers, perhaps, but certainly not Methodists or Baptists or URC-ers. I'd be VERY surprised if it happened in the average RC parish church in the UK outside of confession, to be honest.

*WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How is non-consensual sex irrelevant to the OP? Certainly regarding sex education, it is VERY relevant - education on consent is very important but dangerously overlooked. Nobody has asked you to prevent all sexual abuse, just acknowledge that even from a Christian perspective, waiting until marriage to have sex is not possible or desirable for everyone - not even for all Christians.

The purity culture industry - and yes it is an industry, and why do all the worst things in the church have to be so beneficial to capitalism? - is just utter horseshit and not even Biblical horseshit, sorry. Dressing up the enjoyment of pre-marital sex in faux-psychological language isn't that much better than 'don't have sex or God will love you less'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Welease Woderwick: A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

So is a person better to pretend they are virginal after sexual abuse or to learn to be positively sexually active? Stopping the pretence?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I think I see what you are saying, No Prophet. Whether a person steals my life savings, or I give them to him freely, the end result is that I have no money.

However, I still don't see how this gets us anywhere in our discussion about how to discourage people from choosing sexual activity at a young age.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I didn't invent the idea or the problem. We have churches and others telling people that sex before marriage means they are "used goods" and damaged, without regard to those who feel this way because of sexual abuse.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Concentrating on virginity as this prized object is, as I see it, focusing on sexual sin in a rather negative and unhealthy way, and reenforces a completely false virgin/slut dichotomy. Sexual ethics do not begin and end with the first act of intercourse. It is no less important to have sex the 1,000th time for the right reasons than it is the first.

---

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:


Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.
[/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:

For rape unlawful intercourse with a minor and related offences what is required is 'penetration' of the victims mouth/vagina/anus with a penis. Penetration doesn't have to be full penetration.

---

quote:

---

However, for consummation of a marriage full vaginal intercourse is required. The (mainly Victorian) case law specifies that the complete act (i.e. up to and including male ejaculation) is needed. As consummation cases rarely come before the courts these days there isn't a common law precedent on whether anal or oral intercourse would be sufficient.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex

---

Does it have to be the same answer for everyone? I personally don't think (for example) that what counts is having an orgasm and how one gets there is mere detail. Now that I'm married, I think that sex in the full, PinV sense has a specialness, emotionally speaking, that other acts lack.

But other people disagree with me. That's fine. They can calibrate their intimacy scales accordingly.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


As for church members not knowing (or wanting to know!) about the sex life of other church members, I'd think that was a British (English?) thing rather than a strictly Anglican thing - I can't imagine anything else from a British WASP* mainline Protestant church! Large evangelical/charismatic churches that adopt American-style purity rings for their teenagers, perhaps, but certainly not Methodists or Baptists or URC-ers. I'd be VERY surprised if it happened in the average RC parish church in the UK outside of confession, to be honest.

*WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

---

I wasn't thinking about purity rings, or any particular obsession with sex, but simply about church members getting to know one another, offering each other mutual support and advice. This kind of togetherness will probably mean that at some point, your relationship status will become known to someone in the church.

In my last Methodist church, I was aware (I can't remember how) that one of my fellow church stewards was in a long-term stable relationship that wasn't a marriage. Her marital status didn't prevent her from doing her job, and the people who knew about it weren't judgemental. But the point is, some people did know, simply because it was a church where people communicated with each other.

In my experience the mainstream churches tend to be okay with long-term stable relationships, but less keen on serial, unemotional sexual relationships. You're obviously rather radical in this respect. Moreover, although I can see the positives in the 'mind your own business' Anglican approach, I think it comes with a certain weakness. People simply won't join those churches if they're looking for community and friendship.

---

People will know others' relationship statuses in most churches, including mine, but that doesn't mean they know others' sex lives unless they're told about them. That's what I was talking about, not knowing who's married and who's not. That's a very strange angle to get from my comment. You can have a church with community and friendship without knowing about other members' sex lives. Since when was knowing the state of someone's vagina a pre-requisite for community and friendship? If it is, that's not a church I want to be part of.

As for me being radical in my view re sex, it just boils down to other people's intimate lives not being my business. End of. I neither approve nor disapprove of any particular relationship status (unless there's abuse or something happening), because the couple's reasons are their own. It's just that I don't think it matters to God what someone does or doesn't do with their genitalia, as if it affects them as people. The secular world has known this for a while, maybe it's time for the church to catch up. Oh and there's a big middle area between a long-term but not married relationship and a series of unemotional sexual encounters! Most people I know are in between those two. Doesn't mean they're somehow lesser people if they're nearer the latter.

Also, my view really isn't the view of the Anglican church as a whole - surely you don't think I can speak for the whole church? You must have realised the diversity of the church by now!

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How is non-consensual sex irrelevant to the OP? Certainly regarding sex education, it is VERY relevant - education on consent is very important but dangerously overlooked. Nobody has asked you to prevent all sexual abuse, just acknowledge that even from a Christian perspective, waiting until marriage to have sex is not possible or desirable for everyone - not even for all Christians.

The purity culture industry - and yes it is an industry, and why do all the worst things in the church have to be so beneficial to capitalism? - is just utter horseshit and not even Biblical horseshit, sorry. Dressing up the enjoyment of pre-marital sex in faux-psychological language isn't that much better than 'don't have sex or God will love you less'.

---

Non-consensual sex is irrelevant because the OP asks how we can persuade young people to postpone sex until they are older or married. This implies a level of choice on the part of the young person. How we can avoid them being coerced or forced into it is a different subject entirely.

Do you really think that all young people choosing to have sex are doing so because they enjoy it? That nobody seeks sex for reassurance that they are acceptable? That giving our young people a strong sense of self worth is not going to help equip them to make good decisions about what they do with their bodies and with whom?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being me seemed to be adequate to postpone it indefinitely throughout my teenage years.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being me seemed to be adequate to postpone it indefinitely throughout my teenage years.

---

Well yes, same here. Not assuming anything about a teenager's sex life would be helpful, I think - teenagers are not all raging sacks of hormones, they're just people.

---

I was a raging sack of hormones. I just couldn't find another raging sack of hormones that wanted any truck with mine

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's their body, they have the right to use it in ways that are enjoyable to them, without pressure from parents/society/God getting in the way.

---

Bolding mine. I'm not surprised that secular, liberal culture has that attitude. I would be pretty astonished to find it among Christians.

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies." 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

I'm not defending purity culture, which I've read about extensively and which obviously has myriad problems, not least hypocrisy and sexism. I'm all for candid discussions about sexuality. I'm also conservative on sexual matters (although I don't regard masturbation as a big deal, especially as the Bible never actually mentions it - that reference to Onan does NOT count! As I'm sure all Shipmates realise. )

But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

If I'd had kids, their lives and decisions would have been their own once they became adults. The idea of rejecting a child for being gay, or getting pregnant outside wedlock, is inconceivable to me. But before my non-existent kids reached adulthood, they would have heard from me (and their hypothetical father) the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's their body, they have the right to use it in ways that are enjoyable to them, without pressure from parents/society/God getting in the way.

---

Bolding mine. I'm not surprised that secular, liberal culture has that attitude. I would be pretty astonished to find it among Christians.

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies." 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

I'm not defending purity culture, which I've read about extensively and which obviously has myriad problems, not least hypocrisy and sexism. I'm all for candid discussions about sexuality. I'm also conservative on sexual matters (although I don't regard masturbation as a big deal, especially as the Bible never actually mentions it - that reference to Onan does NOT count! As I'm sure all Shipmates realise. )

But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

If I'd had kids, their lives and decisions would have been their own once they became adults. The idea of rejecting a child for being gay, or getting pregnant outside wedlock, is inconceivable to me. But before my non-existent kids reached adulthood, they would have heard from me (and their hypothetical father) the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage.

---

I should have put God in scare quotes, sorry - I didn't mean actual God, but rather what people imagine God thinks about sex, which more often than not is not actually Biblical. You talk about 'the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage' - according to which Christians? I'm a Christian, but I bet we would have different ideas about what the marriage covenant means. There is no single Christian view of sex and marriage. There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital. There are verses some people interpret as being for saving sex for marriage, but that is just an interpretation.

Also, you can be a Christian and disagree with Paul Teaching young people that their bodies are not their own is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and makes abuse and manipulation (to say nothing of guilt) so much easier. Teaching young people that their bodies ARE their own, that others do not own their bodies and cannot claim use of them without permission, is very important.

We also need to know here what Paul means by sexual sin - what churches teach as 'sexual sin' and what actually is sexual sin are often totally different things. IMO sexual sin is when we use sex to hurt and abuse others, not mutually-enjoyed consensual sex before marriage. Yes, we should obey God but first we need to work out what God is actually saying - we need to obey God, not the church's assumptions about what God wants.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is fine as far as it goes, but traditionally Christians have spent a great deal of time and effort to force other people to surrender their sexuality to the Christian God as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I should have put God in scare quotes, sorry - I didn't mean actual God, but rather what people imagine God thinks about sex, which more often than not is not actually Biblical.

---

Ah, OK, fair enough.

quote:

---

You talk about 'the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage' - according to which Christians?

---

quote:

---

I'm a Christian, but I bet we would have different ideas about what the marriage covenant means.

---

We would? If you insist. OK then ... to me the marriage covenant is about mutual respect, mutual submission and heck yes, the covenantal importance of reserving your body exclusively for your future partner. It's all there in Paul. We know what the relevant passages are.

Sleeping around is not the unforgivable sin, it doesn't 'ruin' people forever, as the silly and unforgiving purity culture would have it, but it's not something people who take the Bible seriously will be promoting either, for themselves or for their children.

quote:

---

There are verses some people interpret as being for saving sex for marriage, but that is just an interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Also, you can be a Christian and disagree with Paul

---

Paul's teaching is not always easy, to say the least but I'm not down with ignoring him either.

quote:

---

Teaching young people that their bodies are not their own is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and makes abuse and manipulation (to say nothing of guilt) so much easier.

---

Obviously there is a huge great bloody Everest-sized difference between an individual Christian's volitional surrender to the God we love, and sexual abuse and manipulation by another human being.

quote:

---

Teaching young people that their bodies ARE their own, that others do not own their bodies and cannot claim use of them without permission, is very important.

---

quote:

---

We also need to know here what Paul means by sexual sin - what churches teach as 'sexual sin' and what actually is sexual sin are often totally different things.

---

quote:

---

IMO sexual sin is when we use sex to hurt and abuse others, not mutually-enjoyed consensual sex before marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not convinced that the secular world, with its myriad of social problems, has all the answers when it comes to sexual behaviour. Neither does the American Bible Belt. These are not the only options available for a Christian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital.

---

You have a logic error here. If sex makes you married, then the first occasion of sex could be described as pre-marital (probably really peri-marital), and all other sexual contact would be post-marital (or adultery if it was with someone else).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not convinced that the secular world, with its myriad of social problems, has all the answers when it comes to sexual behaviour. Neither does the American Bible Belt. These are not the only options available for a Christian.

---

Agreed! I do think the Bible has answers, I just think that the answers that are actually there are different to the answers people think are there - and there isn't a great deal in the Bible about sex, full stop. I know that it's mentioned a lot when talking about Dead Horses, but there is barely more mentioned about heterosexual sex.

---