MrShorty

Members
  • Posts

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by MrShorty

  1. Sort of runs counter to what Elder Packer says in the Institute manual about "The desire to mate in humankind [being] constant and very strong." My own study suggests that it is certainly not constant across individuals and it varies with time, both short term in response to hormonal fluctuations and life stresses, and long term in response to aging. On average it is likely a decrease in desire and function as you've suggested. However, I see a lot of discussion and research (mostly secular sources) challenging the stereotype of "older" people becoming "asexual". I think there is a lot of room in the church and out for a discussion around what sexuality means for couples and marriages as they age.
  2. I can't say either how many are knowingly deceived and how many are sincer in their belief. I would expect that most are sincere in believing that God has directed them to where they are. It really makes me think on the question and process of discernment.
  3. However, those on the other side of the aisle would contend that, if someone receives a positive feeling as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or related truths, then these feelings are not the Spirit. It might be true, but it suggests that there are many spirits out there impersonating The Holy Spirit, and doing so quite successfully.
  4. Could this be part of the difficulty in understanding those with GGS/GBS? This is one of the conclusions that GGS/GBS individuals come to -- that it is perfectly acceptable (some even say preferable) to encourage or enforce a sexless marriage, and that such a marriage is just as wholesome and healthy as sexually active marriages. And these people consider themselves just as reasonable as us. I don't know how much of the flaw in their thinking is from the Church teaching truth in way that can be misunderstood and how much of it stems from people's faulty logic. But it does happen. Does "phyisical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage" necessarily imply its inverse: "A lack or an absence of physical intimacy is unhealthy and detrimental in a marriage."? Many with GGS/GBS would argue that the former statement does not imply its inverse. Many would even assert that "a lack of physical intimacy is also healthy and beneficial in a marriage." Until we do a better job of explaining and teaching the relationship between "physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in marriage" and its inverse, there will be those who fail to understand and accept the difficulties in a sexless marriage. The conclusion from the other thread was that "sex is not a need." If sex is not a need, then how does "putting your spouse's needs above yours" really apply? How does this apply to "perks", wants (even very strongly desired wants), and other non-essential aspects of marriage? What are the essential elements of a healthy, happy marriage according to God and the Church? To someone with GGS/GBS, there is no reason to believe or accept that witholding sex should have any negative effect on the marriage or the refused spouse, because they cannot understand or accept that sex is a need.
  5. A few days ago, I was listening to the conclusion of one Pastor Erwin Lutzer's radio messages (http://www.moodymedia.org/radio-programs/running-to-win-25/father-we-worship-part-1/). After concluding the "sermon", he came on to make a few closing remarks (about minute 18). I was really intrigued by some of the things he said. In particular, he suggests "getting on your knees" to ask God if the Bible is really His word or men's words, then study the Bible. By doing this, he believes that the Holy Spirit will help us see that the Bible is indeed God's word to us. What I find intriguing is that this is, almost word for word, the exact same process we LDS ask people to go through to determine if the Book of Mormon is scripture, if Joseph Smith was a prophet, and so on -- it is the same process recommended by Moroni in Mor 10:3-5. 1) I guess I find it interesting that Pastor Lutzer (and others, this isn't the first time I have seen this taught on a Christian radio program) sometimes do suggest this process for discerning truth. Perhaps because I also see many Christians who criticize us LDS for using this process to discern truth for ourselves. 2) Which of course leads to the second observation -- If this is indeed the process by which God confirms truth to humans, is there an explanation for why some people seem to get different answers from Him? While serving my mission, I had a few experiences that highlighted this question for me, and I'm not sure I fully understand (other than I have faith that God has His reasons, and I need to trust the answers He has given me). Some claim that those who get a different answer must be getting the answer from the "wrong" spirit (it doesn't seem to matter which of the LDS vs Christian aisle they are on), but I'm not sure I find that explanation satisfactory anymore. Thoughts, if anyone is interested?
  6. I don't know if PC would see this as an extension of his original question. I follow a few Christian marriage bloggers on Facebook, and one of them posted this morning this little question: "Satan likes a marriage without sex as much as sex without a marriage. Why does the chruch [sic] only condemn one of the two?" Granted, he is speaking from a broader Christian point of view, so "the church" may mean something a little different to him (he certainly is not thinking about SLC when he says it), but it is an interesting thought to apply to LDS as well as other Christian congregations. Discussion questions if anyone is interested: 1) Do we believe there is anything to Satan trying to "tempt" or influence married couples to limit, minimize, or abandon the sexual relationship? In other words, is Satan a root cause for this Good Girl/Boy Syndrome? Is he actively trying to use sexual refusal to break up marriages? 2) I am not aware of any statements by the Church or Church leaders really discussing sexless marriages. Is this something that the LDS Church has spoken of before, and, as mordorbund suggested, is not shared enough, or is this something the LDS Church seems to have avoided? 3) The statement kind of assumes that a church should speak out. Should the Church make any kind of general "sexless marriages are probably or generally not approved of the Lord"? We are generally a zealous people, and when our prophets speak, we tend to respond. Would this be a dangerous statement, in that many would respond to such a "command" in unhealthy ways?
  7. Not to take away from the more modern architectural styles, but I have always had a preference for the old pioneer temple architecture -- Salt Lake, Logan, Manti, St. George.
  8. A Parent's Guide has been around for about 30 years. As with the institute manual, these are not new to many of us. IMO, yes, we need some updated material. A Parent's Guide is good, but I know there are some things in it that I personally disagree with (it is not scripture, after all), other things that I find difficult to understand (especially if I only had A Parent's Guide to go on), some principles that I fiind absent or neglected, and several principles that I would completely agree with. I would say the same thing about the Institute manual TFP suggested or the Marriage and Family Relationships course manual. (For an example of a potentially updated approach to teaching about sex in marriage, see the Oakland Stake's loveunparalleled.com). Or maybe, rather than updated materials, we just need different materials by different authors from different points of view. Maybe the problem is more that the "official" publications seem to me to be mostly copies of each other drawing from the same well. Maybe if we had greater variety in our instructional material (or felt free to seek instruction from a wider variety of sources), it would be easier to find a source that speaks to each of us personally. Or maybe we just need to acknowledge more that the church's official publications are not sufficient in some cases. IMO, I also think we could stand to share our resources better. Part of this could be about letting people know what resources (both Church and secular) are good resources. I have found in my own experience that we as church members have a rather "skeptical", sometime even hostile, eye towards secular or even non-official/non-LDS publications about sex. We need to help people develop the maturity and discernment to be able to find these truths wherever they may be found. As suggested, maybe we need more "guides" who are knowledgeable enough to help share these resources. We need to also be humble enough to recognize when we need help and know how to get it, before the behavior patterns are entrenched. In reality, I am not qualified to tell the church or anyone how they should approach sexual education and growth. I'm still trying to figure it out myself. I find it interesting that, in recent years I have learned more from non-LDS and secular sources than I have from official publications.
  9. Over the last couple of days, as I have thought of this, I wonder if the Ethiopian eunuche expressed to Phillip (Acts 8) an important principle -- even regarding what the Church's official publications and the general authorities write and speak. Perhaps there are many of us who really cannot understand this on our own the way someone like TFP can -- we need someone to guide us and help us understand. Just the other day, I read an anecdote on Sister Brotherson's blog where the woman stated, "I have heard some of the same talks and quotes for years that you mentioned and never understood them to mean what you are saying." I think my own experience is similar -- once I had developed a more sound understanding of sexuality (from a variety of secular and Christian sources), I could then come back to the talks and lessons by the church authorities (like the institute manual previously mentioned) and then I could see where they were teaching these things. Maybe, like the Ethiopian eunuch, we need more people to help guide us through what church leaders are trying to teach us.
  10. This is just my opinion, but from anecdotes I see around the internet, bishops do not universally see this kind of situation as "automatic" disqualification to go to the temple. They seem to consider temple worthiness in these cases on a case by case basis (part of why we here cannot give you specific suggestions). In keeping with the other advice given here, I would suggest you call your bishop. Tell him, "We have this temple trip on Saturday, and I'm not sure if I'm worthy to go to the temple. Can I meet with you between now and then to talk about it?" Then see if he can find a few minutes to sit down with you and discuss it. If, together, you and he decide you should not go, then you don't go to the temple, and nobody else needs to know why (and I personally have no qualms about little white lies to others in a situation like this. "I ate something that disagreed with me, so I decided not to go at the last minute" is as much as anyone else needs to know). If, together, you and he decide you can/should go to the temple, then go.
  11. I hope the first thing your Bishop does is help you get over hating yourself. From statistics I have seen, masturbation is likely one of the most common "sins" we are guilty of. In this day and age, porn use is also very common. Neither sin is anything to "hate yourself" over. You are not perverted, hypersexual, gross, disgusting, or any other form of bad. You have succumbed to a "temptation that is common to man" (1 Cor 10:13). I would encourage you to talk to your bishop and work on developing a healthy and proper relationship with your sexuality.
  12. IMO, the sex and sexuality the "whiplash" is so much more than the opposition in certain evil -- necessary evil situations. Yes we need to make exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill" for soldiers in war, but war is still an ugly business that we would never want to become "comfortable" with. The shift in terms of sex looks to me like this: If we believe our usual interpretation of Alma 39, sex before/outside of marriage is the third most serious sin of all (behind denying the Holy Ghost and murder). If we believe what Elder Bednar said in Apr. 2013 GC, sex inside of marriage is "one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential." In some ways, it maybe isn't surprising that there is such a thing as Good Girl syndrome, that is a fairly dramatic shift in thinking.
  13. A few comments, if I may: 1) Good Girl Syndrome -- though the term seems to have been coined by and LDS therapist (Laura Brotherson), I see it discussed in many non-LDS contexts, so I don't think it is a uniquely LDS problem. Christian bloggers (such as J at hot holy and humorous, Shiela Gregwoire at tolovehonorandvacuum, and many others) often discuss these principles. I even frequently see these discussions in secular sources. (Think of discussions around mild expressions of the Madonna/Whore complex -- where we can talk about the difficulties in seeing a righteous person as sexual and a sexual person as righteous). I sometimes think that it might just be a normal part of "growing up" sexually -- is learning how to reconcile our sexual/erotic selves with the rest of what we think is good. Some have an easier time of it, and others will struggle with it more. In some ways I think Dr. Schnarch expresses it so well when he talks about marriage (and sex in marriage) as a "people growing machine." Marriage relationships (and the sexual relationship within marriage) can force us to grow in ways that no other relationship can. 2) On 1 Cor 7 -- I see this verse used a lot more in Christian circles than in LDS circles. I'm not sure why, but it seems that the LDS people I have interacted with have essentially neglected these verses -- especially in trying to use them to imply any kind of obligation on sex. As I followed the "sex as need/sex as obligation" discussion that I started a month ago, one of the things I observed is that we (LDS and, I think,many non-LDS as well) are rather uncomfortable making sex out as any kind of obligation. I recognize that this was probably asked as a rhetorical question, but, in some ways, I think this is at the heart of my own struggle to understand sex in marriage and Good Girl/Good Boy syndrome. Do we really teach that sex in marriage is a commandment? Or is it a necessary evil? Or is it a "perk"? Whatever the couple decides? Or is it something else? 3) I think Quinn and Lakumi hit on an important part of the difficulty -- It is not as simple as flipping a switch. The constant "abstinence" teaching we emphasize can make that switch rather rusty. I'm also not sure that we do a good job overall in giving our youth the tools, skills, and attitudes that will simplify the flipping of that switch. I also don't think it will ever be completely painless, because the first time you do anything (especially something as vulnerable as sex) is going to have some anxiety around it. 4) I don't know whether to "blame" the church, or the parents, or the broader culture in general. Sexuality seems to be such a complex part of ourselves, with so many influences that go into it, that I don't know. It does seem that those with the healthiest views of sexuality tend to have good influence and instruction from parents. But I don't think the church has zero influence -- the church can have a significant influence on a person's attitude towards sexuality, and can have a significant influence on the parents' attitudes towards sexuality (especially in multigenerational families). I think it is hard to separate out the Church's influence alone. And then, of course, we have the broader culture's influence -- both in terms of what it directly teaches and the ways that the broader culture influences the messages the Church and parents choose to emphasize. Another aspect of this is how much should the Church be involved in sex education. I see some calling for the Church to take on more responsibility for sex education and sex therapy type instruction, and I see others calling for less involvement of the Church in the marriage bed. I see some encouraging couples to appeal more to secular sources (using appropriate discernment) for help and education, and I see some who believe that secular sources should be shunned in favor of more religious sources. I don't really have any answers. I sometimes wonder if we need to take the time to really articulate and understand the root principles underlying the law of chastity, then we will be in a better position to discuss some of these issues.
  14. For some reason, I am reminded of what Tweedle Dee (or Dum) explained to Alice -- perhaps she was just a part of the Red King's dream, and as soon as he woke up, she would cease to exist. I'm no expert on philosophy, but I recall that this was part of DesCartes "I think, therefore I am." axiom. He was trying to find a bedrock principle that could serve as an anchor for his view of existence. Perceptions through the senses could not be fully trusted, because our senses can "lie" to us. Even when dealing with spiritual promptings, sometimes it is possible to misinterpret or to deceive ourselves. I do not know if we can ever know for sure that something is true. Perhaps. I agree that God and truth should not be confusing or contradictory. On the other hand, I don't want to be guilty of limiting God/truth to my finite, mortal, imperfect reasoning. As God explained through Isaiah, His ways/thoughts are higher than our ways/thoughts. When something doesn't make sense, is it because it is false, or is it a failure of my logic engine. Right now I'm working on the results of an experiment where the results in many ways don't make sense -- don't follow expected patterns. There are a lot of variables involved, so I am really struggling to decide if it is because the experiment is wrong, or if I have not yet come upon the correct mathematical relationship to describe the relationship between the variables. In many ways, I think some truth, especially religious/theological truth, is in interesting interplay between reason and faith. There are several religious truths that I would be tempted to discard if I refused to believe something that didn't make sense to me. At the same time, there are some religious claims that I reject because I find them irrational. I'm not sure I can explain how those judgements get made, nor do I always feel like they are a "there that is decided" kind of thing. Part of being penitent might be never being quite satisfied that a specific question is definitively answered -- to always be willing to think through concepts again to see if they are still something you want to believe.
  15. I cannot for the life of me find the article I read, but I recall reading an article by a gentlemen who claimed to be very heavily involved in the textual criticism of the Bible. I don't recall if he claimed to be Catholic or Protestant or if he even claimed a side on that aisle, nor do I remember much of what he said. The key concept I do recall him saying was "how human" he found the process of getting scripture to us. Paul's personality and biases show up in his writings, and those are different from Peter's which are different from John's which are different from Isaiah's which are different from Daniel's (to extend it through LDS cannon, which are different from Alma's which are different from Joseph Smith's which are different from Mormon's). He also mentioned the effect of the different copiests and translators over the centuries that yield the Bible/scripture as we have them today. His conclusion was that, scripture might be "true", but the process of getting it to us is "human." I do not claim to fully understand how God works to get scripture to us. I believe we can say about the canonized ancient scripture that God guided it with His hand to preserve the essential parts of the Gospel and teach them to us. I think I am even less knowledgeable about the process of discerning human influences from the parts of scripture that are "God-Breathed" (to borrow the term from the Evangelicals).
  16. I agree with Pam, I don't think there's much to say until the actual numbers are published. After the study is published, it will be interesting to see: 1) If 6000 people, spread across multiple Christian/other religions, is large enough really draw the kind of conclusions he will claim. If religious affiliation is randomly representative, the LDS sample will likely be smaller than Catholic/Protestant. 2) Will the results also be correlated to some measure of "activity level." I have seen this effect in other studies -- often things are more closely related to activity level than to self-reported affiliation. 3) The usual rate of sexless marriage (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year) across the US is about 20%. If LDS really have a lower incidence, it will be interesting to see just how much lower.
  17. And here I thought this was going to be a discussion about the Alfred Hitchcock movie Loon
  18. In general, I would agree with your state, a father should have rights in these situations. Why do you say that he would never consent to an adoption? Is it because he is ready and willing to be involved in this child's life both financially and otherwise? Or is he planning on being one of those deadbeats? I know next to nothing about family law, so I would ask you and anyone here who is familiar with family law -- if marriage, abortion, and adoption are all completely off the table, would there be real value, before the baby is born, to sit down with a lawyer and start to discuss/negotiate: who will be the primary caregiver for the child? visitation/custody arrangements for both primary caregiver and the other parent? who will pay for what and how much child support each parent will pay? and so on. If adoption is off the table, then both of you, in one way or another, need to take responsibility for this child and figure out how you will together raise him/her. It seems to me that these things may be easier to start planning and preparing for before the child is born than after.
  19. I'm not sure I fully understand Godly sorrow. Alma describes it as guilt/shame/"trouble which shall bring you down to repentance." (Alma 42:29) This suggests to me that it also possible to feel guilt/shame/sorrow for sin that does not lead to repentance (one example in Mormon 2:13). Alma implies that some of this is the choice of the sinner in responding to their guilt. I'm not sure I fully understand the responsibility of the Church and its members in this process, but it seems to me that our goal should be promoting the kind of sorrow/guilt/shame that leads to repentance. When we find that our dialog seems to be promoting depression, resignation, or anything other than genuine repentance, maybe we have a responsibility to consider our dialog and see if we need a different approach (or a library of different approaches until we find what will work for a specific individual) that will promote repentance.
  20. Maybe it depends on what we mean by "freak at." If it means "respond irrationally to", I think Quinn makes a good point. Religiously, we believe God wants us to completely abstain from porn, so we respond irrationally to someone who uses even a small amount. In some ways, I think it is similar to our attitudes toward alcohol. We believe God asks us to abstain 100% from liquor, but the world preaches a "drink responsibly" philosophy. Sometimes our 100% abstinent turns into an irrational "anyone who has a glass of wine/beer with dinner is a drunken alcoholic". I don't know that it is about condoning or not condoning sin. In some ways I see it as an aspect of "Godly sorrow" that leads to true repentance rather than unhealthy shame and ostracization that may not lead to repentance.
  21. In many ways, I think this is the hardest part of being in a sexless relationship. You try to be the best husband/wife you can be, and it still isn't enough. Sometimes you feel like she/he is saying "some day when you are a perfect husband/wife (and the stars and planets align just right and nobody cut me off in traffic and...), then I will condescend to have sex with you." I have no answer for it. I agree with you on just about every count -- you need to try to everything you can to be a good husband. Sometimes that means trying to lose that extra 25 pounds, sometimes that means putting extra effort in housework or childcare. I also agree that it is not right nor fair ("who said life was fair? where is that written?" if we want to add to our Princess Bride quote list) for her to wait until you have met a certain "threshold" before she responds to your requests for increased engagement in sex. Somewhere along my journey, and as much as I hate to compare us "sexual pursuers" to dumb animals, but I have often reflected on something I saw in a documentary on training animals. This particular segment was about training pigeons or chickens to play ping pong. The trainer explained that, in the early stages of training, the trainer would reward the bird for "accidently" looking at the ball. He didn't wait for the bird to "do the right thing intentionally and perfectly." Any behavior that even looked like what the trainer wanted was rewarded. Like I say, I hate to compare us to dumb animals, but, if our wives/husbands really see sex as a "reward" for correct behavior, then maybe they ought to actually apply it as an animal trainer and "reward" us for doing anything. Of course, there are many who see a certain level of dysfunction in a "sex as reward/punishment/manipulation tool" like that, so that isn't a real answer, either. I know, there really isn't any good advice here. Mostly just commiseration, which can be good and it can be bad, so I don't know if it helps or not. I think PC's post is spot on in one respect -- I don't think the "status quo" is sustainable. You (and me) need to keep pushing for change in the best ways we can.
  22. Is it this data that you are talking about? http://virtuoussociety.com/2014/04/16/rethinking-mormons-and-porn-utah-40th-in-us-in-new-porn-data/ Edited to add this warning: For those like MOE below who may need/want an appropriate warning, the above link is clean. There are apparently links on the above page that, while still clean, do point to a prominent pornographer's website, who is the original source of the data. If there are any concerns with having a known pornography domain show up in your history, be careful what links you follow from the above site.
  23. Let's also not neglect the effect of personal perception and discernment. I expect the three of us have all sat through the same lessons and discussions about sex and relationships (both before and after marriage). Many, like you, develop healthy sexual relationships based on those principles just fine. A minority of us did not, and some of us feel like the teachings we took home from church (whether they were actually taught there or no) are a part of that. In the spirit of "seeking the one," we feel like the Church (as an institution and we as the body) should at least consider if our approach could be improved. If we go through the process and decide that everything is fine as is and should not be changed, fine. Some feel there are improvements to be made, if we would consider them.
  24. I feel for you. Sexless marriages are difficult. I don't know that I have any good advice. A few resources I might suggest: 1) In a similar situation, the first book I picked up (kind of at random) was Dr. Harley's Mom's Needs/Dad's Needs (now published as His Needs/Her Needs for Parents). Dr. Harley clearly puts "sexual fulfillment" as an important need in marriage and discusses some of his advice for learning to meet this need. Dr. Harley is Christian, but not LDS, though he does not openly use his religion as part of the discussion. If your wife is open to a non-LDS, mostly secular but kind of Christian viewpoint, I would recommend Dr. Harley's books (if you check out the "marriage resources" sticky at the top of this forum, there is a link to his marriagebuilders website.). 2) If you or your wife is "suffering" from "Good-girl syndrome" with its accompanying negative views of sex in marriage, you might consider Laura Brotherson's (who is LDS) And They Were Not Ashamed. 3) If your wife will tolerate a purely secular approach, Michelle Wiener-Davis's "The Sex-Starved Marriage" is also a good read. You can read the first chapter of the book on her divorcebusting.com website. 4) Dr. Gottman's books, while not specific to dealing with sexual issues in marriage, has some good principles about communication in marriage and strategies for discussing these difficult issues. 4) A therapist may be necessary for working through some of these issues -- especially after the behavior patterns have been entrenched for years. I don't know if you are comfortable taking this issue to your Bishop (I personally would not) for a referral to a good counselor. If you are, consider asking him for a referral. If not, do your own search for a good pro-marriage therapist who will respect your religious point of view. From there, my best advice might look something like this. As Dr. Chapman says, love is a choice. Choose to love your wife as best you can in ways that speak to her (see Dr. Chapman's 5 love languages or Dr. Harley's books). If that needs to include date nights or whatever, commit yourself to doing the things you can do to help her feel loved. Be sure that she knows the things she can do (including sex) to help you feel loved and engaged in the marriage. Accept that she will have to change herself (or God will have to help her see what she should change) from there. It's a difficult cross to bear, and I wish you the best of luck in bearing it. I also believe it is one that does not have to be permanent. With the right help, I believe sexless marriages can be turned around.
  25. The Folk Prophet, on 16 Apr 2014 - 09:20 AM, said: This is helpful to understand the direction you'd like the discussion to go. I think that, quite commonly, expectations are not properly set for either the male of the female. Men, I think, tend to go into marriage thinking they'll have unlimited access from that moment on. Women, in some cases that I know of, might go into marriage thinking things even along the lines of how they'll only have sex when they want to have a baby. As to the potential solution? Complicated. Many men are unlikely to believe it or accept reality even if taught it. It's like how I believed I'd be rich someday when I was a teenager, and no amount of reasonable talk meant a thing to me. I was different. I was special. I think that some of this is about maturity and self-knowledge. At what point in our progression/development/growth as singles will we be mature enough and know ourselves well enough to be able to state our sexual expectations with finality? Part of me wants to say, never, and maybe this is an important thing to realize. Dr. Schnarch in particular I think hits on this point very well in the way he talks about marriage as the ultimate people growing machine. In many ways, including sexually, marriage forces us to reach beyond ourselves and grow. Many marriage problems are rooted in this failure to "grow" with the marriage/spouse. Perhaps we need to teach our youth and ourselves that sexuality is not a static something we can label ourselves with. Part of understanding and expressing our expectations for sex in marriage will be what changes do you expect and how will they be handled? Quote With the converse problem it becomes a challenge as to how to speak to sons and daughters openly about sex and yet still maintain propriety and sanctity of the subject. There are those that would discard all decorum in favor of the solving of the above problems. And yet we learn from the Book of Mormon "And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;" (Jacob 2:7) Tender, chaste, and delicate feelings are good. Yet this conflicts, in many cases with the problems discussed in the thread. Should we tear down our daughter's inhibitions with frank talk at the expense of also damaging their tender, chaste, and delicate feelings? I dunno. In many ways I agree that this is a significant part of the challenge of teaching our youth. Sometimes we try to simply push it off onto the parents as if the Church should have no place in this issue, but I think the Church should put some thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. For example, your final statement, in some ways, sets up a "false dichotomy" between "tender chaste and delicate feelings" and "sexual feelings" Do we really believe that tender, chaste, and delicate are always non-sexual, or is there room in tender chaste and delicate for sexuality?