| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Day of Purity |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 10:55 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Sex and Christianity > Day Of Purity Posted by: sexkitten Feb 18 2004, 01:47 PM QUOTE ORLANDO, Fla. - Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it's Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates' casual sex talk. So Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day (news - web sites), to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers. "The way sex is talked about, it's so casual, like it's an everyday thing, like going to McDonald's," said Millis, 17. The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups nationwide and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious rights group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush (news - web sites) is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs. But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The Day of Purity Web site accuses those groups of "a concerted effort in the schools and media to turn our youth away from traditional values." "The word 'purity' in this context is morally self-righteous," said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda." Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people. "Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said. Day of Purity touches on a controversial social issue — how to teach sex education in schools, said Bill Barker, a spokesman for Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based group that helps youth make responsible decisions about sex. "You're walking into one of the fiercest debates out there," Barker said. Participants said having the Day of Purity right before Valentine's Day is especially appropriate since teenagers often feel pressure to have sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends on the holiday. "A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex," said Kelly Cruse, 16, who plans to pass out sexual abstinence literature at her high school in Illinois. "I think this need for acceptance is very destructive to a girl." By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer Posted by: UV2003 Feb 18 2004, 03:51 PM QUOTE (sexkitten @ Feb 18 2004, 01:47 PM) QUOTE ORLANDO, Fla. - Melissa Millis feels bombarded by everyday messages of sexual promiscuity, whether it's Janet Jackson's bare breast during the Super Bowl or her classmates' casual sex talk. So Millis, a high school senior in Michigan, and thousands of other students across the nation plan to wear white T-shirts to school Friday, the day before Valentine's Day (news - web sites), to publicly show their commitment to not having sex outside marriage. They're calling their effort the "Day of Purity," and they will distribute pro-abstinence pamphlets to their peers. "The way sex is talked about, it's so casual, like it's an everyday thing, like going to McDonald's," said Millis, 17. The grass-roots effort is supported by Christian groups nationwide and organized by Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious rights group based in Orlando. It comes as President Bush (news - web sites) is pushing in his budget proposal to double federal funding for sexual abstinence programs. But the Day of Purity is being watched with a wary eye by groups that promote sexual tolerance, such as the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network and the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. The Day of Purity Web site accuses those groups of "a concerted effort in the schools and media to turn our youth away from traditional values." "The word 'purity' in this context is morally self-righteous," said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda." Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people. "Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said. Day of Purity touches on a controversial social issue — how to teach sex education in schools, said Bill Barker, a spokesman for Advocates for Youth, a Washington-based group that helps youth make responsible decisions about sex. "You're walking into one of the fiercest debates out there," Barker said. Participants said having the Day of Purity right before Valentine's Day is especially appropriate since teenagers often feel pressure to have sex with their girlfriends or boyfriends on the holiday. "A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex," said Kelly Cruse, 16, who plans to pass out sexual abstinence literature at her high school in Illinois. "I think this need for acceptance is very destructive to a girl." By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer Forget religion, it's just common sense that sex is played up far too much in the media. It's a base instinct like so many other things that marketers latch onto and make products out of. Poof. I could do with less of the gratuitous nonsense. -UV Posted by: ericf Feb 18 2004, 04:29 PM Don't get me wrong, I don't want to encourage kids to screw. But I would much rather have them rutting in the hallways than killing each other. So, why is it that Christians inevitably will gather their resources to beat down a healthy natural urge while ignoring an unhealthy unnatural one? On the eve of a massacre I think an anti-violence demonstration would be very appropriate. It would remind people that Halmark commercialized a horrific event and encourage love not hate. But instead these people are trying to oppose the spirit of the "holiday" rather than work with it... blah blah blah... I can rant more if you want but I think you see the point. Posted by: JezebelLeFey Feb 18 2004, 04:47 PM QUOTE (ericf @ Feb 18 2004, 04:29 PM) Don't get me wrong, I don't want to encourage kids to screw. But I would much rather have them rutting in the hallways than killing each other. So, why is it that Christians inevitably will gather their resources to beat down a healthy natural urge while ignoring an unhealthy unnatural one? Exactly. That's the main problem in this country. We barely blink an eye at violent action films and shows yet showing two consensual adults having adult relations calls for press confrences by whatever tight-assed, prudish Xian group has the loudest mouth. Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 12:29 PM A friend sent this article earlier: http://www.pbcc.org/sermons/hanneman/1332.html Even if I do not believe in the events of the bible as literal, there is quite a bit of sound reasoning in this I believe. I mean, sex may be a base instinct, but indeed it IS the base instinct that has the power to bring the most devestation or positive creation with it. Hedonism obviously doesn't work, despite it's allure. What is everybody's view a positive, rational, "holy" if you will, sexuality? -UV Posted by: lostandconfused Feb 20 2004, 01:47 PM what's so bad about hedonism? Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 02:05 PM QUOTE (lostandconfused @ Feb 20 2004, 01:47 PM) what's so bad about hedonism? it leads to too many addictions...one pleasure is never enough....there's always got to be more... there's got to me that moderation the ancients talked about somewhere....doesn't there?? where is that thing.... Posted by: Buddy4me17 Feb 20 2004, 02:40 PM UV, Any evidence to back up the claim that hedonism, or specifically sex as a teen leads to addictions? Your claim just doesn't make sense to me. Buddy Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 05:35 PM QUOTE (Buddy4me17 @ Feb 20 2004, 02:40 PM) UV, Any evidence to back up the claim that hedonism, or specifically sex as a teen leads to addictions? Your claim just doesn't make sense to me. Buddy Not the type of evidence like I'd require to believe the bible is literally true, just experience and thought... If one makes the pursuit of pleasure one's central purpose, then how is one ever satisfied? There's always that craving for something "more"...Moderation seems more reasonable to me, but that's just my experience. If I tried to live for pleasure alone I know I'd not get very far. -UV Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 20 2004, 06:10 PM QUOTE (Buddy4me17 @ Feb 20 2004, 05:40 PM) Any evidence to back up the claim that hedonism, or specifically sex as a teen leads to addictions? Your claim just doesn't make sense to me. Hedonism is indulging in whatever pleases you. If it's something addictive, then you will get addicted. They are not the same, but not mutually exclusive. Moderation in everything, especially moderation. Posted by: Gypsy Feb 20 2004, 06:10 PM I think the "Day of Purity" should, instead, be called the "Day of Resolve" simply because it implies a strength of will, instead of the misleading impression of "purity." Making a choice to resist the strongest natural instinct that humans possess would truly be a test of resolve for most people. Posted by: UV2003 Feb 20 2004, 07:59 PM QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Feb 20 2004, 06:10 PM) Moderation in everything, especially moderation. LOL...good point Posted by: malisamb Feb 20 2004, 09:44 PM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 20 2004, 09:35 PM) QUOTE (Buddy4me17 @ Feb 20 2004, 02:40 PM) UV, Any evidence to back up the claim that hedonism, or specifically sex as a teen leads to addictions? Your claim just doesn't make sense to me. Buddy Not the type of evidence like I'd require to believe the bible is literally true, just experience and thought... If one makes the pursuit of pleasure one's central purpose, then how is one ever satisfied? There's always that craving for something "more"...Moderation seems more reasonable to me, but that's just my experience. If I tried to live for pleasure alone I know I'd not get very far. -UV I personally, and honestly, was a very promiscuous teen. I started having sex at 13. I am 25 and am just as horny, however I still to this day have not tried drugs, aside from caffeine, asprin, and alcohol. This includes cigarettes. I'm sure they're pleasurable, but this slut has no interest. mb Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 21 2004, 08:36 AM QUOTE (UV2003 @ Feb 20 2004, 10:59 PM) QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Feb 20 2004, 06:10 PM) Moderation in everything, especially moderation. LOL...good point I've also heard that quote like this: Moderation in everything, including self-denial Either way the message had a powerful influence on me when I was giving up religion. Posted by: michelle Feb 21 2004, 08:08 PM Sexual instinct? Youve got to be kidding me, after 5years in Christianity I had completely loss my sex instinct. I know its hard to beleive but its true, my sex instinct was literally gone but hey maybe that was the idea in the first place. I didnt click on your article, dont have to, my experience tells me what I need to know. Anybody ever read a thread in here by Vugiosview called "The Undoing Of A B eautiful Girl? In it she says Christianity asks young people to suicide a certain part of themselves, their sexuality. I think young Christians should replace the gold crosses on their necks with little gold coffins because thats what it is a coffin. Im going to get laid now, see ya wouldnt wanna be ya. Posted by: michelle Feb 21 2004, 08:14 PM wHOOPS. Please disregard my asshole sign I thought I was responding to someone else, Im very sorry. Posted by: brick Feb 25 2004, 12:30 PM Yikes, Purity?! This doesn't surprise me, nor does Bush giving more money to support such projects. We all know where he stands. Ownership of our basic, fundamental urges is only one weapon in the arsenal of the church, 'You know you want it, but you can't have it unless you tow the party line.' While understanding the need for moderation, I don't give much effort to blocking my urges...why would anyone? I'm not a violent psycho and I don't get urges to do anything more harmful than public silliness (which really bugs my fiance, even my daughter rolls her eyes at me, teehee) so why would I suppress them? I don't get this line of thought.... Posted by: Captain Ambivalent Feb 25 2004, 12:55 PM I can't see why the fact that something is a basic urge makes it necessarily positive. Biologically, we all have a basic urge to procreate in order to advance our species. However, our state of self-awareness also allows us to realize that our species - and the world - isn't in dire need of more children right now. Pragmatically, there are demonstratable negatives involved in increased sexual activity related to disease and, more importantly, to children who are unwanted and/or unable to be properly cared for by their parent(s). I think that control over our sexual urges is one of the many aspects of being human. Embracing sexual purity in the form of abstinence is a worthy endeavor, even if god has nothing to say about it. Posted by: Skankboy Feb 26 2004, 09:00 AM QUOTE Embracing sexual purity in the form of abstinence is a worthy endeavor, even if god has nothing to say about it. For some, perhaps. Different strokes for different folks I say. (did really just say that? ) The problem isn't having sex, it's having sex responsibly. I think the problem comes in when people start wearing their virginity like it's some badge of honor. I don't think the media helps. Just look at how much of a big deal has been made over Janet Jackson's boob. Hell, I watched the superbowl and didn't even know it had happened until the news the next day. It seems to me our country is still WAY to puritan when it comes to human sexuality. They must be laughing their asses off at us in Europe, S. America, etc... Posted by: sexkitten Feb 26 2004, 09:52 AM QUOTE (frodofletch @ Feb 25 2004, 12:55 PM) Biologically, we all have a basic urge to procreate in order to advance our species. However, our state of self-awareness also allows us to realize that our species - and the world - isn't in dire need of more children right now. Pragmatically, there are demonstratable negatives involved in increased sexual activity related to disease and, more importantly, to children who are unwanted and/or unable to be properly cared for by their parent(s). Your argument that abstinence should be encouraged for population control and disease prevention might have merit if we did not live in a world where we have available to us a myriad of contraceptive devices, including male & female condoms which prevent the spread of diseases. In most of Europe, they've taken on the teen sexual health issue by emphasizing the need to use contraception and condoms every time you have intercourse, and where to purchase or obtain such contraceptive devices cheaply, rather than promoting a lack of sexual activity. Oddly enough, not only do European teens who are sexually active have far less incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs than do American teens, but they tend to wait an average of 1-2 years longer to have sex than ours do. In the Netherlands, which has arguably the most liberal sex education program and has the youngest age of consent laws (12-16 provisional consent, 16 full consent), the average age of first intercourse is 17.7 - not 15.5 as it is in the US (where consent ranges from 16 - 19 for nonmarried teens, depending on the state). Maybe its just me, but I'd rather go with what works in practice over what sounds nice in theory. Posted by: SyrioForel Feb 26 2004, 10:10 AM QUOTE (sexkitten @ Feb 26 2004, 09:52 AM) Oddly enough, not only do European teens who are sexually active have far less incidence of teen pregnancy and STDs than do American teens, but they tend to wait an average of 1-2 years longer to have sex than ours do. whoa whoa wait....so you are saying that teens presented with the facts and included in the decision making process can and do make responsible choices ??? Blasphemy ! Next you'll be saying the government doesn't belong in the bedroom ! When will the decadence and immorality stop ? (I'm actually hoping it will stop by my place after work, say around 5:30) Oh on a related note, anyone else hear tell about a recent report that teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates are up since... oh about 2001, when abstinence-only sex ed started getting pushed in various states ? I've been looking around but haven't seen more than just the initial blurb somewhere. ~D Posted by: Captain Ambivalent Feb 27 2004, 10:32 AM Hi sex kitten, Thanks for the info. I have no problem with comprehensive sex education; in fact, I think it is absolutely necessary for the reasons you mentioned. However, I still think that abstinence is something to be lauded. The continuing disentegration of marriage in this country is having devastating effects on children, and I think that the decrease in sexual commitment has a big part in it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I still see much value in the idea of two people devoted to each other sexually for life. Posted by: Captain Ambivalent Feb 27 2004, 10:34 AM I misspelled disentegration, didn't I? Posted by: Lokmer Feb 28 2004, 07:59 AM Frodo, I can't agree. Teen sex rates and avg age of first intercourse in this country have not changed appreciably since 1955. They don't have much at all to do with the disintegration of marriage. For that we must look elsewhere, for example 1) We neither expect nor encourage people to grow up. We instead either try to keep them young or force them into a locker-tight paradigm of rules so that they don't have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. 2) This culture diefies sex - particularly the Christian culuture. I have met very few Christian adults who are sexually more mature than the average Jr. Higher - even ones with children (I have met a few, but very few). The particular iteration of X popular here in the states (Conservative Evangelical Chrsitianity) has latched on to sex as the be-all end-all of sin, to the exclusion of other types of morality. But the greatest secret about sex in the world is that it's not a big deal. By making it a big deal, the conservative culture encourages and exacerbates the problems they want to prevent. There is an unconscious view of sex as abberant, animalistic, and unnatural (though how anyone can believe all three at the same time is beyond me), and this attitude (inherited mostly from the Victorians) permeates everything about the way Americans deal with sex. It's very sick. By encouraging unconditional abstinence and propogating the myth that a lack of lifelong sexual exclusivity is the main component in the dissolution of social contracts, this destructive diefication of sex is propogated at the expense of the real culprits: immaturity and naivete. Mature adults can handle even divorce maturely, and in a fashion that is minimally damaging to children (certainly far less than staying in an acrimonious home). -Lokmer Posted by: woodsmoke Feb 28 2004, 11:12 AM I know I'm jumping in late, but as I was reading the original post in this thread, I had a thought..... I hope all those teenage girls in white T-shirts got rained on. Posted by: Yaoi Huntress Earth Mar 1 2004, 05:46 AM <Frodo, I can't agree. Teen sex rates and avg age of first <intercourse in this country have not changed appreciably <since 1955. Interesting. All this talk reminds me of a conversation I had with a fellow graphics student and my professor about a year ago. Both of them were big time neo-conservitives and they were going on as if no one was permiscous when they were young (both had to be in their late thirties). While I was tempted to say, "Sure, when you and your friends didn't get any", but I've been raised to be considerate and polite and I normally liked these two people. Then the student, a mother, said we should scare teen to death about sex so they never want to have it because they are too stupid to make mature choices. She also refered to sex education as teaching a kid how to make a bomb and telling them to not use it. I tried to tell her that sex and bombs were two very different things, but she held firm and my professor agreed whole-heartedly. If either of them had teenage children, I'd truely pitty them. <We neither expect nor encourage people to grow up. We <instead either try to keep them young or force them into a <locker-tight paradigm of rules so that they don't have the <opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Let alone encourageing intellegence and intellectual and spirital growth. I feel that as soon as a kid hits the double didgets, they're treated as if they are stupid/delingquent. Just going back to how my professor and fellow student called teenagers stupid and how we'll go nuts nurtureing and protecting a child when they're little (not that there's anything wrong with it), I can see why kids go nuts. <But the greatest secret about sex in the world is that it's not <a big deal. By making it a big deal, the conservative culture <encourages and exacerbates the problems they want to <prevent. There is an unconscious view of sex as abberant, <animalistic, and unnatural (though how anyone can believe <all three at the same time is beyond me), and this attitude <(inherited mostly from the Victorians) permeates everything <about the way Americans deal with sex. It's very sick. This is so true. It makes you wonder why you almost never see a kiss scene in a cartoon, but plenty of sexual tension. Love, Yaoi Huntress Earth Posted by: Lanakila Mar 1 2004, 07:21 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 28 2004, 10:59 AM) Frodo, I can't agree. Teen sex rates and avg age of first intercourse in this country have not changed appreciably since 1955. They don't have much at all to do with the disintegration of marriage. For that we must look elsewhere, for example 1) We neither expect nor encourage people to grow up. We instead either try to keep them young or force them into a locker-tight paradigm of rules so that they don't have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. 2) This culture diefies sex - particularly the Christian culuture. I have met very few Christian adults who are sexually more mature than the average Jr. Higher - even ones with children (I have met a few, but very few). The particular iteration of X popular here in the states (Conservative Evangelical Chrsitianity) has latched on to sex as the be-all end-all of sin, to the exclusion of other types of morality. But the greatest secret about sex in the world is that it's not a big deal. By making it a big deal, the conservative culture encourages and exacerbates the problems they want to prevent. There is an unconscious view of sex as abberant, animalistic, and unnatural (though how anyone can believe all three at the same time is beyond me), and this attitude (inherited mostly from the Victorians) permeates everything about the way Americans deal with sex. It's very sick. By encouraging unconditional abstinence and propogating the myth that a lack of lifelong sexual exclusivity is the main component in the dissolution of social contracts, this destructive diefication of sex is propogated at the expense of the real culprits: immaturity and naivete. Mature adults can handle even divorce maturely, and in a fashion that is minimally damaging to children (certainly far less than staying in an acrimonious home). -Lokmer Right on the money dude. Christians don't want people to have fun. Some churches even promote complete celibacy. It's beyond ridiculous to think that abstaining from sex makes you a more spiritual person, or even a better Christian. Posted by: sexkitten Mar 1 2004, 01:33 PM QUOTE The continuing disentegration of marriage <snip> I think that the decrease in sexual commitment has a big part in it. The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is very little evidence for it. We do not know the percentage of marriages that were affected by infidelity in the past, so you could make the claim that people were more monogamous back then. But we do know that infidelity existed since the dawn of recorded history. Should we suppose, without statistical evidence, that the incidence of it has changed dramatically? We know that many of our historical figures - from Thomas Jefferson to John F. Kennedy - had mistresses and lovers. Should we suppose that ordinary men of those bygone eras did not do likewise? We do know that there was a thriving sex trade at the turn of the century, a trade which included child prostitution. Is it likely - or reasonable to suppose - that none or few of the johns were married men? What evidence is there that people actually lived out the ideal of lifelong monogamy and sexual fidelity back in the "good old days"? Posted by: Lanakila Mar 1 2004, 01:42 PM Since I started abstaining from sex, its like all I think about. I wonder what the Catholic church is thinking with the celibacy rule? Because I am sure I am not alone in this. Posted by: biggles7268 Mar 1 2004, 02:26 PM QUOTE (Lanakila @ Mar 1 2004, 01:42 PM) Since I started abstaining from sex, its like all I think about. I wonder what the Catholic church is thinking with the celibacy rule? Because I am sure I am not alone in this. Trust me your not Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |