- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interestingly, the highest divorce rate that does not include religious affiliation is for those who live together and then marry, while the lowest rates are for atheists and temple-married Mormons. I think Rix has raised an important point about how our cultures are an important factor. However, I don’t think some things of other cultural practices would necessarily work in our culture. In our culture, we should teach our children based on our cultural parameters. I personally believe there is a universal law of chastity that would ultimately benefit all societies…but that is another thread. For us, in our culture, you cannot ignore the dangers that can drastically impact the life of a child. However, focusing on the dangers, and ignoring the blessings of how beautiful it can be under the right circumstances, is what I think is the problem with earlier generations growing up fearing sex. Then, when married, they weren’t ready to enjoy the blessings they were qualified to enjoy. The Lord has set boundaries, and we should view it as a natural and beautiful thing within those boundaries, and realistically acknowledge the dangers that exist outside those boundaries.
Self-discipline boosts self-confidence in being the “Master of My Domain” (gratuitous Seinfield reference!
My boys are younger still, but for my teenage girls, we focus on the vision of Temple Marriage – and all decisions they make should constantly keep them pointed in that direction.
Orson wrote:I don’t think it’s healthy (physically, emotionally, or spiritually) for mere humans to try to fast for forty days and nights – for example.
Fasting (correctly) for 40 days is, in fact, a healthy, pampering, pleasant healing experience in many ways. Our implicit erroneous assumptions about this are a good example of our being guided by our culture and counterfeit experience rather than by scientific rationality, and why we should at least consider carefully the words of, say, Rix.
When we think fasting, we think of suffering, not pampering. We think of sickness, not healing. We think of craziness, not clarity. We think of aloofness, not compassion. Sometimes our thinking is simply backward, superstitious, and uninformed. Liken this to our reaction to Rix.
Heber13 wrote:I think Rix has raised an important point about how our cultures are an important factor. However, I don’t think some things of other cultural practices would necessarily work in our culture.
Tom Haws wrote:
Fasting (correctly) for 40 days is, in fact, a healthy, pampering, pleasant healing experience in many ways. Our implicit erroneous assumptions about this are a good example of our being guided by our culture and counterfeit experience rather than by scientific rationality, and why we should at least consider carefully the words of, say, Rix.
Thank you, Heber and Tom. I hope people didn’t think I was implying we “should” adopt these other practices. Now. I don’t think we’re ready for them yet. Maybe we never will be.
The points I wanted to make were, first, that many of our current paradigms regarding sexuality instill in us a degree of guilt, shame, and embarassment. It’s taught, not innate, in many cases. Looking at other cultures teaches us that. In most Christian cultures, it is taught that guilt is an effective tool for prevention. I personally disagree…but that’s just been my experience. And I (really!) may be wrong!
Second, most sex therapists I know consider this guilt and shame to be the main cause for certain clearly problematic behaviors such as sex addiction, pornography addiction, and other sexual dysfunctions. So in my mind, I think it is worth looking at objectively to see what results we want in our culture.
Again…just my very so humble opinion!
Tom Haws wrote:Fasting (correctly) for 40 days is, in fact, a healthy, pampering, pleasant healing experience in many ways.
Clearly I’m unfamiliar with the “correct” way to fast. To insure there is no misunderstanding let me restate: Abstaining from ALL food and ALL LIQUIDS (Water, milk, juice, sugar drinks, alcoholic drinks, intravenous fluids, etc.) for 40 days is not a good idea – and obviously would probably lead to death.
Not to the same extreme obviously, but I don’t think humans are meant to live celibate for their entire lives either.
Now Tom if you would – please enlighten me on correct fasting.
Poppyseed wrote:Quote:Are you implying that mbtion, ultimately, should be avoided in all cases throughout life as the ideal?
Yes, I am. I think this is the goal as the practice does nothing to serve ones spirit. There are other paradigms that are more character driven than indulgence. “In all cases” is a rather black and white view. I am more comfortable with the term “goal” or “ideal” or “let’s find a better way” even.
At the risk of getting way beyond a sensible level with this discussion I’m going to introduce another question. There is the issue of bodily function, things get produced that need to eventually be discharged. True there is a natural method when levels “reach capacity” there are nocturnal emissions. The simple question: is this “the best” way for things to be handled? I hate to paint this picture but imagine if our culture frowned on the urge to “push” a full bowel? What if it was more proper to wait until the evacuation was completely involuntary and the timing was completely unknown? I think we can all understand the level of physical discomfort that would be associated before “the event”. Perhaps this discomfort can be responsibly paralleled to “raging hormones” and thoughts that are difficult to restrain that seem to precede a nocturnal event. Could a more responsible strategy include an occasional emptying, especially if fantasizing (or related) can be minimized?
I know, there goes my “clean and proper image” sorry about the details – but it’s a question. I think it was suggested from one of the earlier links posted.
Orson wrote:Abstaining from ALL food and ALL LIQUIDS (Water, milk, juice, sugar drinks, alcoholic drinks, intravenous fluids, etc.) for 40 days is not a good idea – and obviously would probably lead to death.
Absolutely! I’m no expert on dehydration death, and I may be totally wrong, but I bet the abstinent group would start perishing en masse within 3 days. Thanks for the clarification. Communication gap. You’re good.
Correct fasting in a nutshell should include
Body preparation. Pre-fast pot-belly/toxicity reduction program. Drop tobacco, wonder bread, etc.
- Mind preparation. Study (like
http://www.quickfasting.com ). Shorter build-up practice fasts (3-day to 2-week) and journaling.- Social preparation. Arrange for proper nightly rest, quietly meditative days, and privacy or understanding regarding the absence of meals
- Water, water, water. 1/2 to 1 gallon daily by mouth. Enemas twice daily at first.
A proper fast is a celebration. I have not fasted 40 days. The fasting I have done since learning how has been a delight.
Orson wrote:At the risk of getting way beyond a sensible level with this discussion I’m going to introduce another question. There is the issue of bodily function, things get produced that need to eventually be discharged. True there is a natural method when levels “reach capacity” there are nocturnal emissions. The simple question: is this “the best” way for things to be handled? I hate to paint this picture but imagine if our culture frowned on the urge to “push” a full bowel? What if it was more proper to wait until the evacuation was completely involuntary and the timing was completely unknown? I think we can all understand the level of physical discomfort that would be associated before “the event”. Perhaps this discomfort can be responsibly paralleled to “raging hormones” and thoughts that are difficult to restrain that seem to precede a nocturnal event. Could a more responsible strategy include an occasional emptying, especially if fantasizing (or related) can be minimized?
I know, there goes my “clean and proper image” sorry about the details – but it’s a question. I think it was suggested from one of the earlier links posted.
Very good, Orson! I love the comparisons!
And if you “lost” your good and proper image, you just became “real” in my eyes!
Quote:At the risk of getting way beyond a sensible level with this discussion I’m going to introduce another question. There is the issue of bodily function, things get produced that need to eventually be discharged. True there is a natural method when levels “reach capacity” there are nocturnal emissions. The simple question: is this “the best” way for things to be handled? I hate to paint this picture but imagine if our culture frowned on the urge to “push” a full bowel? What if it was more proper to wait until the evacuation was completely involuntary and the timing was completely unknown? I think we can all understand the level of physical discomfort that would be associated before “the event”. Perhaps this discomfort can be responsibly paralleled to “raging hormones” and thoughts that are difficult to restrain that seem to precede a nocturnal event. Could a more responsible strategy include an occasional emptying, especially if fantasizing (or related) can be minimized?
I know, there goes my “clean and proper image” sorry about the details – but it’s a question. I think it was suggested from one of the earlier links posted.
Boy….I think I better let a guy handle this one. But since I have tween boys I would really like to know a good way to approach this.
Actually, that is one of the best arguments against masturbation – that the body takes care of excess “stuff” naturally and doesn’t need us to manipulate it into producing what is intended for other purposes and will get eliminated naturally all on its own. It’s not a “satisfying” answer, and there are all kinds of counter-arguments, but from a purely scientific, biological viewpoint, it’s about as simple an argument as it gets. Yes, I guess the question is: if “production” is more or less static, or if it varies depending on demand. I think the answer to that would be a key to consider. Okay, I think we all know there is no “medical necessity” to masturbate. That’s not my point, at least. But for any out there that has been a teenage boy (I can only speak for us male types, since that’s all I really know for sure!), the hankerin for the spankin is so strong during certain times that it over-rules ALL other thought processes! Now, can I hear an AMEN?!
Point is, if you take away the possibly incorrect religious rule about “no masturbation,” is it really that wrong?
😳 I see the possibility of a teenage boy discovering how to manage his own sexuality in a completely safe environment. Assuming that parents haven’t shamed him for the process. The converse is, “I made it through my teen years, my mission and into the temple without ever masturbating.” Somehow, in my mind, that seems completely pointless. And, I should know. 😳 I would like to see all you cute boys try being a girl for five minutes! 😆 swimordie wrote:how to manage his own sexuality in a completely safe environment.
I can see what you are saying here and I appreciate that. But I would argue that indulging alone with ones self is not a completely safe environment nor is it always a satisfying one. It is my experience that every time one indulges a bit of self control is lost and an unhealthy “need” created. And that “need” tends to always want a little bit more…..
Poppyseed wrote:It is my experience that every time one indulges a bit of self control is lost and an unhealthy “need” created. And that “need” tends to always want a little bit more…..
I’m sure that’s true if the goal is complete restraint/abstinence from masturbation. If, however, the goal is management, I see that maybe the boy could discover the joys abstaining for some time, the thrill of rediscovery, the confidence of independent choice.
That is a valid argument. I suppose then what really matters is your goal. And that just might be an entirely new thread all its own.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.