Before anything else, let me say that Amanda at Pandagon has done a terrific job this morning summarizing the Men’s Rights Movement. Though it’s always vital to note that there are many strands to the men’s movement (including large numbers of pro-feminist men), it’s the MR fellows who often seem to get the most press. She does note, correctly, that Glenn Sacks is very charming.
Lots of interesting — and challenging — comments below my previous post about my words to the All Saints teens Wednesday night. Regular commenters from the more conservative end (Chip, Stephen, and John) have taken me to task; some of my secular feminist allies have strongly supported my words; still others have taken a more nuanced view. (I think in particular of Thunder Jones.) It has not escaped my attention, however, that those who showed the strongest agreement with me were the most secular of my commenters, while those who challenged my answer to the kids were mostly fellow believers.
I’m still struggling this Friday morning, honestly. The fact that I’m uncomfortable with what I said is not evidence of a guilty conscience, at least I don’t think so. But heck, I’m prone to second-guessing myself all the time. A hallmark of my own spiritual peregrinations has been a simultaneous fascination with, and fervent rejection of, absolute truths. In the past quarter-century, since I first started thinking about God and morality when I was about to enter adolescence, I’ve vacillated between a fierce libertarianism and a kind of communitarian censoriousness on moral issues. I’m getting better than I used to be, but sometimes, to play with the old saying about whirlwind travel, "If it’s Tuesday, Hugo must be a social conservative." It’s hard to be so uncertain about so many things. It’s hard to be "living in Laodicea" all the time, as some of my more conservative friends suggest I am. It’s hard when I know that my own ambivalence about practically everything serious makes it difficult to take me seriously. (I think it makes me an interesting teacher, however.)
I’m embarrassed by how difficult it is for me to have deep enduring convictions, especially around issues of sexual morality. There are many things I have strong, unshakeable feelings about. (A recent example of my implacability is here.) But perhaps because of my own past experience, I’m tremendously reluctant to set limits. That’s odd, because the lack of limits in my own life caused great pain to many people in my younger years, myself included. Like too many young people, I suppose I’d rather be labeled anything in the world except for a hypocrite; I’ve fallen prey to the modern notion that hypocrisy is the greatest vice of all, while tolerance is the greatest virtue. I know what a superficial and flawed notion that really is, and yet… and yet.
Do I love the All Saints kids? Absolutely. I’m passionate about them. As I wrote yesterday, I see them as individuals rather than generic teens, and I am acutely aware that they have different psyches and maturity levels and desires. At the same time, I know that there are some universal truths about adolescents that apply to every one of them, and one of those truths is that they are not miniature adults!
I wonder: if I could have the "best" for them, the complete and utter best, if I could have them "hit the mark" directly, would I want them to wait to become sexually active until they were older? Yes, I would. Would I want them to wait until marriage? In all honesty, I’m not sure. Despite the fact that I have dear friends of mine today who did "wait" for marriage, my own background and life experience still tells me that for most people, that’s an impossibly lofty goal that isn’t even worth shooting for. I wonder if my theology of sex isn’t being informed by my own sense of frailty.
I’m not ambivalent about Jesus. I believe He died for me. I believe He loves me. I believe He loves the kids I care for far more than I comprehend, and I believe that as a youth leader, I am a shepherd whom He has asked, in the words of the Johannine gospel, to "feed my lambs." I stand by my words on Wednesday night still. At this moment, most of me still believes that for at least some kids, sexual activity in adolescence can meet the "Regas Test" of being liberating, life-giving, joyous, fun, easy, ecstatic, fantastic…resist(ing) all cruelty, all exploitation, all impersonalization. But George Regas, for all his tremendous talent and legacy of devotion to social justice, is not Jesus, and I can’t substitute a sermon from my church’s former rector for the gospel.
I wonder (as I wander), was there much substance to the food I gave to these lambs I love? I was eloquent, I think, and sincere. I do eloquence and sincerity well. But was I right? Were they fed?
I’m still in a lot of doubt this morning. Much to pray about before next Wednesday’s youth group meeting. My kids whom I treasure need a consistent message from me, and that means I need some clarity. Fast.
Sounds like you would like some advise.__I never had sex until I married, but I grew up in a very sheltered, conservative home. Do I expect my teenage daughters to refrain from sex until they marry?? I would love it! But it is not going to happen!!__This is the advise I gave my two teenage daughters.__ I told them that they should reserve sex for a relationship where they felt that they were loved and respected. I told them that this could only be achieved in a caring serious relationship with one special boy. I told them that to have sex for the pleasure of it, without the commitment of a relationship was completely wrong!!….Both of them agreed with this statement, there were no arguments.(I know some people will disagree with me, but you have to remember that these are teenagers.) ….Truth is, I feel the same about adults. I don’t condone sex without a committed relationship, even for adults!
The reality is that, if you have an older teenager, in a steady relationship, it’s going to happen. If the kids in your group are not dating a significant ‘other’, then you need to gently tell them that this act has to be reserved for the time when they establish a caring relationship.__It’s not that big a deal! They understand that sexual promiscuity is off limits.__You won’t have a problem with the younger kids, they aren’t going to get that involved, and the older teens, (juniors,seniors in high school) are mature enough to understand what you are telling them. And the truth is, they see the logic in what you are saying. Most of them aren’t going to go around sleeping with different people, they have a higher morality that we give them credit for.__As I see it, your job is to try and shape that morality.
I hope this helps!!
I just went to Amanda’s website and what I found there was one of the most shallow, misinformed and biased assessments of MRAs and our movement I’ve read on the ‘net. Come on! It’s like equating all feminists with Dworkin, McKinnon and other extremist radicals.
Give me a break.
Hugo,
I respect the fact that you are questioning yourself. But, you need to look at the big picture. Stop second guessing yourself!
Hugo, I must say that although I adamantly disagreed with the response that you gave to these lambs that Jesus has entrusted to your care, I continue to be thankful that God has placed you in their lives. I’m able to say that because I realize a lot of the other things that they are hearing and recieving at All Saints, in other settings, is also damaging to their souls. I say that, not in as mean-spirited jab at the parish but with a heartfelt belief that the parish as a whole is misguided theologically and thta grieves me. My hope is that you could be light, especially to these kids.
That said, I found it funny that I was asked and agreed today to address the youth group at my own episcopal parish with my wife next wednesday. My guess is we will do a question and answer session just like you all held. i wanted to share with you an image that we’ve used in the past that has been helpful for us in relating God’s best for sex. We take in with us a 2 beautiful red roses and tell the kids that the rose represents God’s gift of their sexuality. With the first rose we pass it around and ask the kids to do whatever they want with it. We encourage them to pick petals off, throw it, step on it, whatever. Then we say–”when you share this gift with others, before marriage, it gets damaged, used.” Then we bring out the other, still perfect rose and say, “But if you wait until your marriage night, this perfect rose is your gift to your new spouse.” And finally, because some have already used their “rose” we add include the Good News that God also redeems. Even if they have chosen to have sex, God will honor their choice to abstain from this day on until marriage and can and will redeem their sexuality. I believe it is a wonderful image. I hope it speaks to you.
Hugo,
I would like to say that you have risen a few notches on my personal respect meter (not that you were low to begin with, understand!) because of how important it obviously is to you that you REALLY serve those young people at your church. I personally am confident that, whether or not you could have served them better in this particular instance, your love will be felt by them, and they will look to you as a role model. And I know that you will be a role model worth having for them, faults and all (whatever they may be).
Mr.Bad: Did you notice that you were unsubtly chided in that big strawman diatribe for not responding to a post about the boy forced to live in his car in Hew Hampshire, and the campus feminist group who thought that castration images are acceptable parody material?
stanton wrote: “Mr.Bad: Did you notice that you were unsubtly chided in that big strawman diatribe for not responding to a post about the boy forced to live in his car in Hew Hampshire, and the campus feminist group who thought that castration images are acceptable parody material?
Hi stanton,
Nope, I didn’t see it. Hugo apparentky removed the thread before I had a chance to read and respond because when I went back there to check it was gone. What was said?
Not that I’m surprised that Hugo would let his feminist allies heap “unpleasantness” (his term) on me and then not let me respond. This sort of double-standard re. censorship and forced-chivalry seems to be that “male privilege” he keeps talking about.
It was not Hugo. It was near the bottom of the comments on Amanda’s indictment of men who have the temerity to be interested in equality.
(http://www.pandagon.net/archives/2005/04/overview_of_the.html)
Some of the same people who get indignant at the generalizations about feminists have no problem with this blather about how MRAs are this or that bad thing.
> The reality is that, if you have an older teenager, in a steady
> relationship, it’s going to happen. If the kids in your group are not
> dating a significant ‘other’, then you need to gently tell them that this
> act has to be reserved for the time when they establish a caring
> relationship.__It’s not that big a deal! They understand that sexual
> promiscuity is off limits.__You won’t have a problem with the younger
> kids, they aren’t going to get that involved, and the older teens,
> (juniors,seniors in high school) are mature enough to understand what you
> are telling them.
Mercy,
I hate to say it, but I think you’re *still* sheltered. Studies that I’ve read indicate that the number of teens who are sexually active is going down as sex ed becomes better and more honest. BUT — and this is a huge but — younger kids ARE sexually active. Not nearly all of them, thank goodness, but too many to be negligible.
Our kids were in public school until Fall 2001, when our boys started homeschooling. Our daughter began homeschooling in March 2002. She’s our social butterfly. She wanted to stay in public school so that she could socialize.
We’d moved that summer, and so she was enrolled in a new school where we didn’t know the kids or their parents. I started getting an awakening as to what sort of students she’d made friends with that September, when she came home from school on her 12th birthday and began to inform me that now that she was 12, she’d be deciding where she went and who with, and that my job was to drop her off where she told me and pick her up when she told me. After all, “everyone” was dating at 12.
If I recall correctly, my first reaction was to laugh - until I saw that she was serious. Needless to say, her 12th birthday wasn’t as happy for her as we’d all hoped it would be. She’s 15-and-a-half now and was asking me the other day why we won’t let her go out on a date without her brothers. I reminded her of our “No Solo Dating” policy that the boys have to live with, too.
Turns out it wasn’t the dating thing that was bothering her after all. It was an entirely different emotional issue. The dating just happened to be an easy excuse to be upset.
And so it goes with teens. A good friend of our 17yo’s has experimented with bisexuality. Too many of their “friends” drink and do drugs. That sort of environment contributes to teen sexual experiences. It’s not a healthy environment that many of them find themselves in.
I’m honest with my kids about those pitfalls. My husband and I talk to them on occasion about some of our friends who fell into the deeper traps out there. We all know people with kids their ages who are having a heck of a time because the parents were “wild children” and have been married/divorced/remarried/divorced/etc far too many times and the kids are watching the parents live through this.
Our own kids have lived through that with our previous relationships. The only way I have to help them avoid at least some of those pitfalls is honesty about the benefits and consequences of particular decisions about sex.
Hugo, thanks for the link. Unsurprisingly, they’ve turned a thread on teenagers and sex into one on themselves, though.
“Unsurprisingly, they’ve turned a thread on teenagers and sex into one on themselves, though.”
Yes, Amanda, “they” really are terrible, aren’t they?
stanton, you were the person who made the catty comment that feminists never respond to single, documented incidents, only to generalizations, so as a feminist I followed up on the two incidents mentioned and found them to be much ado about nothing—the first (supposedly a pro-castration rally) was actually satire (a young woman onstage who introduces herself as “Mary Manhatingisfun” wearing scissors around her neck—hammy, overdone satire, but satire nonetheless), the second (a young man supposedly thrown out of student housing for insinuating that women are getting fat and ugly) an incident that actually involved previous violations of student housing rules (specifically alcohol violations).
Hugo did not remove the thread. It’s still there. I responded, and watched the thread for any response. Neither you nor Mr. Bad were in evidence.
Can’t help but wonder though, why you come here to mention it, rather than stay on the Pandagon thread. And why are you coming here, Mr. Bad, to complain about Amanda? If you have an issue, keep it where it belongs.
stanton, you were the one who said that feminists would only respond to generalizations, not to specific incidents. So, on that other thread, I followed up on the incidents Mr. Bad mentioned. Much ado about nothing. The first was not a pro-castration rally, but hammy, overdone satire (a young woman onstage, introducing herself as “Mary Manhatingisfun” and wearing scissors around her neck—come on! That’s like calling “Reefer Madness” a paean to pot smoking).
The second incident, the one of the young man who was thrown out of student housing supposedly “PC” reasons, was actually allowed back in to student housing for “PC” reasons—his probation and violations of student housing code involving alcohol no longer “counted” when he could bring “free speech” into the ring.
Neither you nor Mr. Bad responded to that thread, and no, Hugo didn’t remove it. I find it curious that you come to this thread to mention it, yet didn’t feel strongly enough to respond yourself. Quite catty, wouldn’t you say? Sort of like Mr. Bad coming to Hugo’s blog to complain about what Amanda says on Pandagon.
If you are concerned about what’s going on over at Pandagon, “pull up a chair”. It’s basic blog etiquette.
Whoops! Sorry for the two posts. The first one (I thought) was lost, so I rewrote it. Feel free to delete one or the other.
If we could keep the comments on this thread to the teenagers/sex/morality theme, that would be nice, folks. Lots of other places to comment on the men’s rights movement. Thanks.
Indeed, Mercy, I’d add that the idea that younger kids aren’t sexually active is mistaken. Anecdotal evidence — as well as research — suggests that a substantial number of ninth-graders have begun to experiment with sex, something that I’ve regularly heard (in private, confidential conversations) from kids ages 13 and 14. There are plenty of kids who aren’t sexually active, of course — but more than we might imagine. We have to listen to their stories without fear and without condemnation so that we can begin to figure out an intelligent pastoral response.
Redeemed, I thank you for your kind words. At the same time, I can’t endorse any exercise that could possibly leave any of my beloved young people feeling “dirty” or “broken” or “damaged.” It’s entirely possible that some of our kids have had pre-marital sex and have felt fine with it on multiple levels. To tell them they should feel damaged would seem to me to be the opposite of pastoral care! But I do understand the beauty of the image you’re using.
While I appreciate efforts to make teenagers appreciate the value and weight and importance of sexuality, the “your virginity is a special flower” thing is…problematic, I think.
When you’ve been through a rape or sexual assault, do you really need to hear that your sexuality is a rose that somebody already ripped the petals off and now you basically have nothing to give to your future spouse? Even when you know, 100%, in your head, that it’s not your fault and doesn’t apply to you… that’s just not a message that I’d want to send, however unintentionally.
Mr. Bad,
Perhaps you’d care to keep the political feminist vs anti-feminist mumbo-jumbo out of a discussion about teens? It’d be much appreciated. Thanks ever so much.
Hugo,
This may sound odd coming from one of your more secular (and non-Christian) readers, but I actually think that the answer you gave was very consistent with your stated desire to witness for your Episcopal students the importance of an evangelical personal relationship with Christ: one implication of that is personal responsibility for moral choices made through prayer and reflection rather than through simple rules and norms, and faith in the redemptive power of the love and sacrifice of Christ.
Emily, great point about the rose analogy! Another problem I see with it is the equating of sex with being damaged or soiled. And considering that even though this speech is given to both boys and girls, the kids know who the “rose” is really referring to (”deflowering” not being a term applied to males). Then, these young women are supposed to have a healthy attitude about their bodies and sex, after internalizing that their virginity is the most beautiful part of them? And that sex is dirty? Bah.
Look, even if you are of the opinion that no one should ever have sex before marriage…that “sex is dirty” and the “Madonna/Whore” complex lasts well past the wedding bells. Not just in women…men too. There are men who have a warped idea about what kind of sex is ok for their wives to enjoy.
Thank you, La Lubu, for articulating what I was trying to say in my previous posts.
As someone who grew up hearing the rose stuff all the time, I have to agree that it’s a yucky one. I’m all for waiting until marriage for sex, I did it myself what with being Mormon and all. But people who have sex are not a bunch of nasty broken roses. They’re still God’s children and he loves them and there’s nothing used and wilted about them. That’s just untrue and cruel.
Hugo, as a non-secular type, I think what you said was perfect. I think it’s the message those kids needed in the context of their lives.
It’s hard to know how to bring a balance to places where strict line drawing would be so much easier. But strict line drawing rarely works in the messy world. I think to prepare our children for that truth is just about the best thing we can teach them. I wish there were some way to bring more balance, more rules for the liberal-reared kids, more loving acceptace for the conservative-reared kids. It’s never an easy balance.
IMO, People who cling to easy answers are living a lie.
I’m not surprised to hear that you got a range of responses to your previous post on this subject, Hugo — nor am I particularly surprised to hear that there was a fairly predictable breakdown between those who agreed with what you said (your more secular readers) and those who didn’t (your more evangelical readers). But I hope we can collectively bear in mind that there’s no disjunction between being liberal and being deeply religious. :-) It’s easy to assume that those who are politically and theologically liberal don’t take religion seriously, but I think that assumption is both dangerous and incorrect.
And more importantly, I hope that no one participating in this conversation doubts your genuine caring for the kids in question, and your obvious desire to manifest God’s teachings for them in a meaningful way.
Friends, Bloggers, Countrymen: The reference to the MRA diatribe is at the top of THIS blog entry. Is there some blogging protocol that indicates a different location for following up on that particular part of today’s entry?
LaLubu - you were not responding to ME with that research you did on the New Hampshire stuff. I was not involved. (And I have never been a poster on pandagon; Hugo’s reference in this thread was my first exposure, and it certainly did not impress.) If you will note, my complaint was about the refusal of some feminists to PROVIDE examples to back up their assertions, when requested. There have been issues with retreating from discussions of examples as well, but I have not gone there, nor do I wish to at this point. But if you are volunteering to put yourself forward, I would be happy to repeat the assertions in question so that you can see if you can do better than Mythago, Amanda, and others. (I know I risk another attack from Mythago here, as she believes that I have, by admitting errors when I make them, forfeited all rights to expect intellectual honesty of others.)
I won’t list them here, because I have been asked politely to take this discussion elsewhere. May I ask which (active) thread would be appropriate? Hugo? Anyone?
Stanton, I probably ought to have divided the threads in two. That was my mistake. I would assume things are active at Amanda’s.
You’re free to come hang out at Pandagon but will be disappointed to find the standard denials of anti-feminism from anti-feminists have already been covered, up to and including the scare quote list of evil things feminists said that give license to MRAs to just do whatever they want. In all honesty, stanton, I doubt the scare quote list impresses you, though, since it’s a silly argument.
On the subject, like I said in the earlier thread, I suspect much self-doubt comes from cultural messages we know are wrong but are ingrained in us anyway. I was gripped with doubt the other night that I had a right to ask from my man that he contribute even 1/5th of what I do to our relationship, even though I know that 50/50 is only fair. That’s the lies of our culture coming out of me and it caused a moment of unpleasantness, to say the least. The difficulty is in distinguishing between the two. But your honest reaction–that all people cannot be held to one standard set to reflect the sex lives of those setting standards–is one that’s closer to truth than the one-size-fits-all cultural message creating doubts. In my never humble opinion.
Then, these young women are supposed to have a healthy attitude about their bodies and sex, after internalizing that their virginity is the most beautiful part of them? And that sex is dirty? Bah.
The deep, strange irony of all this is how pretty sex makes you, what with the glowing and all.
There are too many strands of debate in this topic. Let me address just one.
It is not necessary to believe that those who here argue to teach kids abstinence cannot also embrace ambiguity. There is no continuum with “teaching traditional Christian sexual ethic†on one end and “ability to hear, understand and care for teenagers in all of their variety and complexity†on the other. To assume that these are necessarily incompatible assumes ethics are about understanding not action – to “care†is to “hear†and that’s the most we can do. This is a remarkably minimalist view of ethics, to say nothing of Christian ethics.
Let’s all agree that listening to others is a good thing and that seeing life in all its greyness and ambiguity is a necessary pre-condition to effective spiritual leadership. Let’s also assume that listening to teenagers is a hugely important part of becoming a mentor and guide to them. It does not follow that you cannot say “It is better for you to save your sexuality for your spouse and only your spouse.†This is based on the belief that God has created you in a particular way and given you sexuality for a particular purpose. As Hugo put it well, God not Regas, decides what’s best for humans. Within the framework of faith it is, in fact, a more respectful approach to the teenagers in question.
All those who are parents know this. I love my children and would rip out my own lung so they could breathe, I want to listen to them and help them grow, to hear the new creations they are apart their mother and I. This doesn’t preclude me from saying “No†at certain times, of saying that’s not a good thing. Yes, at some point they will need to own it but they need to hear it to own or reject.
Stephen
Hugo, I really do not care to participate in Amanda’s blog. The issues that I have been addressing were all raised here, and my comments all in reference to hugoboy threads. I will bow out, at your request, and await the inevitable next unsubstantiated assertion, and jump back in then.
Amanda: Thanks for the invitation. And the warning. You are right about the silliness. It is to be found everywhere in this field.
Stephen: I have heard many parents, from all over the political/religious spectrum—conservative, liberal, apolitical, whatever—both in real life and out here in blogosphere, make the comment that shortly after their daughters enter puberty, they are packing them up in the car and taking them down to get a prescription of birth control–just in case. The thought is that preventing pregnancy is of the utmost importance. And this line of thought repulses me.
Why? Why should that bug me? After all, I do tend to think that a person should have a high school diploma before having a child. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with teenagers on the Pill, or necessarily wrong with teenagers having sex. I certainly don’t hold to the waiting before marriage part (I can pretty much tell you that if I ever get married again, you can rest assured I’d have been to bed with the groom first!). So, why?
Here’s the deal: taking those girls to the doctor, and getting them on the Pill before they are involved in sexual activity may indeed prevent teen pregnancy. But it also teaches them a more profound message—that they should not be responsible for their own bodies, and that they should not be making their own decisions regarding sexuality. That the authority for these decisions should come from others, who “know better”.
And that is precisely what I liked about Hugo’s message. It puts the responsibility square in their corner. There is no easy, pat answer because there are no easy, pat answers. Sorry, but some of those hard-liners are going to be damn surprised at the Pearly Gates when they end up milling around with us mere sinners!
A faith unquestioned is no faith at all. And hammering a message into someone’s mind does not make that message ring true. Hugo’s method forces some much-needed critical thinking into the equation. Those young minds are going to have to consider these questions themselves. There’s no easy path to spirituality. You have to work at it. Always. And if those kids aren’t finding the truth from within, they aren’t finding it. The “faith” they currently wear will be discarded like old clothes.
Here’s a dirty secret: teenagers really aren’t so different from adults. They don’t have the bedrock of hard-learned lessons we do, but they have many of the same thoughts, impulses, and desires. And developmentally, they are a little more hard-wired for dissent and rebellion—it’s necessary in the process of becoming themselves. Those of us who’ve been there, done that can easily forget that part….’cuz just like the teens, we haven’t lost our impulse to be “right”.
And that, more than my socio-political viewpoint, is why I dislike the method of “telling” kids “how it is”. The more mature they are, the more likely they are to reject that message on the surface; they need to “dig a little” and find the truth. Just like we do.
Amen and amen La Luba on all (almost all) points. Well said. Sorry, but I’m in your corner on most of this. :)
La Luba: “Sorry, but some of those hard-liners are going to be damn surprised at the Pearly Gates when they end up milling around with us mere sinners!”
Couldn’t agree more. To assume we are “in” and others are “out” is the “sin of presumption.” Indeed, the Gospels should keep ALL parties on their toes — those who most assumed they had it quite right we quite wrong. This should temper all of our temporal judgments — Lord have mercy should be the beginning and ending of our prayers. And yet, we have to make judgements, to decide what we believe to be right and wrong, to make it through a day. Even the decision not to come down firmly is a decision, an approach to moral thinking and how to pass along ethical maxims.
La Luba: “A faith unquestioned is no faith at all.”
Yep. Faith and Hope are called spiritual disciplines for a reason. Can be damn hard.
La Luba: “And that is precisely what I liked about Hugo’s message. It puts the responsibility square in their corner. There is no easy, pat answer because there are no easy, pat answers.”
I don’t think there are pat answers except Jesus is Lord. Living that out, translating that into action, into the “thisness” and “thatness” of life. Ah, that’s the rub. But, it’s where we must start.
And so, with the teenagers, in a church, let’s start with Jesus is Lord and he has created you and given you a wonderful gift of sexuality, to be used with your spouse. Let’s start there and let them live this out with joy and fear and trembling. To give them any other starting point is a dis-service to them.
We all need to dig a little deeper to find the truth — where we start makes all the difference.
Stephen
Hugo, I think you may be missing something important about kids and their need for consistency. Yes, the young people you love and lead do need consistency form you, but that does not mean never showing your struggle or ambivalence. When I was a teenager, I was blessed by having an older woman as a friend/mentor. She used to meet me at the Berkeley Marina once a month after school, and we would walk up and down the pier and talk about whatever was going on in my life.
At the time, she was working on readjusting to a civilian lifestyle after 10 years in the Air Force. I recall how struck I was one day when she said, “I am often not sure of what I ought to do, but I am sure that I will figure it out.” It stunned me to discover that adults did not necessarily know everything, and it helped me a great deal to be more compassionate with my own struggles with paradox.
She said some other really important things in that conversation. When we were talking about how to deal with uncertainty, she said that what was required was discernment, and that discernment was spelled “with three Ps”. She went on to explain that achieving discernment required patience (the willingness to live in the messiness and discomfort of the uncertainty and paradox long enough to achieve actual discernment), prayer, and presence (the conscious choice to pay attention to what comes into my life as a result of the prayer, to look for guidance where it appears). “Never,” she said, “do something unless you are sure you will not want to un-do it. Of course, sometimes, you may turn out to be wrong about that judgment, since you are human, but always ask the question.”
When we talked about sex, which I think we only did once, she told me something that is true even for adults, I think, but which is deeply and newly true for teenagers, with their just-started engines: “The desire to have sex will often feel like an emergency, but it never is. It’s normal for it to feel that way. If someone won’t wait with you until tomorrow to find out if it really is an emergency, this is not someone who cares enough for you to be a plausible sex partner, spouse, or friend.” And she’s right, even in my 40s, I sometimes experience desire as an emergency, but I am in a committed monogamous relationship, and I know a lot about what I am getting into. When I was 16, 18, 20, it was *so* helpful to know that the feeling of urgency and emergency-ness was a feature of sex per se, not a feature of this specific situation.
Anyway, I digress, a little. What I meant to say is that I think you can do “your” kids a very great service if you let them see you struggling with your convictions, and turning to prayer for guidance about what to do with your uncertainty.
Hugo, I appreciate your concern re. this thread straying from your intended topic, but you are the one who referenced Amanda’s site at the beginning, so I need to address that briefly and then will bow-out in deference to your wishes.
stanton: What I found classic feminist - and richly ironic - was the claim (after the fact, or course) that the FLA hate rally was meant to be satire, yet at the very same time those gals completely missed the satire of the man’s poster re. “The Freshman 15.” Talk about double-standards! I wonder if they would ‘get’ the satire if, e.g., a bunch of guys held a rally where satirizing rape (so-called “date rape” or other) on campus was part of the theme? Probably not. I think that La Lubu was simply stooping really low in order to make post-facto excuses for the shameless hatred indulged in at the rally, much like the feminists and administration at UNH have been.
Hugo, re. your intended topic, I must say that I admire your committment to young men. There are far too few people who are interested in the spiritual (and otherwise) well-being of boys, and we see the results with increased crime, murder, etc. However much I may disagree with your specific politics, I wholeheatedly agree with your motivations. We need to broaden the conversation re. youth well-being and self-esteem to include boys as well as girls.
La Labu, your point about forcing the pill is a good one, though I’m sure those parents mean to give their daughter choices and just don’t see what they’re doing. And they are probably trying to make the choice to take it easier for the girl. I mean, you can tell a girl that if she wants it, just ask, but how many girls who want the pill will be able to work up the courage to ask for it?
Stephen, I agree entirely. If we believe in Jesus Christ, if we want to live under His Lordship, then we must make Him Lord of everything. Including Human sexuality. Either what He said was true (in which case we ought to follow it, and Him), or it wasn’t, in which case we’re all wasting our time, and we need to pack up and go home.
Here’s the deal: taking those girls to the doctor, and getting them on the Pill before they are involved in sexual activity may indeed prevent teen pregnancy. But it also teaches them a more profound message—that they should not be responsible for their own bodies, and that they should not be making their own decisions regarding sexuality.
It also teaches them that making decisions about sexuality is the girl’s problem, ditto responsibility for pregnancy, and oh by the way, don’t worry about STDs.
Mercy, I strongly disagree that it’s in any way wise to tell teens ’save this for a caring relationship’. Because when you’re a teenager and inexperienced in love and half-psychotic from hormones, it’s very easy to convince yourself that this intense, short-term relationship is caring, and it’s caring enough to justify sex.
Hugo:
A hallmark of my own spiritual peregrinations has been a simultaneous fascination with, and fervent rejection of, absolute truths.
In the past quarter-century, since I first started thinking about God and morality when I was about to enter adolescence,
I’ve vacillated between a fierce libertarianism and a kind of communitarian censoriousness on moral issues.
…
I wonder if my theology of sex isn’t being informed by my own sense of frailty.
Amanda:
But your honest reaction–that all people cannot be held to one standard set to reflect the sex lives of those setting standards–
is one that’s closer to truth than the one-size-fits-all cultural message creating doubts. In my never humble opinion.
La Lubu:
Why? Why should that bug me? After all, I do tend to think that a person should have a high school diploma before
having a child. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with teenagers on the Pill, or necessarily wrong with teenagers having sex.
I certainly don’t hold to the waiting before marriage part (I can pretty much tell you that if I ever get married again, you can rest
assured I’d have been to bed with the groom first!). So, why?
A faith unquestioned is no faith at all. And hammering a message into someone’s mind does not make that message
ring true. Hugo’s method forces some much-needed critical thinking into the equation. Those young minds are going to
have to consider these questions themselves. There’s no easy path to spirituality. You have to work at it. Always. And if those
kids aren’t finding the truth from within, they aren’t finding it. The “faith” they currently wear will be discarded like old clothes.
************
This thread just brings out what I consider the biggest problem with organized religion today. How does’s anyone know what to believe in anymore. Everyone not only has his own interpretations of what the Bible teaches, but also color those interpretations with popular contemporary beliefs and practices as well as things that make our own ‘beliefs’ more consistant with the type of life we choose to lead..
So how much of the Bible do I need to believe or follow. Which parts can I cross off as irrelevant in our modern culture? So sex outside of the marriage is acceptable in God’s eye’s now? [Good news indeed!] Is adultery next? How about Stealing. Heck, might as well throw out the entire Ten Commandments while were at it. After all, they harm our sensitive children’s psyche and place unnecessary burdens on women and society. The Patriarchy probably re-wrote the Bible anyway..
How about we rewrite the Bible in our own image?
God’s commandments have always been hard to follow.. Do we simply throw them out because they don’t suit us anymore? Do we stop teaching our children God’s eternal truths? Isn’t there a way to teach our children responsible,healthy sexual attitudes *and* God’s word on the subject with out making their heads explode??
I trust my Daughter to make good decisions about what is right for her, but someone besides her friends, the media, or her boyfriend needs to to give her the information she needs to make those decisions. That includes our shared thoughts of God on the matter..
Caitriona, I have to pick on you for this one:
“A good friend of our 17yo’s has experimented with bisexuality. Too many of their “friends” drink and do drugs. That sort of environment contributes to teen sexual experiences.”
Did you mean to imply that bisexuality contributes to teen sexual experiences in the same way alcohol does? Or am I just overengaged in the fight against “bisexuality = promiscuity” claptrap?
Hugo,
You love your lambs; that is enough. I’ve not read the comments, nor much of your own struggle, I don’t see the need yet. You love ‘em, that’s the only thing you really need to pass on to them; they are loved. Here. Now. No matter what.
Rest is jest details.
yami,
The young man I mentioned experimented with bisexuality because he was going through a lot of really difficult times and uncertainties, not because he felt drawn to that path. The environment we find ourselves in when we have many “friends” experimenting with drugs and alcohol, in my experience, tends to contribute to the uncertainties one feels when going through difficult times, especially as a teen.
Sexuality isn’t something that should be experimented with. It’s a wonderful gift to be appreciated and savored. In modern media and in popular culture, our children are taught to carelessly rush into things, including sex. The atmosphere in which they find themselves, especially when times are difficult and confusing magnifies that.
All of that together cheapens life in general, and our sexuality in particular, leading to experimentation rather than patience and thoughtful consideration of one’s actions. I’d prefer that we were able to teach our children to value every aspect of life, and especially to value the wonderful gift of sexuality.
This is a difficult issue. I feel that as a teenager and young adult (throughout my twenties) I felt that I had no place in the church until I was married and my sexuality was legitimized. I grew up in a family that doesn’t tend to get married until late twenties or early thirties. It never occurred to me to defer my sexuality for a third of my life or greater. Doesn’t that strike people as slightly bizarre? To quash a vital part of yourself for so much of your adult life?
I don’t know, I definitely think the message of making sure there is respect and caring and lack of dysfunction in a relationship before sexual interaction is put on the table is needed - my experiences that did not involve these components were less than optimal. And yes, as is the stereotype my married sex is becoming better than all the other ever was, so telling people that it will be better than you ever imagined in a deeply committed lifetime relationship would be good.
Yet when the church says no sex before marriage and then wonders why teenagers leave the church and don’t come back until they’re married, I have to say, duh! There are pre-marital experiences I wouldn’t trade for anything and it’s a shame that I had to be alienated from the church for a decade to have those experiences.
Also that rose thing is creepy, because even I had a hard time reconciling my married sex with society’s preconceived notions of premarital sex as hot and wild and marital sex as pure and holy. It’s hard to get real worked up about pure and holy. Three years in, we finally got to hot and wild married sex, but what a waste of a few years.
It seems to me that these messages about no sex until marriage are
a. driving people from church when they need it most
b. not giving any guidance on how to have healthy premarital sex without ruining your dignity or your health
c. messing up people’s married sex by putting all sorts of non-sexy descriptors on it
So I have to go with some sort of approach like Hugo’s that admits human frailty and uncertainty on the issue and guides kids toward sexuality which builds them up rather than tears them down, since we’re not going to wipe teen sexuality off the map any time soon.
The bible doesn’t provide a unified and clear set of teachings about sexuality, nor has the Church managed to develop it in the last two thousand years; I think you’re demanding too much of yourself in trying to arrive at clarity by Wednesday!
In my work with young people around issues of sexuality, I think that the most helpful thing I can do is to help them sort out what criteria they want to use in making decisions, and then to help shore up things like self-esteem, assertiveness, and life skills that will help them stick to the decisions THEY make and the criteria THEY believe are most important. The kinds of life skills I’m talking about are things like: Whenever possible, try to make decisions with potentially major consequences when you’re calm, prayerful, and well-rested. Try to avoid making decisions with potentially major consequences when you’re hungry, angry, lonely, or tired. Know the signs of abusive relationships and emotional blackmail, and get support to get out if you’re seeing signs like that in a relationship you’re in.
Of course, your mileage may vary, as they say; but that’s my approach.
Blessings,
Dylan
Caitriona, thanks for the clarification. I am always wary of underestimating the amount of genuine confusion that can surround one’s sexual orientation, difficult times or no; for some people questioning is inevitable, even if they come out straight in the end.
This conversation is a little ambiguous with respect to the level of sexual activity we’re talking about, but I experimented my way to an identity by means of fantasy and kissing. I do agree that many things are better left as pure thought-experiments! Drugs and/or general life uncertainties certainly don’t help. Best wishes for the young man in question.