or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › If you religiously oppose masterbation...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you religiously oppose masterbation... - Page 5

post #81 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
I'm not sure why you think that those of us against masturbation would teach our children to feel ashamed/bad/wrong/evil.
I just don't see how you possibly avoid it. How do you teach someone that feel good by pleasuring themselves is a sin without making them feel sinful?
post #82 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amris View Post
I also don't agree with teaching children that things are "bad," and instead teaching them that "this is not considered appropriate, and may have consequences that you won't like."

There's a huge difference between teaching children that they're a "sinner" (which translates to 'bad') if they do something, and teaching them logically about consequences.

To teach my child table manners, for example, I will not say, "it's bad to put your elbows on the table," I will teach her, "it's good to keep your elbows off the table, because most people percieve that to be more polite. This doesn't make it true, but there are times when people's perception of you can impact your life, so it's a good habit to get into and keep."

Instead of teaching them to be ashamed, teach them the good reasons.

If you want to teach against masturbation, teach the benefits of refraining from it. "Dear, we choose to keep our body pure, because it brings us closer to God. It helps us to have a better relationship with him and with our spouse. Our body is also healthier and our soul feels better when we are closer to God and being pure. It is of great benefit in many ways to make this choice."

It can be done without saying, "Oh, and masturbation is a sin, too. If you do it, you are sinning." Sinning is synonymous with being 'bad,' and I fail to understand why anyone wants their child to think they're bad.
I am not exactly sure what you're talking about here, but I agree that it's better to emphasize the positive rather than the negative. And I would never tell a child that he/she was "a sinner." We do talk about good and bad actions, but with a reason. With table manners, we approach it much the same way you do. Sexual issues are not different.
post #83 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
I am not exactly sure what you're talking about here, but I agree that it's better to emphasize the positive rather than the negative. And I would never tell a child that he/she was "a sinner." We do talk about good and bad actions, but with a reason. With table manners, we approach it much the same way you do. Sexual issues are not different.
I was answering the question of "if you think teaching a child that something is a sin is sickening, how would YOU teach them not to do something they shouldn't do?"

And that's my answer. By teaching them about consequences, and turning the focus onto why it's good to do the alternative action that is better than the one that has negative consequences.

I would teach my child that it's possible that, if she lacks table manners, others might think less of her before bothering to get to know her. Then, I'll focus hard on the benefits of abstaining from putting one's elbows on the table, and the benefits of keeping one's mouth closed while chewing.

The point being that shaming someone with words like "sin" isn't necessary. And there's just no getting around the shame associated with being a sinner. It's MEANT to shame, and it does that job well.
post #84 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by artgoddess View Post
I just don't see how you possibly avoid it. How do you teach someone that feel good by pleasuring themselves is a sin without making them feel sinful?
It's pretty much like Amris said. You teach them the natural consequences of masturbation and the positive reasons why we wouldn't want to do it. I would be sure to acknowledge that Heavenly Father gave them those strong feelings in their bodies for a reason, so they don't believe that they're bad for feeling them.
post #85 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amris View Post
And there's just no getting around the shame associated with being a sinner. It's MEANT to shame, and it does that job well.
My religion actually focuses on "godly sorrow", which is more complex than simple shame or guilt over "getting caught".

Regardless, I'm not sure that negative feelings (such as shame or guilt) should always be avoided. I would liken it to pain. Pain is a wonderful thing. It teaches us that we should stop doing what we're doing and avoid doing it again. You've probably seen the stories of people who grow up without pain. It's a terrible existence for them. Feeling bad over an action (whether we call this feeling guilt, or shame, or godly sorrow, or something else) does the same thing for our souls.

How do you teach your kids that it's not OK to call people names or hurt them physically? Even if you don't use the word "sin" to describe those actions, surely you believe they're wrong? We don't use the word "sin" either when we teach about those things. We explain that it's not OK to do it, we talk about how the other person feels when that happens, we talk about how we would feel if it happened to us, and we do say that Heavenly Father loves all of us and wants us to be nice to everyone else. I'm just trying to use an example here that everyone can agree is wrong, and show how we teach against it in a religious context without shaming. You can surely find inconsistencies if you try to make it an analogy for masturbation.
post #86 of 472
Well, yeah, because there isn't some other vulnerable person who is being harmed by the action.

I don't get how one can reconcile the attment to repress solo sex with also forbidding marriage to kids. Not that I'm in favor of marrying off 12-year-olds, but... sexual needs are real needs, too, y'know.

I just can't see blissfully and guiltlessly enjoying sex with my husband while my 14 year old writhes in unfulfilled sexual desire in the next room.
post #87 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Thanks for the invite. I think I'll stick with my Unitarian church, though. Those people see bottled water as a crime against the divine, (and against commone fiscal sense) but I've heard nary a word about wanking.

At least the latter is ecologically friendly.
Actually, I don't think I've ever heard a sermon about masturbation. That is a myth, I think, that traditional churches spend all their time talking about sex. But, hey, at least we can all agree about bottled water.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
And WTF is up with the weird "purity" language? Is one "impure" just because of jackin' off? Only if you forget to wash your hands afterward?

Is there a statute of limitations on the duration of the icky ritual impurity? Does it matter if you fantasize about your church-sanctioned-domestic-partner-of-the-opposite-sex? Does phone sex with the aforementioned CSDPOTOS count?

:mumbling: Surely God sanctions phone sex...
People are not impure. People are creations of God and can never be impure. Only actions can be impure.

I don't know what phone sex is.
post #88 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amris View Post
I was answering the question of "if you think teaching a child that something is a sin is sickening, how would YOU teach them not to do something they shouldn't do?"

And that's my answer. By teaching them about consequences, and turning the focus onto why it's good to do the alternative action that is better than the one that has negative consequences.

I would teach my child that it's possible that, if she lacks table manners, others might think less of her before bothering to get to know her. Then, I'll focus hard on the benefits of abstaining from putting one's elbows on the table, and the benefits of keeping one's mouth closed while chewing.

The point being that shaming someone with words like "sin" isn't necessary. And there's just no getting around the shame associated with being a sinner. It's MEANT to shame, and it does that job well.

Oh, sorry, that wasn't what I meant to ask. I didn't mean teaching negatively vs. positively. I meant, for those who find teaching chastity in and of itself sickening, why wouldn't they feel the same way about teaching to refrain from other natural behaviors. Not how it's taught. Does that make sense?
post #89 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
And WTF is up with the weird "purity" language? Is one "impure" just because of jackin' off? Only if you forget to wash your hands afterward?
post #90 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
My religion actually focuses on "godly sorrow", which is more complex than simple shame or guilt over "getting caught".

Regardless, I'm not sure that negative feelings (such as shame or guilt) should always be avoided. I would liken it to pain. Pain is a wonderful thing. It teaches us that we should stop doing what we're doing and avoid doing it again. You've probably seen the stories of people who grow up without pain. It's a terrible existence for them. Feeling bad over an action (whether we call this feeling guilt, or shame, or godly sorrow, or something else) does the same thing for our souls.

How do you teach your kids that it's not OK to call people names or hurt them physically? Even if you don't use the word "sin" to describe those actions, surely you believe they're wrong? We don't use the word "sin" either when we teach about those things. We explain that it's not OK to do it, we talk about how the other person feels when that happens, we talk about how we would feel if it happened to us, and we do say that Heavenly Father loves all of us and wants us to be nice to everyone else. I'm just trying to use an example here that everyone can agree is wrong, and show how we teach against it in a religious context without shaming. You can surely find inconsistencies if you try to make it an analogy for masturbation.
We'll never agree on the value of shame and guilt. I believe both have no value whatsoever. And I have every intention of teaching without them, to the best of my ability.
post #91 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
Oh, sorry, that wasn't what I meant to ask. I didn't mean teaching negatively vs. positively. I meant, for those who find teaching chastity in and of itself sickening, why wouldn't they feel the same way about teaching to refrain from other natural behaviors. Not how it's taught. Does that make sense?
I doubt you will find anyone who finds chastity in and of itself sickening.
post #92 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
Oh, sorry, that wasn't what I meant to ask. I didn't mean teaching negatively vs. positively. I meant, for those who find teaching chastity in and of itself sickening, why wouldn't they feel the same way about teaching to refrain from other natural behaviors. Not how it's taught. Does that make sense?
Oh, yeah. I misunderstood.

I will be teaching restraint in sexual matters, though I won't be teaching against masturbation in particular.

I will teach that one's body is meant to be shared with one's partner, not indiscriminately with strangers or half-strangers.

So I didn't really understand the question and can't actually answer it.

I was just upset by the "this is sinful" kind of references, like it's BAD to WANT to do these things. Which I don't believe it is, it's normal.
post #93 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
Regardless, I'm not sure that negative feelings (such as shame or guilt) should always be avoided. I would liken it to pain. Pain is a wonderful thing. It teaches us that we should stop doing what we're doing and avoid doing it again. You've probably seen the stories of people who grow up without pain. It's a terrible existence for them. Feeling bad over an action (whether we call this feeling guilt, or shame, or godly sorrow, or something else) does the same thing for our souls.
That is a good point too. I think too often in our society we try to do away with negative feelings like guilt or pain, without realizing that they exist for a reason.
post #94 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
Oh, sorry, that wasn't what I meant to ask. I didn't mean teaching negatively vs. positively. I meant, for those who find teaching chastity in and of itself sickening, why wouldn't they feel the same way about teaching to refrain from other natural behaviors. Not how it's taught. Does that make sense?
Eh, masturbation hurts... nobody. Hitting other people hurts other people. Stealing hurts other people. Calling names hurts other people.

Eating sugary junk before supper irritates Mom because Mom spent damn good time and money cooking that nutritious supper and you better eat it!!!

*channeling my grandma*

But you can certainly enjoy that sugary snack in an hour. I'm not forbidding sugar till the kiddo gets married in a decade. Also, sugar isn't a legitimate human need like sexual expression is.

Though perhaps I oughta inform my husband that his "need" for sex is all in his imagination. Let's see how long I stay married.
post #95 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Well, yeah, because there isn't some other vulnerable person who is being harmed by the action.
But to a young child, especially, it is the same thing. He wants to do something that mama/daddy/authority figure doesn't want him to do.



Quote:
I don't get how one can reconcile the attment to repress solo sex with also forbidding marriage to kids. Not that I'm in favor of marrying off 12-year-olds, but... sexual needs are real needs, too, y'know.

I just can't see blissfully and guiltlessly enjoying sex with my husband while my 14 year old writhes in unfulfilled sexual desire in the next room.
Hmm... maybe I would have a different view if I did see sex as a "need." But I don't think it is. Sure, it's fun, but there are lots of other non-sexual things out there... I don't think anyone has ever died from not getting any.



Quote:
Originally Posted by boingo82 View Post
I doubt you will find anyone who finds chastity in and of itself sickening.
Teaching chastity. Or whatever you want to call it.
post #96 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
It's pretty much like Amris said. You teach them the natural consequences of masturbation and the positive reasons why we wouldn't want to do it.
What are the natural consequences of masturbation? :


eta - Aside from the obvious.
post #97 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
That is a good point too. I think too often in our society we try to do away with negative feelings like guilt or pain, without realizing that they exist for a reason.
I dunno. We gots guild o' plenty and pain in this society. It's just about different things that I imagine you're thinking of.

Guilt over not being as skinny as we were ten years ago; guilt over having debt we can't afford; all kinds of Mommy Guilt out the wazoo... I'm having a hard time visualizing any positive outcome from those waves of contemporary human guilt.

And pain? You want to talk about pain? Talk to adult kids of divorce, talk to families bankrupted by medical bills, talk to families of alcoholics, talk to homeless people of all ages and races and walks of life, talk to the military families who haven't seen their mothers and fathers in months.

Oh yea, baby. We got plenty of pain, too. The King of Pain.

But what good has it served us?
post #98 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
But to a young child, especially, it is the same thing. He wants to do something that mama/daddy/authority figure doesn't want him to do.





Hmm... maybe I would have a different view if I did see sex as a "need." But I don't think it is. Sure, it's fun, but there are lots of other non-sexual things out there... I don't think anyone has ever died from not getting any.
A kid old enough to masturbate is plenty old enough to need more reasoning than "because I said so." My two-year-old, yeah, he has to be forbidden things like knives because he doesn't know how not to cut off his own fingers yet (and wouldn't that inhibit his future masturbation? ) but when he's 14, it's not going to be enough to just impose my authority.

I guess sex-as-a-need depends on how strong one's sexual drive is. Mine is generally pretty dang overwhelming and powerful (even back when I was a very young homeschooled girl and not exposed to the mainstream media) but I've been on medications lately that turn sex into a much more desultory take-it-or-leave-it activity. More on par with eating a good steak or going for a leisurely walk.

My husband wants to know where his wife is and who this absentminded woman in his bed is. It's been... interesting... to have the volume on my sex drive turned down for the first time since I was ten or so.

Maybe the OP's friend oughta put her son on SSRIs when he turns eleven. THAT would come much closer to actually reducing temptation than cutting off his foreskin would.
post #99 of 472
Plenty of things are "needs" that you won't necessarily die without.

One needs to be loved as a child. If they are not, they turn out psychologically damaged.

Relationships need sex, or they end up not lasting.

So, if you want the outcome of a healthy child, you give them love.

If you want the outcome of a sexually mature adult, you do not teach them to despise themselves for wanting sex.

If you want a long lasting marriage where your spouse remains faithful to you, you do your best to meet their sexual needs, because it is a genuine psychological need, ESPECIALLY for men. Men bond with their partner through sex.
post #100 of 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Well, yeah, because there isn't some other vulnerable person who is being harmed by the action.
Well, as for my religion, we don't believe that (I can't speak for the other religions represented here) We believe that the only proper place for the expression of sexual desires is within marriage. Masturbation would be hurting and betraying the future spouse. You might say "what if they never get married, so there is no future spouse?" We also believe that everyone who does not have the opportunity to marry in this life will be given the opportunity in the next, so there is always a future spouse involved.

It almost seems silly to continue this conversation, because none of you believe these things, and I don't believe what you believe So no matter what I explain about how and what I believe, you will probably want to continue trying to convince me that I'm weird and sick and oppressed and old-fashioned.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › If you religiously oppose masterbation...