I don't remember sex ever being mentioned in my church. Granted, I was a phenomenally unaware kid, but I was a regular attendee of my hometown church well into college. I remember not one lesson that pinged any awareness of what men and women did together. Maybe they were too subtle.

Maybe they figured I was safe since I was dating the preacher.

Well, a girl finds enough time to wish lovely lexine a happy birthday and comes back later to a whole new thread. Hmph.

At least I got in under 100. And I got to see ChiKat and the boy! Awwww!

I want this cooooat. Waaah. [link]

Wow, what i day to miss. So here's the post where I reveal my secret conservative Christian upbringing that I have kept so carefully hidden from ya'll for the last year for fear of ridicule (note: that was said with a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekness.)

I'm pretty sure Jim Elliot (the missionary who started this conversation) went to my college. Or maybe his wife did, I don't exactly remember. I was raised in a home and went to a college both of which were pretty conservative, although thinking was actively encouraged.

Personally, I think it is incredibley unfair to decide that a person who has more conservative views than yours is somehow a stupid or unthinking person. While I reject blind followers of all political stripes, I have only respect for those who have thought out their beliefs and chosen a path that is right for them. It's hard to believe in diversity and tolerance any other way.

I waited until my wedding night (at age 20) to have sex with my husband. Three years later, we divorced (a side issue here). My now-husband and I had lots of great sex before we were married. With my first husband, it was much less complicated although it was (is) definitely more fun and exciting with Joe. I think it's a trade-off. I don't regret either choice, I guess.

I'm not who I was when I was 20. I'm more open on some issues and less tolerant on others. I object to much of today's conservative right morality because I do think it is shame based and it doesn't leave room for differences of opinion. But that doesn't mean that waiting until you are married is a stupid choice.

The "Passion and Purity" discussion is bringing back some interesting memories.

I would really love to know more about the historical context of the "sex is a good thing but meant for marriage" message. If it originated in a time/place when sexual abuse of children was commonplace and accepted or when destitute women had little choice but to prostitute themselves, etc., it could put a different spin on the message.

See, I just can't see this as a sex-positive message, no matter how much fun they might have said it would be once you got married.

Honestly, and very generally speaking (so not speaking to Teppy's FAC's view, or Susan's college group's view) I think it's a more sex-positive message than the general culture's message, because I think it is a more honest assessment of sex, that takes into context the power (or potential thereof) of sexuality. And granted, this is just opinion. Sex can bring both life and death. Sex can bring ecstacy--both physical and emotional, and pain--both physical and mental.

Antibiotics and contraceptives reduced many of the permanent negative consequences which can sometimes result from sexual intimacy, and I think somewhere along the line, we've (as a culture) started seeing it as completely inconsequential, when it is not.

That I am recognizing there are potential, permanent, negative consequences is no reflection of a sex-is-bad opinion. It's a recognition of the (potential) power of the act. I think driving is great--got my learner's permit and license the moment I could, but there are potential, negative, permant consequences from operating an automobile. Food is great, but there are negative consequences from certain uses of it. Home owning is great, but there are negative aspects of it, ditto parenting. I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.

I want this cooooat. Waaah.

Sigh. Now, so do I.

(edited because context is often helpful)

Paul was, actually, not a woman-hating bastard, and I can explain further if anyone likes, or you can wait for JZ.

I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.

Interestingly, my best friend and I were talking about this last night.

We (and by we I'm referring to my college fellowship group, not the Baptist church of my childhood) were taught that ANY expression of sexuality pre-marriage WHATSOEVER was a sin. Sexual fantasies were wrong. Masturbation was wrong.

This strikes me as entirely bad, not least because it's so likely to cause guilt over things that have already been done and hurt no one.

The Victorians were very anti-masturbation, weren't they? I remember seeing pictures of belts that would give boys a shock if they got an erection.

since the advent of AIDS, scare-tactics/ heavily abstinence (even if not abstinance-only) SexEd is really common, and promotes pretty screwed-up attitudes toward sex.

Agreed. If a school is going to pretend to teach sex ed, the responsibility to students is to tell them the facts, and let their parents or churches sort out the morality. Kids now are hearing that condoms are useless and hormonal contraception = abortion, and that's the kind of lesson that's more likely to lead to an unwanted child than anything else.