• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Talking to Minors About Sex: Where Is the Line in the Sand?

T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
RayofLight said:
At least it wasn't as bad as the mormon church. I hear they get interviewed at 12...
Click to expand...
thank you for bringing the issue up.
This google search https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...hUKEwijq7Xpw4LwAhVb_rsIHSooB0MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

seems to confirm that minors of age are getting asked intrusive questions concerning masturbation among other things.

Children have a right to privacy. So these interviews do not take into account the child's right to privacy.

Also, exposing children to a situation of interrogation - without reason - can cause stress. These interrogations quickly conjure up the image of the child being a potential deal breaker.

The LDS church explains:
"After the annual interview with the bishop, each young man and young woman ages 11–15 usually has an interview at another time during the year with the counselor in the bishopric [...]."
31. Interviews and Counseling

Masturbation is seen like this in the LDS church:
"Once we have explained what chastity is and why being unchaste takes us away from God,"
"[...] One cause of this serious problem can be the sin of masturbation. Children should be taught, at around the first signs of puberty, what masturbation is and why it is wrong. "
“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality."
followed by an endless slur on homosexuality.
Talking with Your Children about Moral Purity


See also: Mormon Church must end children's sexual interviews, members say

edited to change order of quotes
 
Last edited:
VoidCat

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
thomas t said:
thank you for bringing the issue up.
This google search https://www.google.com/search?q=chi...hUKEwijq7Xpw4LwAhVb_rsIHSooB0MQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

seems to confirm that minors of age are getting asked intrusive questions concerning masturbation among other things.

Children have a right to privacy. So these interviews do not take into account the child's right to privacy.

Also, exposing children to a situation of interrogation - without reason - can cause stress. These interrogations quickly conjure up the image of the child being a potential deal breaker.

The LDS church explains:
"After the annual interview with the bishop, each young man and young woman ages 11–15 usually has an interview at another time during the year with the counselor in the bishopric [...]."
31. Interviews and Counseling

Masturbation is seen like this in the LDS church:
"Once we have explained what chastity is and why being unchaste takes us away from God,"
"[...] One cause of this serious problem can be the sin of masturbation. Children should be taught, at around the first signs of puberty, what masturbation is and why it is wrong. "
“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality."
followed by an endless slur on homosexuality.
Talking with Your Children about Moral Purity


See also: Mormon Church must end children's sexual interviews, members say

edited to change order of quotes
Click to expand...
I agree on the privacy thing...
You wouldn't even ask these questions to adults why ask them to children?
 
T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
RayofLight said:
I agree on the privacy thing...
You wouldn't even ask these questions to adults why ask them to children?
Click to expand...
that's a very wise point.
The questions you would not ask any adults are the ones that should not be asked to children, either.

Moreover, children tend to be more outspoken about things than the women at church. If I would ask a sister "how do you masturbate", I don't know if she would even reply.

But a child confronted with a Bishop thats authoritative at church... might not be bold enough to answer (correctly) "excuse me? this is not your business, Sir!"

And this is the reason why I would call these "worthiness interviews" a form of harrassment, too.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
No church, so that's not a problem/imposition.

We have twins age 14 and a little one age 10. Sex ed in France is usually very good and structued with at least one lesson per week (30 hours per year is mandated). Hey, next year the twins will qualify for free condoms provided by the school. Hopefully they won't be using them but maybe, just maybe our eldest daughter might.

Family wise sex is an open discussion subject. Our situation is, shall we say, odd. Explanation was asked for soon after they started school. It's certainly paid to be open and honest to their questions.
 
VoidCat

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
thomas t said:
But a child confronted with a Bishop thats authoritative at church... might not be bold enough to answer (correctly) "excuse me? this is not your business, Sir!"
Click to expand...
At 12? Agreed I don't think the child wouldve responded like that. Especially if they dont know it's a problem, they feel they trust the adult and feel pressured to respond. Not to mention the whole religious aspect part- religion tends to be taken very seriously even by kids. Sometimes even more seriously. Guilt would get to them if they didnt respond for fear of not following religious beliefs and guilt would get them if they had answered yes to any of the questions. It's a lose lose situation.
 
Last edited:
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
thomas t said:
Lets discuss talking sex with minors of age at church or in the home.

In my opinion sex ed is perfectly fine. It's their right to know about sex.

However, a fellow poster recently wrote: "Even at 10 I was already told about when I marry my body would be my husband's and I would never be allowed to say no."


Telling minors of age about what they purportedly have to do later in their sex life... is harrassment, as I see it. Minors of age are not able to make up their minds about these kinds of moral arguments in this field. If they cannot make up their mind it's abusive to tell them about purported duties in this field, as I see it.

Every human has the right to decide themselves with whom, where, when and under which circumstances they do or do not have sex.
Adults have to respect these rights when they talk to children. When they'll be grown up, it's their right to make these decisions on their own. It's not up to some church elders or whoever that was that taught these "rules"... to decide under which circumstances they will have sex some day.
Click to expand...

A wife is not supposed to be her husband's prostitute, setting a price for sex. This may be part of Progressive thinking, but it sends the wrong moral message to little girls, who hope and dream for a long term intimate and functional family unit.

Men are easy to please. If they have good food and an available partner, the rest they can do for themselves and their families. Husbands, historically, died years and even a decade before their wives. This means the responsibilities of the husband was more taxing, and the husband was always at more at risk.

The idea of the Church was to balance this off, since marriage was more designed for the ladies. Marriage is not a male's big day. He is prop in the stage with the wife center stage. The idea of each owning the others body, was to not drive the husbands away to a different type of prostitute, beyond his family. This appears to be the goal of the progressives; create the worse deal for the husband and thereby sabotage the family unit. One way to do this was to base sex on a type of over priced business model, instead of an agreement between husband and wife; through rich and poor.

What is interesting is ever since the Left broke up the family unit, men and women now are closer in terms of life expectancy. Not being married has been a plus for the men, and a negative for the women, in terms of health and life expectancy.

Ironically, the progressives sold it the other way around making the easier path for women sound like the worse hardship. Women are good listeners, but men still think for the women. Now it more the outside men, such as men in politics, who think for the modern women. This used to be the husband's job. This was a concession for his shorter life, that he would sacrifice for his family. When the progressive tried to shortening that life even further, this broke the deal of long term marriage. Now the progressives has all the prostitutes they need, including players who would kill the unborn to stay in the game.
 
VoidCat

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
wellwisher said:
A wife is not supposed to be her husband's prostitute, setting a price for sex. This may be part of Progressive thinking, but it sends the wrong moral message to little girls, who hope and dream for a long term intimate and functional family unit.

Men are easy to please. If they have good food and an available partner, the rest they can do for themselves and their families. Husbands, historically, died years and even a decade before their wives. This means the responsibilities of the husband was more taxing, and the husband was always at more at risk.

The idea of the Church was to balance this off, since marriage was more designed for the ladies. Marriage is not a male's big day. He is prop in the stage with the wife center stage. The idea of each owning the others body, was to not drive the husbands away to a different type of prostitute, beyond his family. This appears to be the goal of the progressives; create the worse deal for the husband and thereby sabotage the family unit. One way to do this was to base sex on a type of over priced business model, instead of an agreement between husband and wife; through rich and poor.

What is interesting is ever since the Left broke up the family unit, men and women now are closer in terms of life expectancy. Not being married has been a plus for the men, and a negative for the women, in terms of health and life expectancy.

Ironically, the progressives sold it the other way around making the easier path for women sound like the worse hardship. Women are good listeners, but men still think for the women. Now it more the outside men, such as men in politics, who think for the modern women. This used to be the husband's job. This was a concession for his shorter life, that he would sacrifice for his family. When the progressive tried to shortening that life even further, this broke the deal of long term marriage. Now the progressives has all the prostitutes they need, including players who would kill the unborn to stay in the game.
Click to expand...
The lack of sources and the fact I am not in the mood to ed-ja-ma-cate...first where is the claim that a wife is their husband's prostitute? Second historically men died a decade before women you say? and now they are closer to age?...where is the source that says it's cuz of prostitution? Third: marriage was designed for ladies??? Are you kidding me? It was mostly used to settle agreements women in the past historically hardly ever chose their partners...i could say more but I dont feel like it...also what does this have to do with the OP? I mightve missed something...if you can't prove you are addressing the OP I won't debate with you.
 
Last edited:
Mock Turtle

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
thomas t said:
Masturbation is seen like this in the LDS church:
"Once we have explained what chastity is and why being unchaste takes us away from God,"
"[...] One cause of this serious problem can be the sin of masturbation. Children should be taught, at around the first signs of puberty, what masturbation is and why it is wrong. "
“Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality."
followed by an endless slur on homosexuality.
Talking with Your Children about Moral Purity
Click to expand...
Bit of a bummer when a child discovers such and doesn't even have any concept of religion, let alone sin, if one's parents haven't forced such on one, which is what happened to me at about age ten. But then I was just a normal child then. :oops:
 
RabbiO

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
@wellwisher -

Can I use your post as an example of the kind of arrogant, ignorant, hate filled rants one can expect to run into on an internet forum?

I know you’re frustrated, but I’m sure that even as we speak dedicated government technicians are seeking a solution that will enable you to return to the 12th century. Of course, if the thinking there is too modern for you, too progressive, they can try for an earler date.
 
Brickjectivity

Brickjectivity

wind and rain touch not this brain
Staff member
Premium Member
wellwisher said:
What is interesting is ever since the Left broke up the family unit, men and women now are closer in terms of life expectancy. Not being married has been a plus for the men, and a negative for the women, in terms of health and life expectancy.

Ironically, the progressives sold it the other way around making the easier path for women sound like the worse hardship. Women are good listeners, but men still think for the women. Now it more the outside men, such as men in politics, who think for the modern women. This used to be the husband's job. This was a concession for his shorter life, that he would sacrifice for his family. When the progressive tried to shortening that life even further, this broke the deal of long term marriage. Now the progressives has all the prostitutes they need, including players who would kill the unborn to stay in the game.
Click to expand...
It is unclear which progressives you disagree with and which left leaning political points you disagree with. For example do you disagree with women suffrage? The broad rejection of progress and the left is unclear.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
thomas t said:
Lets discuss talking sex with minors of age at church or in the home.

In my opinion sex ed is perfectly fine. It's their right to know about sex.

However, a fellow poster recently wrote: "Even at 10 I was already told about when I marry my body would be my husband's and I would never be allowed to say no."


Telling minors of age about what they purportedly have to do later in their sex life... is harrassment, as I see it. Minors of age are not able to make up their minds about these kinds of moral arguments in this field. If they cannot make up their mind it's abusive to tell them about purported duties in this field, as I see it.

Every human has the right to decide themselves with whom, where, when and under which circumstances they do or do not have sex.
Adults have to respect these rights when they talk to children. When they'll be grown up, it's their right to make these decisions on their own. It's not up to some church elders or whoever that was that taught these "rules"... to decide under which circumstances they will have sex some day.
Click to expand...

imbalance in mental maturity is a dynamic that exists when talking about the scenario you described of giving needless details. someone warning people about the dangers of promiscuous lifestyles, like true love waits, is not a situation that involves imbalances in maturity.
 
Vee

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
thomas t said:
Lets discuss talking sex with minors of age at church or in the home.
Click to expand...

For me me, sexual education needs to come first of all from the parents. Children will be exposed to a lot of other information as they grow older, but if they already have a good base from what they learn at home, they are likely to be more mature and make wise decisions for themselves.
Should that issue be brought up in churches? It 's a big part of life, so why not, but it should be done in a way that children understand and that adds something useful to their education.
 
Jacques de Molay

Jacques de Molay

Member
thomas t said:
Lets discuss talking sex with minors of age at church or in the home.

In my opinion sex ed is perfectly fine. It's their right to know about sex.

However, a fellow poster recently wrote: "Even at 10 I was already told about when I marry my body would be my husband's and I would never be allowed to say no."


Telling minors of age about what they purportedly have to do later in their sex life... is harrassment, as I see it. Minors of age are not able to make up their minds about these kinds of moral arguments in this field. If they cannot make up their mind it's abusive to tell them about purported duties in this field, as I see it.

Every human has the right to decide themselves with whom, where, when and under which circumstances they do or do not have sex.
Adults have to respect these rights when they talk to children. When they'll be grown up, it's their right to make these decisions on their own. It's not up to some church elders or whoever that was that taught these "rules"... to decide under which circumstances they will have sex some day.
Click to expand...

The only people who should be talking to minors about sex are their parents, or - in certain, specific circumstances - their doctors.
 
Saint Frankenstein

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Why are people so weird about discussing sex with kids to educate them and check on them? It's very bizarre. It seems to be a mostly urban thing. If you raise livestock, you don't need to be taught about sex and reproduction by your parents.
 
ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Saint Frankenstein said:
Why are people so weird about discussing sex with kids to educate them and check on them? It's very bizarre. It seems to be a mostly urban thing. If you raise livestock, you don't need to be taught about sex and reproduction by your parents.
Click to expand...

True, i was raised on a farm, it just happened major discussions on why it didn't happen.
 
T

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
RayofLight said:
At 12? Agreed I don't think the child wouldve responded like that. Especially if they dont know it's a problem, they feel they trust the adult and feel pressured to respond. Not to mention the whole religious aspect part- religion tends to be taken very seriously even by kids. Sometimes even more seriously. Guilt would get to them if they didnt respond for fear of not following religious beliefs and guilt would get them if they had answered yes to any of the questions. It's a lose lose situation.
Click to expand...

I revisited the video about the questionings of children done by Mormon bishops.
This video claims that there are sexually explicit questions asked to young girls by older men. Which would constitute sexual harrassment, in my view.
I wanted to find out if it was truth.
So I checked out the comment section from top to bottom.

This is what I found:
I had a therapist (in utah) ask me if I enjoyed being raped. (I was 16 when I finally told someone) I was completely disgusted, and yelled at her, because I was 11 when it happen. 1. It was rape. 2. I was eleven. A child. 3. It doesn't even matter that I was a child, it was rape. Its not enjoyable


I was raised in that cult until I was 12, I too had similar disgusting/uncalled for questions from a Bishop. My family is still Mormon so when I had my daughter at 22 years old, it was expected that I would get her blessed. I figured, no big deal, I'll just do it to shut my family up but immediately regretted it when I went to meet with the Bishop. He asked, "So what sex position were you & your boyfriend in when you became pregnant?" & "How often do you & your boyfriend have sex?".....uh, WTFF?


I was questioned like this 3 times before my family left the Mormon faith. The first two times the questioner made sexual advances towards me, a 13-14yr old girl. Shortly before the last time I was raped by one of my teachers. Before I was allowed to go to the police, the church required that I be questioned again. I was asked the most disgusting things and I left feeling like it was my fault that I was violated in that way. I was told [...] that I was responsible for it and that it wasn't rape because of that. I was made to believe that because I ended up pregnant by my rapist that I was less-than, that I was a despicable human, I was made to think that I was unloved. I had turned 15 three days before i was raped.


I am. Appalled. I am an exmo, and I got lucky I wasn't questioned to this extent. However, thanks to the toxic influence of church leaders and my mother, I was such a sexually repressed teenager. I did get to the point where I wanted to kill myself, and hated myself so much I wanted to mutilate myself. Because I found out I was bi, because I didn't really believe, because I wasn't a good Mormon girl.


these were the four comments that could be found at the top of the comment sections written by Mormons or ex-Mormons. It goes on like this.
 
VoidCat

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
thomas t said:
I revisited the video about the questionings of children done by Mormon bishops.
This video claims that there are sexually explicit questions asked to young girls by older men. Which would constitute sexual harrassment, in my view.
I wanted to find out if it was truth.
So I checked out the comment section from top to bottom.

This is what I found:
I had a therapist (in utah) ask me if I enjoyed being raped. (I was 16 when I finally told someone) I was completely disgusted, and yelled at her, because I was 11 when it happen. 1. It was rape. 2. I was eleven. A child. 3. It doesn't even matter that I was a child, it was rape. Its not enjoyable


I was raised in that cult until I was 12, I too had similar disgusting/uncalled for questions from a Bishop. My family is still Mormon so when I had my daughter at 22 years old, it was expected that I would get her blessed. I figured, no big deal, I'll just do it to shut my family up but immediately regretted it when I went to meet with the Bishop. He asked, "So what sex position were you & your boyfriend in when you became pregnant?" & "How often do you & your boyfriend have sex?".....uh, WTFF?


I was questioned like this 3 times before my family left the Mormon faith. The first two times the questioner made sexual advances towards me, a 13-14yr old girl. Shortly before the last time I was raped by one of my teachers. Before I was allowed to go to the police, the church required that I be questioned again. I was asked the most disgusting things and I left feeling like it was my fault that I was violated in that way. I was told [...] that I was responsible for it and that it wasn't rape because of that. I was made to believe that because I ended up pregnant by my rapist that I was less-than, that I was a despicable human, I was made to think that I was unloved. I had turned 15 three days before i was raped.


I am. Appalled. I am an exmo, and I got lucky I wasn't questioned to this extent. However, thanks to the toxic influence of church leaders and my mother, I was such a sexually repressed teenager. I did get to the point where I wanted to kill myself, and hated myself so much I wanted to mutilate myself. Because I found out I was bi, because I didn't really believe, because I wasn't a good Mormon girl.


these were the four comments that could be found at the top of the comment sections written by Mormons or ex-Mormons. It goes on like this.
Click to expand...
That's terrible. I feel disgusted by this.
 
Windwalker

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
thomas t said:
Adults have to respect these rights when they talk to children. When they'll be grown up, it's their right to make these decisions on their own. It's not up to some church elders or whoever that was that taught these "rules"... to decide under which circumstances they will have sex some day.
Click to expand...
As I am reading this, I am thinking of those cultures today, as well as in the past, where women are trained to see that this is a man's world, and the proper role of women is to be of service to their husband, which in strongly patriarchal societies is closer to 'owner', than a soul mate in the sense we think of as modern romantics. So training of women at an early age, to understand what their duties are to be when they mature, is simple par for the course.

Even today in our modern Western societies, women are programmed from early ages on to fit into this 'man's world,' when they are raised in traditionalist, conservative homes. That is the world they inherited, they were taught to support, and then pass it on to their children the same was it was programmed into them. It is seen as their duty to do that in support of their society.

But I think here, you are looking at this from the postmodernist perspective, of equal rights of women, elevating individual rights over prescribe roles. These are different worldviews, different realities.

The funny thing is, what they are calling a culture war, is in reality, a worldview clash. They can't understand not telling that young girl what will be expected of her as a woman, and we can't understand why they hell they would. It's entirely different realities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top