“Who am I to stop them?” Parents, teenagers, and sex

[Xantippe]

OK, now I’ve read the article.

From online contact with parents of slightly older teens, I think one of the issues in play is that a lot of today’s less religious parents did wild and crazy things as teens, and they feel hypocritical and unprincipled about forbidding their teenagers to do the stuff that they did.

(Interestingly, a large percentage of religious parents who want to be ultra-strict were also wild and crazy teens. I have no idea how that is going to work for them.)

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I suggested on the old forum that chastity talks should include discussion about consent. Are you saying that in your post?

(BTW, very good to see you here again.)

 

[JimG]

, I think one of the issues in play is that a lot of today’s less religious parents did wild and crazy things as teens, and they feel hypocritical and unprincipled about forbidding their teenagers to do the stuff that they did.

I think that is a good part of it. “Don’t do what I did!” is a good lesson. But if they know what their parents did, the opposite lesson has already been given. Maybe less personal information is better. I knew a co-worker who used to confide in me about the wild things he did in his youth, but he told no one else–not his wife, not his kids.

 

[Xantippe]

Maybe less personal information is better.

Yeah. It’s sometimes unavoidable (for example when the wedding and birth dates are too close together), but I really don’t envy the people who try to give a talk that sounds like, “I sinned it up good when I was your age, and don’t you do what I did, but everything worked out fine for me.”

 

[Xantippe]

I suggested on the old forum that chastity talks should include discussion about consent. Are you saying that in your post?

(BTW, very good to see you here again.)

Good to see you!

Yes, I think there should be more talk about consent, with regard to all levels of physical affection. I think it’s actually helpful what the other Xanthippe was mentioning about how kids today are (usually!) allowed to opt out of being physically affectionate with adults–you can just keep on applying that rule to more mature situations.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

A related issue is that teens need to understand other people’s bodily autonomy. So if A wants to do XYZ with B, it doesn’t matter what A wants if B does not want to.

A stronger sense of respect for other people’s bodily autonomy is actually helpful for chastity.

Agreed. This is the logical conclusion for bodily autonomy. How it gets twisted into “do what feels good/have sex as a teenager” is just so very weird.

 

[ChunkMonk]

So you’d rather add even more sins onto your child’s head than have them deal with the consequences of their actions?

The secular world would call that love, but God calls it hate.

 

[Usige]

So you’d rather add even more sins onto your child’s head than have them deal with the consequences of their actions?

The secular world would call that love, but God calls it hate.

I was thinking something similar. How is it loving to hand your kids the roadmap to hell?

It makes me sad that people act like teen pregnancy is a death sentence so it is better to “protect” them while doing harm to their and their children’s immortal soul. Remember Luke 17:1-2

“Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

Christ is very clear time and time again what awaits those who lead others into sin. How much worse for those who’s sole job is to get their children to heaven and then betray that solemn duty. I for one would rather help my kids deal with the consequences of bad choices than stand before Christ and say I saved them some pain by risking their immortal soul.

 

[fredystairs]

What if we change the scenario - instead of premarital sex, the kids are jumping off buildings? Would a parent say that it’s ok to jump, just use a parachute, and then give them a parachute that fails 20% of the time?

 

[ATraveller]

They’re gonna have to live with the consequences whether it’s a child, a disease, or emotional trauma.

I wouldn’t focus only on the consequences. It’s equally as important to emphasize that as Christians, we are to love the Lord with all our hearts, minds and souls. The cost at Calvary was great. He wants what’s good for us. We serve Him and we show this, among other things, by fighting against the temptation to sin against our bodies, which are temples for the Holy Spirit. We delight in serving the Lord and obeying Him.

 

[Xantippe]

It makes me sad that people act like teen pregnancy is a death sentence so it is better to “protect” them while doing harm to their and their children’s immortal soul.

Well, it often is…for the baby.

 

[Thorolfr]

You do realise that condoms are not effective against some of the worst STD’s?

And wearing a seat belt is not effective at preventing death in the worst car accidents. But they certainly help in a lot of car accidents. Using your line of reasoning, someone would have to conclude that either there’s no benefit in wearing a seatbelt or that people should refrain from driving because it’s too dangerous since it’s not 100% safe. So, the notion that just because a condom is not always 100% failsafe does not mean that they shouldn’t be used for that reason. If properly used, they’re still good at protecting from a lot of STDs.

 

[JimG]

When I was in school, talking with friends, we always said if you want to learn about sex, use Gray’s Anatomy and the Merck Manual.

Amazingly enough, during USAF basic training back in the dark ages, we were shown a film depicting the effects of venereal diseases. I don’t remember anything about it except that it was something I wanted to avoid.

 

[ATraveller]

Unfortunately, many don’t see how dangerous sin is these days and I’m talking only about Christians because sin doesn’t exist to the non-religious. Many are practically okay with saying Christ died for our sins so it’s okay to keep on sinning.

 

[JimG]

nfortunately, many don’t see how dangerous sin is these days and I’m talking only about Christians because sin doesn’t exist to the non-religious. Many are practically okay with saying Christ died for our sins so it’s okay to keep on sinning.

Interesting, but yes that does often seem to be the attitude. It’s something like, “hey, I’m already forgiven, so no problem.”

 

[Usige]

Usige:

It makes me sad that people act like teen pregnancy is a death sentence so it is better to “protect” them while doing harm to their and their children’s immortal soul.

Well, it often is…for the baby.

If you mean abortion, well those who say use a condom because a baby will ruin your life are very much part of the problem.

We can never do evil to avoid evil. Saying to use a condom to avoid “ruining your life” or to save the child from being murder is just justification of sin. Perhaps start from the standpoint of expectations, but telling them you will still help them regardless of what mistakes they make. As long as people treat pregnancy as some that is only good when planned then they perpetuate the cycle of avoiding it, or terminating it, regardless of the repercussions to their soul.

 

[Usige]

AdamPeter:

You do realise that condoms are not effective against some of the worst STD’s?

And wearing a seat belt is not effective at preventing death in the worst car accidents. But they certainly help in a lot of car accidents. Using your line of reasoning, someone would have to conclude that either there’s no benefit in wearing a seatbelt or that people should refrain from driving because it’s too dangerous since it’s not 100% safe. So, the notion that just because a condom is not always 100% failsafe does not mean that they shouldn’t be used for that reason. If properly used, they’re still good at protecting from a lot of STDs.

Who cares when you are risking hell? Whether condoms are 100, 80, or 20% effective at biological protection they are still 100% deadly to the soul. It’s like arguing if a gas mask filters pollen while walking through a lava field.

 

[Usige]

Many Christians simply don’t believe in sin at all or maybe that sin is only something others do They seem to think Christ died for some nebulous concept that isn’t related to them. At best the think sin is how they feel about an action and not that it is about how it offend God.

 

[Xantippe]

Who cares when you are risking hell? Whether condoms are 100, 80, or 20% effective at biological protection they are still 100% deadly to the soul. It’s like arguing if a gas mask filters pollen while walking through a lava field.

It’s a somewhat controversial question in moral theology whether fornication + contraception is actually substantially worse than plain old fornication.

If the primary problem with contraception is that it is a mutilation of the marital act, then arguably, contraception doesn’t make fornication worse. After all, when fornicating with contraception, the contraception isn’t destroying the pristine beauty of fornication.

 

[Usige]

It’s the fact that it’s enabling sin by giving a false sense of no negative repercussions. It acts as a balm to an already darkened intellect.

Trying to justify condoms as a morally acceptable precaution to avoid abortion is not bringing light to a darkened intellect, but rather seeks to keep it in shadow.