4 Better Chastity Object Lessons for Youth

[Third Hour]

I asked the Deacon's Quorum I teach if they knew what the law of chastity was. One intrepid young man raised his hand, "Don't have sex until you're 18." I gulped. Not Quite, I explained. A second young man raised his hand to swoop in with the right answer. "It's don't have sex until you're 16!" Needless to say, the youth in our wards and branches do need to be taught the law of chastity. And while we've heard countless tales of mangled object lessons with wooden boards, glazed donuts, and sticks of gum, these lessons keep returning because object lessons work. So what object lessons can we use instead to teach the principle of chastity responsibly and accurately. 1. The Driver's License and the Dream Car This object lesson comes from Riley Lewis, who taught it for a teacher's quorum lesson. As a way of setting the stage, place your car keys on the table in front of you. Ask the students to describe their dream car. Get as many details and variations as they...

View the full article

[MrShorty]

I have recently finished reading the book Sexual Wholeness in Marriage by three BYU professors. They included a chapter discussing these kinds of object lessons. They divide our common object lessons into two types: Fear based (like licked cupcakes and chewed gum), and abstinence based (like the three mentioned here). When all is said and done, the authors of this book are not fond of any of these object lessons. Recognizing that no object lesson is ever going to be perfect, they suggest that abstinence based lessons like the ones mentioned in the Mormonhub article have three basic flaws -- 1) They suggest that chastity is a purely physical thing, 2) that chastity is individual (what happens when you wait your turn to drive the fancy car, but find out that your husband/wife did not wait?), and 3) that these object lessons set up a marriage "finish line" (now that I've waited, what happens next?).

They give 2 final conclusions/recommendations against using any object lesson. A) Don't use object lessons because all object lessons imply that the teacher is unwilling/unable to directly confront sexual topics. B) All object lessons fall flat because sexuality/chastity is more of an object lesson for our discipleship.

As interesting as these object lessons are, I think I can recommend these ideas from this book for your consideration. Maybe it is better to just be direct about it and stop trying to hide behind object lessons and analogies to try to teach about sexual purity.

[Just_A_Guy]

I had a priest's quorum advisor who did the bleach thing as an object lesson about sin generally.  But it kind of backfired, because at the end of the lesson a certain awkward teenaged boy (okay, me) accidentally bumped into the table on the way out the door, knocking the glass's contents onto the carpet.  Object lessons aside, some marks really just *don't* come out.

I agree with MrShorty that I'm not sure object lessons are really necessary.  These kids are biologically old enough to reproduce; and frankly I think truth is the best approach:  Premature parenthood knocks your life off-course educationally, financially, and ecclesiastically; contraception doesn't always work; STDs are rampant in our population; child support stinks; and multiple sex partners messes up your ability to bond with a romantic partner and may have repercussions for your marriage down the road.  Plus, theologically speaking--it's the process for creating life, for heck's sake; and you just don't toy with that.

I understand the issues with the chewed gum/wooden board analogies in particular, especially as they impact fragile teenagers' perceptions of their own self-worth.  But I think that teenagers do need to understand that while the Atonement helps with all the results of premature sexuality, it will not make them go away, any more than it can make the fact of a rape go away.  The repercussions will most likely be lifelong.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 These kids are biologically old enough to reproduce; and frankly I think truth (which is actually reasonably supportable by secular science/experience/common sense) is the best approach:  Premature parenthood knocks your life off-course, contraception doesn't always work, STDs are rampant in our population, child support stinks, and multiple sex partners messes up your ability to bond with a romantic partner and may have repercussions for your marriage down the road.

Stick with this. It's good advice. I don't have kids but I went to a religious high school where premarital sex was spoken out against. Some kids listened, some didn't. It'll always be that way. That's something parents/teachers have to accept. Some kids will listen, some will not. 

Focus on this: Unplanned pregnancy can ruin your life. You'll be attached to someone you may not even like or at least 18 years. That's a big, big chain around your neck. Also, the blunt truth is that having babies outside of  marriage at a young age will severely impact your future finances. Contraception actually does work (not always, but it is overwhelmingly effective) but even if it doesn't, why take the risk at a young age? 

Relationships are already full of drama. When you throw in sex it makes breaks up much worse.  

[MrShorty]

Part of the "wholeness" that these authors are going for, I think, goes beyond simply scaring warning kids about the hazards of sex. Sure pregnancy is scary before marriage, but it can also be scary after marriage.

If you are worried about having a child with someone you may come to hate, getting married does not guarantee that you will not get permanently tied to someone you come to hate. There are plenty of stories of people who get married, have a child or two, then get divorced and come to despise their ex.

In some of the circles discussing married sexuality, I see cases where, overemphasizing the "multiple sex partners messes up your ability to bond with a romantic partner and may have repercussions for your marriage down the road." angle by itself causes difficulties in the marriage bed. I see many couples who, when their sex life goes south, attribute it to whatever they did before marriage -- some even telling themselves that they do not deserve a fulfilling married sex life, because they messed up before they got married.

I think what we should be working towards is beyond convincing kids to be abstinent before marriage. We want to teach them to be abstinent in a way that will also teach them how to integrate their sexuality with their spirituality, and give them the best chance of building a solid marriage. In my research, it is rare to build a strong marriage without simultaneously building a solid sexual relationship, so that should include something about the skills and attitudes that will help them in that endeavor. I don't know how to do that.

[Guest]

In our deacon's quorum a couple weeks ago, a deacon got up to give the lesson.  The topic was the LoC. He chose to focus on pornography.  The bottom line for him was that if anyone finds out, they will look at you weird.

I had to correct this.  But I find it very disappointing that this is the level of understanding they have -- at least his young man did.  I'm going to have another talk with my youth to explain it a little better than that.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

MrShorty, that book sounds fascinating. I'm going to have to read it.  Fortunately, it is on amazon. I just checked.

I love object lessons, but when we are talking about the LoC, I agree we should just be direct for the reasons that have already been stated. 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 9/24/2016 at 10:24 PM, MrShorty said:

I think what we should be working towards is beyond convincing kids to be abstinent before marriage. We want to teach them to be abstinent in a way that will also teach them how to integrate their sexuality with their spirituality, and give them the best chance of building a solid marriage. In my research, it is rare to build a strong marriage without simultaneously building a solid sexual relationship, so that should include something about the skills and attitudes that will help them in that endeavor. I don't know how to do that.

I agree with you that it's important for kids to learn this.  The Church's role in that more comprehensive instruction is, to me, more of a squishy issue.  It's like financial health--our Sunday School classes will include quotes from GAs about avoiding debt, living within our means, etc; but we don't really put a lot of energy into teaching specifics (yes, you can find supplemental info on LDS.org, but it's not part of the Sunday curriculum).  I suspect that the Church is probably striking nearly the right balance with sexual health, just as it does with physical or financial health--use the Sunday curriculum to warn against the most harmful behaviors, and encourage the use of supplemental resources in making the daily choices that are part of pursuing a healthy lifestyle overall.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I suspect that the Church is probably striking nearly the right balance with sexual health

I'm not convinced of that yet. We talk about abstinence and pornography. That's it. Sexual abuse and rape affect so many. Often the victims are young, too young to know how to deal with it, too scared to talk about it. There aren't even any supplemental materials for youth or adults.  There is one great talk by Sis. Okaski. That's pretty much it. (Yes I know there are other talks, we discussed them on an LDS survivors group and the general consensus about these two talks was hurt and confusion.)  The only LDS resource I recommend is Sis. Okasaki's talk.

With the growing use of pornography by boys who have no real experience with women, we should think about  teaching consent because from what I've read about porn it teaches quite the opposite.

I think to we should speak frankly about sexting. I was mortified to hear that one of the young men my daughter met at EFY, asked her to sext him. Her response was "Don't you have a girlfriend?"  She would never participate in that, but she didn't seem surprised by it. Which speaks of how rampant it is. 

What a world . . .

[MrShorty]

The authors did not go into great detail about what they thought a complete sex+chastity curriculum would look like. There is certainly a discussion that can be had around who should teach what -- what should be taught in the "public" church meetings, what should be taught by the parents, what should be taught by schools, what resources should be available to students for private study (how many school and public libraries will get in trouble for this). I agree that the Church is trying to find a nice way to balance, "we will teach chastity lessons" against "parents are primarily responsible for their children's sex ed."

Of course, that makes it difficult to plan a lesson. For Carb's deacons, one must prepare the lesson expecting that some of those boys know a lot more about sex than others. This preparation will need to be different for someone teaching the 16/17 year olds. One of the reasons we give for the Savior teaching in parables is that each hearer could glean the truths appropriate to their spiritual maturity and situation. I think using object lessons for chastity carries the same temptation -- one lesson that can apply in different ways to both those on the cusp of adolescence and those on the cusp of adulthood.

Another challenge (or maybe it is the same challenge) is that sometimes we try to teach these lessons to the entire youth. How much more difficult is it to prepare the lesson when you have the 12 year olds in the same class as the 18 year olds. It's only 6 years, but there's a huge difference in maturity over those 6 years.

I don't have the answers, but there is certainly a part of this discussion about who should teach what to our youth.

[NightSG]

On 9/24/2016 at 11:24 PM, MrShorty said:

In some of the circles discussing married sexuality, I see cases where, overemphasizing the "multiple sex partners messes up your ability to bond with a romantic partner and may have repercussions for your marriage down the road." angle by itself causes difficulties in the marriage bed. I see many couples who, when their sex life goes south, attribute it to whatever they did before marriage -- some even telling themselves that they do not deserve a fulfilling married sex life, because they messed up before they got married.

Also, you need to consider how any lessons and examples will affect (and cause a potentially more problematic perception of) rape victims, converts, divorcees and even those who have lost a spouse.  It's not just the 24 year old widow; it's also the YSA men seeing that the cupcake was licked, regardless of the circumstances, and writing her off because of it.  She gets a reminder every time some guy starts to take interest then backs off when he finds out she's "used merchandise."

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Also, you need to consider how any lessons and examples will affect (and cause a potentially more problematic perception of) rape victims, converts, divorcees and even those who have lost a spouse.  It's not just the 24 year old widow; it's also the YSA men seeing that the cupcake was licked, regardless of the circumstances, and writing her off because of it.  She gets a reminder every time some guy starts to take interest then backs off when he finds out she's "used merchandise."

My boy @NightSG is blunt but he's got a point. I feel so, sorry for young women who feel "lesser" in some way because they've made a mistake. Young men need to get over this. Period. 

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm not convinced of that yet. We talk about abstinence and pornography. That's it. Sexual abuse and rape affect so many. Often the victims are young, too young to know how to deal with it, too scared to talk about it. There aren't even any supplemental materials for youth or adults.  There is one great talk by Sis. Okaski. That's pretty much it. (Yes I know there are other talks, we discussed them on an LDS survivors group and the general consensus about these two talks was hurt and confusion.)  The only LDS resource I recommend is Sis. Okasaki's talk.

With the growing use of pornography by boys who have no real experience with women, we should think about  teaching consent because from what I've read about porn it teaches quite the opposite.

I think to we should speak frankly about sexting. I was mortified to hear that one of the young men my daughter met at EFY, asked her to sext him. Her response was "Don't you have a girlfriend?"  She would never participate in that, but she didn't seem surprised by it. Which speaks of how rampant it is. 

What a world . . .

I would agree that resources for sexual assault survivors is somewhere we could probably make a lot of improvement.  I have no idea what's in the YW curriculum; but given the apparent prevalence of sexual assault I think it would be good to make sure the Church website has some first-rate resources publicly available, and to at least mention the existence of such resources in class every three months or so.

I'd also agree that part of the "straight talk about chastity" approach should be that it fouls up notions of sexual consent.  That said, I don't think we need to get into the sorts of self-flagellating discussions about "affirmative consent" that some activists have demanded--say--on university campuses.  Speaking anecdotally about the offenders I've worked with--they generally knew from the get-go that what they were doing was morally wrong (or at least, socially unacceptable).  The issue was that they didn't care--either because of a desire to assert power over their victim, or just because of plain uncontrolled lust.  Whether the motivation was unmitigated evil or just plain mental illness--you can't just lecture it away; and unfortunately you are extremely unlikely to catch it before it manifests itself.  That's why I think--unfair as it is--that the most important key to rape prevention continues to be empowering women to identify unacceptable behavior, resist unwanted advances, and avoid dangerous situations.  It needs to be done in a way that women who are nonetheless victimized don't conclude that it's their own fault--but it does need to be done. 

And, re sexting:  Amen, amen, and amen.  I've had to handle a couple of cases that involved adult men texting teenaged girls and trying to arrange illicit encounters; and the way these exchanges tend to almost imperceptibly drift from the innocent to the utterly horrifying, is extremely disturbing.  Here, again, I can't believe that LDS youth don't know on some level that this is wrong.  But teenaged boys need to know that this is illegal in many jurisdictions (I've got a teenaged cousin who is involved in juvenile court right now because of it); and teenaged girls need to look at some of the text strings of the sort that I've waded through so that they can catch the indicators of when a conversation is starting to turn towards a dark direction. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

My boy @NightSG is blunt but he's got a point. I feel so, sorry for young women who feel "lesser" in some way because they've made a mistake. Young men need to get over this. Period. 

It goes both ways; there are SA women who won't consider most converts, because, let's face it, nearly anyone who converts as an adult has some history in that department.  Others are still stuck on "must be a RM" even though they divorced an abusive, unfaithful RM already.  I've even met SA women in their late 30s still holding out for a virgin...and a successful, good looking one at that.

Edited September 26, 2016 by NightSG

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

It goes both ways; there are SA women who won't consider most converts, because, let's face it, nearly anyone who converts as an adult has some history in that department.  Others are still stuck on "must be a RM" even though they divorced an abusive, unfaithful RM already.  I've even met SA women in their late 30s still holding out for a virgin...and a successful, good looking one at that.

"Part of growing up is admitting you can't have everything you want."-Jay McInery from "Bright Lights, Big City". 

You are correct but there there is a sexual double standard that applies more to women. Men are acting their nature if they sleep around, women are considered to be dirty words.  

[NightSG]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are correct but there there is a sexual double standard that applies more to women. Men are acting their nature if they sleep around, women are considered to be dirty words.  

But women tend to hold more to the "once a <whatever>, always a <whatever>" mindset.  

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

But women tend to hold more to the "once a <whatever>, always a <whatever>" mindset.  

Some do. We both should admit that we are both men, so we don't know much about how women think. Second, women are first and foremost individuals so not every woman (or man, of course) thinks uniformly on every single issue.  

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't mean to be dismissive of anyone's situation; but I would venture to suggest that--at least in my experience--erring in one's choice of marital partner tends to be more educationally, professionally, financially, emotionally, and spiritually disastrous for women, than it does for men. 

IMHO a woman is right to be careful and hold men to whatever standards she, and she alone, believes appropriate.  If that means she winds up as a crazy cat lady (or a Sheri Dew, for that matter)--well, there are worse things that could have happened to her; and as a man it's not my place to judge her for the sin of rejecting the magnificent specimen of male-ness I consider myself to be.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would agree that resources for sexual assault survivors is somewhere we could probably make a lot of improvement.  I have no idea what's in the YW curriculum; but given the apparent prevalence of sexual assault I think it would be good to make sure the Church website has some first-rate resources publicly available, and to at least mention the existence of such resources in class every three months or so.

I love this idea!
 

Quote

I'd also agree that part of the "straight talk about chastity" approach should be that it fouls up notions of sexual consent.  That said, I don't think we need to get into the sorts of self-flagellating discussions about "affirmative consent" that some activists have demanded--say--on university campuses.  Speaking anecdotally about the offenders I've worked with--they generally knew from the get-go that what they were doing was morally wrong (or at least, socially unacceptable).  The issue was that they didn't care--either because of a desire to assert power over their victim, or just because of plain uncontrolled lust.  Whether the motivation was unmitigated evil or just plain mental illness--you can't just lecture it away; and unfortunately you are extremely unlikely to catch it before it manifests itself.  That's why I think--unfair as it is--that the most important key to rape prevention continues to be empowering women to identify unacceptable behavior, resist unwanted advances, and avoid dangerous situations.  It needs to be done in a way that women who are nonetheless victimized don't conclude that it's their own fault--but it does need to be done. 

Now that you put it that way, I have to agree--both that young men/men know what they are doing, and that prevention unfortunately is going to fall to the women because we can only change ourselves.  I especially appreciate your last line.  

 

Quote

And, re sexting:  Amen, amen, and amen.  I've had to handle a couple of cases that involved adult men texting teenaged girls and trying to arrange illicit encounters; and the way these exchanges tend to almost imperceptibly drift from the innocent to the utterly horrifying, is extremely disturbing.  Here, again, I can't believe that LDS youth don't know on some level that this is wrong.  But teenaged boys need to know that this is illegal in many jurisdictions (I've got a teenaged cousin who is involved in juvenile court right now because of it); and teenaged girls need to look at some of the text strings of the sort that I've waded through so that they can catch the indicators of when a conversation is starting to turn towards a dark direction. 

Again a good point.  You have given me a lot of good food for thought.  I didn't know that it is illegal in some areas.  Good to know.  Thanks JAG.  

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't mean to be dismissive of anyone's situation; but I would venture to suggest that--at least in my experience--erring in one's choice of marital partner tends to be more educationally, professionally, financially, emotionally, and spiritually disastrous for women, than it does for men.

We're meant to take chances.  Sometimes we lose.  I'd like you to tell me what the average woman loses in a divorce that's more damaging than the opportunity to be an effective parent to one's children, because that's the most important thing I lost.  I now have to try to fit a month's worth of parenting into 12-15 hours, when the other part of that equation isn't cooperative; I don't have a tenth of the time I'd need just for damage control, much less real progress.

I don't recall anywhere in the Scriptures where it says we get a pass on any Command we can't guarantee perfection in keeping, or all this would be a moot point; even if Adam and Eve had been persuaded, their offspring could simply have said, "well, none of the options are perfect" and refused to procreate.

In the SA program, I find way too many women who married Prince Charming while he was still fresh from his mission, doing well at BYU, extremely active and well respected in his ward, and 2-10 years later, they were struggling to deal with him cheating, being verbally and/or physically abusive, etc.  Just looking around the relationship advice forum here, we can see plenty of those.  How about rather than focusing on what he is, learn and understand who he is.  That, of course, means tossing out the entire checklist, but it's a pretty well proven means of building successful relationships.

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, NightSG said:

We're meant to take chances.  Sometimes we lose. 

Well, no; we're meant to follow the Spirit, which can and does warn us against making poor decisions. 

Obviously, it doesn't do that 100% of the time--I would never dare to presume that a couple who divorces, must have been ignoring spiritual warnings that were given before they ever got married.  But a lot of times the Spirit does do that; and a man has no prerogative into trying to browbeat a woman into shouting down her spiritual promptings by threatening her with eternal maidenhood. 

Quote

I'd like you to tell me what the average woman loses in a divorce that's more damaging than the opportunity to be an effective parent to one's children, because that's the most important thing I lost.  I now have to try to fit a month's worth of parenting into 12-15 hours, when the other part of that equation isn't cooperative; I don't have a tenth of the time I'd need just for damage control, much less real progress.

NightSG, maybe if your ex-wife got involved in these forums we could start having a semi-objective discussion of your particular situation.  Until then, I'll just say that I know plenty of divorced women who feel like they, too, are doing "damage control" with an ex-husband who is consciously poisoning their relationship.

Quote

I don't recall anywhere in the Scriptures where it says we get a pass on any Command we can't guarantee perfection in keeping, or all this would be a moot point; even if Adam and Eve had been persuaded, their offspring could simply have said, "well, none of the options are perfect" and refused to procreate.

"ELIZABETH, WE'VE BEEN COMMANDED TO MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH!"

[yjacket]

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect strong LDS youth to want to marry someone who is a virgin-in fact I think it should be expected.  LDS youth should settle for no less.

This isn't rocket science, being a virgin isn't the "luck of the draw", nor is it just something random that happens, that oh well some people are virgins some people aren't. It is ridiculous to say that well even though today abstinence is rarer than in the past one should not expect it in a marriage partner. There are rare situations (i.e. rape) where this is not the case. Not practicing abstinence demonstrates a lack of self-control and self-mastery.  I would advise my children not to marry someone who has demonstrated that lack of self-control-it will not bode well for a marriage (which is all about self-control, self-mastery and sacrifice).

As for the sexting-there is a really easy solution for that problem folks. Don't let your children have cell phones!!! There isn't a child on the planet that needs a cell phone, want yes, parents want yes, needs-no way.  It is ridiculous that 8,9,10 year olds are given cell phones by their parents, it boggles my mind. An 8/9/10 year old has poor impulse control and we've given them access to the world (sigh). You want a cell phone, work for it-pay the monthly bill-learn to be responsible rather than irresponsible.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 hours ago, yjacket said:

An 8/9/10 year old has poor impulse control and we've given them access to the world (sigh). You want a cell phone, work for it-pay the monthly bill-learn to be responsible rather than irresponsible.

I agree my 10 yr old does NOT have a cellphone.  And the daughter I mentioned (almost 18) does pay for her own phone, and her car, and insurance.

Edited September 27, 2016 by LiterateParakeet
Typos

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree my 10 yr old does NOT have a cellphone.  And the daughter I mentioned (almost 18) does pay for her own phone, and her car, and insurance.

Sounds like you are teaching them right. If the 18 year-old doesn't know that sending racy texts and photos over the phone to someone you're not married to is wrong then there isn't much you can do at 18 to fix that problem. But I doubt that is the case, more likely they are using the term to mean something else, if not, you've got bigger problems.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Sounds like you are teaching them right. If the 18 year-old doesn't know that sending racy texts and photos over the phone to someone you're not married to is wrong then there isn't much you can do at 18 to fix that problem. But I doubt that is the case, more likely they are using the term to mean something else, if not, you've got bigger problems.

I hope I didn't give the impression that my daughter didn't think sexting is wrong. (So we're clear, she meant he wanted her to text him a nude photo.)  She knows it's wrong and thought he was a jerk. What I meant to convey was that she was not shocked by it like I was. I was like, "A guy from church? From EFY?" and what shocked her was not that he was a member, but that he already had a girlfriend, She already knew kids in the church were doing that...and worse.  She thought that was naive of me to think it wasn't a big problem, even in the church, perhaps it was.