Talking to teens about sex

[thewanderer]

Maybe you should tell them that they shouldn’t do anything that they wouldn’t do in front of their own parents.

And she was right, once you start, you can’t stop. First, it’ll start as an innocent hug. Then, it’ll be a peck on the cheek. Then, it’ll keep going further and further until a bastard is conceived. I would tell them that they should hold off on “interacting” as such until they are intent upon marriage.

Since fornication is a mortal sin, you can go to hell if you’re not truly sorry for it. So, going to hell is a “real” reason.

I remember the sexual education I received while I was in middle school. No sexual education in high school. They showed us pictures of people affected with various STDs. It scared me to death! But then again, I was only 12. The point is, the main idea of the sexual education I received was abstinence.

Also, remind your children that in order to be abstinent, you must abstain from ALL forms of sexual activity.

There is a difference between fornication and sex. Sex is a beautiful thing that occurs between two validly married people. The point of sex is to produce offspring for God.

Fornication on the other hand, is not beautiful. It is a disgusting, ugly act that occurs solely for the pleasure of the act.** Any bastard that is procured from this vile act is never wanted. **

If I were you, I would focus more on God rather than sexually-transmitted-diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Displeasing God is worse than an STD.

I pray a rosary every day for fornication to end.

God Bless.

I’m sorry but the bolded above is patently false and extremely offensive to everyone conceived outside of marriage.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m sorry but the bolded above is patently false and extremely offensive to everyone conceived outside of marriage.

It’s a shame, because some of the post is valid, but using the term twice and saying that a child conceived outside wedlock is never wanted? WAY wrong.

:nope::dts:

 

[fpt]

Maybe you should tell them that they shouldn’t do anything that they wouldn’t do in front of their own parents.

And she was right, once you start, you can’t stop. First, it’ll start as an innocent hug. Then, it’ll be a peck on the cheek. Then, it’ll keep going further and further until a bastard is conceived. I would tell them that they should hold off on “interacting” as such until they are intent upon marriage.

Since fornication is a mortal sin, you can go to hell if you’re not truly sorry for it. So, going to hell is a “real” reason.

I remember the sexual education I received while I was in middle school. No sexual education in high school. They showed us pictures of people affected with various STDs. It scared me to death! But then again, I was only 12. The point is, the main idea of the sexual education I received was abstinence.

Also, remind your children that in order to be abstinent, you must abstain from ALL forms of sexual activity.

There is a difference between fornication and sex. Sex is a beautiful thing that occurs between two validly married people. The point of sex is to produce offspring for God.

Fornication on the other hand, is not beautiful. It is a disgusting, ugly act that occurs solely for the pleasure of the act. Not always, your view is too simple!!!

**Any bastard that is procured from this vile act is never wanted. **!!!

Pardon!!! Are you serious?? Are you catholic??? It is very odd, that is very puritan, puritanist, victorianist, victorian. In my humble opinion, your view is wrong. Could you explain and justify this approach???

If I were you, I would focus more on God rather than sexually-transmitted-diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Displeasing God is worse than an STD.

Do you want to punish by disease all the sexual sins? Are you serious??? it is very wierd!!! Catholicism is not totally like that.

I pray a rosary every day for fornication to end.

God Bless.

 

[fpt]

Maybe you should tell them that they shouldn’t do anything that they wouldn’t do in front of their own parents.

And she was right, once you start, you can’t stop. First, it’ll start as an innocent hug. Then, it’ll be a peck on the cheek. Then, it’ll keep going further and further until a bastard is conceived. I would tell them that they should hold off on “interacting” as such until they are intent upon marriage.

Since fornication is a mortal sin, you can go to hell if you’re not truly sorry for it. So, going to hell is a “real” reason.

I remember the sexual education I received while I was in middle school. No sexual education in high school. They showed us pictures of people affected with various STDs. It scared me to death! But then again, I was only 12. :
**This method is very odd. It is so violent!!! As catholic, i cannot be okay with this manner of doing!!!
**

D The point is, the main idea of the sexual education I received was abstinence.

Also, remind your children that in order to be abstinent, you must abstain from ALL forms of sexual activity.

There is a difference between fornication and sex. Sex is a beautiful thing that occurs between two validly married people. The point of sex is to produce offspring for God.

The marital act is moral within the marriage and has to respect two aspects, the unity and the procreativity (unitive aspect and procreative aspect) in materiality and in intentionality. The marriage and the marital act are for the welfare of spouses and the opening to the life. Your summary is not enough, it is too simplistic

Fornication on the other hand, is not beautiful. It is a disgusting, ugly act that occurs solely for the pleasure of the act. Any bastard that is procured from this vile act is never wanted.

Are you in favor of the Roman time? Are you in favor of the past time, at the end of XIX century in U-K, or during puritan time in the USA???

If I were you, I would focus more on God rather than sexually-transmitted-diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Displeasing God is worse than an STD.

I pray a rosary every day for fornication to end.

God Bless.

 

[Suslar]

I would probably tell you that this rules out sitting on a couch at all. It may or may not rule out conversation.

If a young man won’t sit down in the living room and have a conversation with me, then there is absolutely no way he’d date my daughter. Fortunately, my daughter is smart enough to know the wisdom behind why I’d want to know who she is courting - not just know a name, but actually spend time getting to know him.

 

[Kamaduck]

^ about showing pictures of STD infections- that was probably 90% of my sex education in high school. Which I mostly ignored, because I figured I would not have to deal with it, since I’m planning to be abstinent anyway. But yes, it does seem to be a somewhat common method.

I also agree that the comments about children conceived outside of wedlock are offensive and hurtful. :sad_yes:

 

[Kamaduck]

If a young man won’t sit down in the living room and have a conversation with me, then there is absolutely no way he’d date my daughter. Fortunately, my daughter is smart enough to know the wisdom behind why I’d want to know who she is courting - not just know a name, but actually spend time getting to know him.

I do not have a living human father, so the comparison isn’t very useful for me.

However, if I did have one, I would want him to meet and speak with any young man I dated. That doesn’t mean I want all of us to sit on the same couch together before we knew each other well; that sounds awkward. I’m also not going to be inclined to have any real conversation, even with close friends, in front of my family.

I’m a shy person, and my family situation is awkward right now. The point is, this analogy doesn’t help me set any reasonable limits. It’s just not helpful for everyone.

 

[Suslar]

To be honest I think this is a really really bad approach. I for one wouldn’t even give my fiance a peck on the lips in front of his parents, yet there is nothing wrong with this, especially between an engaged couple. While this may get some people to not go too far and have sex, at least for a little while, it will give them the wrong reason for doing so, which is hugely problematic. It can easily convince them that signs of affection are wrong, which is so so false, signs of affection are really important in relationships. The other problem it can lead to is people seeing the flaw in it and then assuming that the reasoning for waiting until marriage is flawed, and decide there is no point in waiting. Kids are smart, if you don’t give them good reasons which make sense to them in light of their perception of reality they are going to end up rejecting the system of values you are trying to teach them.

The OP asked about teens - not engaged couples. The kids I was talking with are in high school. And we absolutely did address the difference between affection and passion. There is nothing wrong with signs of affection – even between dating teenagers. As you said, yes, it is REALLY important. I wholeheartedly agree. My family knows this. And, I teach my family and the high schoolers who ask that signs of affection can be anything from a kiss to making his favorite brownies to posting a love song on her Facebook page to a bear hug to helping study for a test to . . . . (the possibilities are endless). I don’t have any problem with a young man courting my daughter and expressing signs of affection for her. But I draw the line at passionately amorous behaviors that are reserved for marriage.

I think things become problematic when we lead kids to believe that the ONLY sign of affection is sexual behavior. That’s simply not true. But it’s the message kids get a lot from movies, tv, music, and magazines,

Kids in high school need and want boundaries.

 

[thewanderer]

The OP asked about teens - not engaged couples. The kids I was talking with are in high school. And we absolutely did address the difference between affection and passion. There is nothing wrong with signs of affection – even between dating teenagers. As you said, yes, it is REALLY important. I wholeheartedly agree. My family knows this. And, I teach my family and the high schoolers who ask that signs of affection can be anything from a kiss to making his favorite brownies to posting a love song on her Facebook page to a bear hug to helping study for a test to . . . . (the possibilities are endless). I don’t have any problem with a young man courting my daughter and expressing signs of affection for her. But I draw the line at passionately amorous behaviors that are reserved for marriage.

I think things become problematic when we lead kids to believe that the ONLY sign of affection is sexual behavior. That’s simply not true. But it’s the message kids get a lot from movies, tv, music, and magazines,

Kids in high school need and want boundaries.

Well I guess if you at least explain that you mean kissing is not excluded and that physical signs of affection (as well as other ways of expressing affection) are both legitimate and important then that is better. Maybe I’m a more private person in this way, but me and my fiance don’t kiss, even just a quick peck, in front of other people. We jut don’t do it, it seems weird and out of place for us to do it. So when I hear people say “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t do in front of your parents or grandparents” To me that means, no kissing at all, minimal cuddling, almost no handholding, etc. There really is not very much at all that we do in front of other people. We’ll hug when we greet each other, and iff we’re on a couch watching a movie sometimes he’ll put his arm around me or I’ll put mine around him, but thats about the extent of it. So to me it sounds like you are trying to unnecessarily limit signs of affection. And I’m sure there are others out there who feel like me about it all, (There was at least one other person on this thread who has already admitted to feeling this way), so its something that is gonna sound weird and false to people who are like me and the earlier poster. And when teaching people, especially teens, moral values, its really important to do your best to not come across as making false unnecessarily restrictive lines for morality because that can turn them away from moral behaviour altogether.

 

[RPRPsych]

Fornication on the other hand, is not beautiful. It is a disgusting, ugly act that occurs solely for the pleasure of the act. Any bastard that is procured from this vile act is never wanted.

You had me until this line. Certainly fornication (like all sins) is ugly, because it is a turning away from God. But children are not punished for their fathers’ sins. What would you do with that poor child? Abort it, because it’s “unwanted”? You sound like all those pro-choice activists who call an unplanned pregnancy a “punishment”. For shame.

 

[Kelfa28]

Fornication on the other hand, is not beautiful. It is a disgusting, ugly act that occurs solely for the pleasure of the act. Any bastard that is procured from this vile act is never wanted.

God Bless.

And you claim to be a Catholic?

Try telling that to my husband and see how far that comment will get you.
Our gorgeous, special and most certainly wanted,15 month old daughter was conceived out of wedlock.

She is our world. She is the reason I converted back to Catholicism. Why you ask? Because she is a gift from God. I needed to honor that gift and make sure I could give her back to our Lord. That was where it started.

So, you are basically promoting abortion since children born out of wedlock aren’t wanted. How evil.

I REALLY hope you are a troll because I can’t imagine anything so hateful being spewed on a forum like this. Save some of those prayers for yourself because you are definitely going to need them.

 

[Suslar]

Well I guess if you at least explain that you mean kissing is not excluded and that physical signs of affection (as well as other ways of expressing affection) are both legitimate and important then that is better. Maybe I’m a more private person in this way, but me and my fiance don’t kiss, even just a quick peck, in front of other people. We jut don’t do it, it seems weird and out of place for us to do it. So when I hear people say “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t do in front of your parents or grandparents” To me that means, no kissing at all, minimal cuddling, almost no handholding, etc. There really is not very much at all that we do in front of other people. We’ll hug when we greet each other, and iff we’re on a couch watching a movie sometimes he’ll put his arm around me or I’ll put mine around him, but thats about the extent of it. So to me it sounds like you are trying to unnecessarily limit signs of affection. And I’m sure there are others out there who feel like me about it all, (There was at least one other person on this thread who has already admitted to feeling this way), so its something that is gonna sound weird and false to people who are like me and the earlier poster. And when teaching people, especially teens, moral values, its really important to do your best to not come across as making false unnecessarily restrictive lines for morality because that can turn them away from moral behaviour altogether.

Thank you for your opinion and your personal experience.

Please note, I did not ever say signs of affection are to be excluded! Good golly! That would be terrible to truly love someone and not be able to show it!!!

But, these kids in question were not talking about merely expressing affection. They were talking about being sexually active and wanting to know how far they could go before it became sinful. They wanted to know which explicit acts were “allowable” before marriage. BIG difference from the chaste relationship you are describing!

I expressed the difference between showing affection (which absolutely is a good thing) and engaging in passionate behaviors leading to sinful acts. I do think it was “in your face” blatantly obvious to them that they could be as passionate with their date as they would be if mom & dad were chaperoning. Sadly, many of these kids call themselves Catholic but haven’t been to Mass in years and are sexually active. I’m not sure many of them know it is wrong!

 

[thewanderer]

Thank you for your opinion and your personal experience.

Please note, I did not ever say signs of affection are to be excluded! Good golly! That would be terrible to truly love someone and not be able to show it!!!

But, these kids in question were not talking about merely expressing affection. They were talking about being sexually active and wanting to know how far they could go before it became sinful. They wanted to know which explicit acts were “allowable” before marriage. BIG difference from the chaste relationship you are describing!

I expressed the difference between showing affection (which absolutely is a good thing) and engaging in passionate behaviors leading to sinful acts. I do think it was “in your face” blatantly obvious to them that they could be as passionate with their date as they would be if mom & dad were chaperoning. Sadly, many of these kids call themselves Catholic but haven’t been to Mass in years and are sexually active. I’m not sure many of them know it is wrong!

Thats fine, I just still don’t think it is the best approach. I feel like it doesn’t really give the nice obvious set of borders you think it does and I don’t know, I guess its mostly just because it seems, to me, like an obviously false statement that it seems like a bad approach. But thats ok, we can agree to disagree and I totally respect the work you are doing with these kids to help them learn what chastity is and why its important.

 

[Suslar]

Thats fine, I just still don’t think it is the best approach. I feel like it doesn’t really give the nice obvious set of borders you think it does and I don’t know, I guess its mostly just because it seems, to me, like an obviously false statement that it seems like a bad approach. But thats ok, we can agree to disagree and I totally respect the work you are doing with these kids to help them learn what chastity is and why its important.

I’m not sure I understand. What is a false statement? That high school children should not be having sex until they are married?
Many Catholic chastity education speakers like Jason Everit also teach kids the difference between affection and passion. When they know the difference, they can behave accordingly.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not sure I understand. What is a false statement? That high school children should not be having sex until they are married?
Many Catholic chastity education speakers like Jason Everit also teach kids the difference between affection and passion. When they know the difference, they can behave accordingly.

haha, sorry for not being clear. That people should never do anything with their bf/gf they wouldn’t do in front of their parents or grandparents.

 

[Suslar]

haha, sorry for not being clear. That people should never do anything with their bf/gf they wouldn’t do in front of their parents or grandparents.

oh I understand what you mean now. Thanks!

 

[fpt]

My catholic position:

Before the wedding, between the boyfriend and the girlfriend, or between the fiancé and the fiancée, by nature, by essence and by principle:

the fact of kissing the cheeks of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the forehead of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the ears of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the arms of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the eyes of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the neck of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the shoulders of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the back of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the chin of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the lips of mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of practicing the french kiss is not sinful;
the fact of holding the waist of the other is not sinful;
the fact of holding hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the legs of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the knees of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the other in swimsuit is not sinful;
the fact of touching the thigh of the other with the hands is not sinful;
the fact of dancing together is not sinful: the Rock and Roll, the Valse, the Slow…etc.

The fact of saying the contrary is very odd, my humble opinion. Here, only the wrong intention can be sinful and /or only the wrong effects* (the breaking of the red line). That is the question, how to define the red line??? *

Between engaged persons:

The kiss on the lips is not sinful;
The kiss on the mouth is not sinful;
The French kiss (an open mouth kiss, the normal French kiss, the standard French kiss) is not sinful;
The passionated French kiss (an open mouth kiss, very passionated) can be sinful under some special conditions;
The fact of putting the hand on the thigh (between the knee and the hip, in the middle of the hip and the knee) of the other as a sign of tenderness, when we sit down, is not sinful.

*The near occasion of sin is very relative because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances. The issue is the good acception of the notion of the near occasion of sin, in the good sense. The large acception does not has to be considered as the norm. We are catholic, not like the other fundamentalist christians. That is the question, how to define the red line??? *

=====>* The moral speech has to be honest otherwise it is wrong. This doctrinal speech and the praxis have to be in link with the nature of act (morally neutral and only morally wrong under special conditions – intentions and circumstances), or by nature very immoral, by itself, of itself, from itself, in itself. Catholicism is not in favor of simplistic speech even for avoiding the temptation of the others.* A intellectual approach (too simple, black or white) is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
The speech of parents, the limits or the parenta bans will have to be in function of the age of the teenager, of its own maturity, of its intellect and its intelligence for understanding, of its cognition, of its past acts, of its honesty, of its own personnality…etc.*

Only, the wrong intention can be sinful and /or only the wrong effects (the breaking of the red line). That is the question, how to define the red line???

*Materially speaking, the fact of going further, as in a married couple. In the facts, the fact of trying the first steps of the marital act (sexed and sexual touchings, per se, and go further, for the sexual arousing, and for the sexual excitation), i mean the touchings of sexual intimate parts, and on the breasts: it is morally wrong.

Intentionally speaking, for arousing and for exciting the body of the other; the difference between a simple expression of love and of tenderness (morally okay), even before marriage, and the will of going further for preparing the union of bodies (morally wrong)

By nature, the acts of my list are not sinful, even before marriage, in those two situations (serious dating, or persons in fiançaille). Only the intentions of each person and the circumstances can be immoral. The near occasions of sin is very relative, because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances.*

In the context of teens, the parents *has the natural right and the natural obligation to teach the natural morality about the sexuality, about the marriage, about the marital act, about the life, about the contraception, about the abortion, about the respect between the males and females, about the NFP, about the non sexual acts before marriage, about the virtues, about the corporeity. *

The parents have to be prudent with their teens, to find the balance *in the speech, say the truth in function of their questions (faith and reason), to explain in function of each personnality, to be moderated in the list of bans. *