posted
I happened to hear a program today called "Focus on the Family." It's Christian Evangelical non-denominational as far as I can tell -- but definitely Southern tradition. I know -- not my favorite thing in the world.
I won't go into what I liked or didn't like in the program. It's one of those things you take what you can and you leave the rest, y'know.
But they had this really interesting set of discussions aimed at pre-teens and then young men presumably up into their "bachelor" days (the vague age of "marriagable but not ready to get married yet" I suppose).
The entire focus, at all age groups, was AVOIDING situations that might be more likely to lead to sex. Nothing about choices once you are in those situations, but all about "never get into those situations."
And I got to wondering whether this is really a good approach. In particular, making choices is a part of the maturing process. I'm not saying we expect pre-teens to make the same types of choices that we would expect out of a 20-something male who doesn't want to be married just yet.
But even more to the point, why exactly would you tell such a man things like:
- if you aren't ready to get married, don't have a girlfriend. - only go out in large groups. - never have an intimate personal conversation with a woman.
I suspect many a young man has found out he IS ready to be married after experiencing the kinds of things that intimate conversations with a woman can bring into his life. But then, this was a show about lust, not about finding a soulmate.
Oh well... maybe some folks out there need that advice and it will do them good.
I just think we're going about this all wrong if the only message is avoidance.
Since I don't have children, however, it could be that I'm looking at this in the abstract and not really dealing with the reality of what it must be like to see your parental influence waning just when you think it's most needed...
Any opinions on this?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
My opinion is that Focus on the Family has certain topics that it sticks to for the week. I've heard them talk about the "choices" option too, but you have to tune in more than once.
As for avoidance as an only tactic: I think that's a terrible idea. I don't personally know anyone that uses this teaching method, though, although I'm sure they exist.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could it be that avoidance is a strategy is not necessarily a bad thing, but that they're advocating it to an unhealthy extreme? I mean, I think about how recovering alcoholics avoid any temptation to have alcohol. They don't generally focus on being able to go into bars and abstain; they stay the heck away. If you know your ability to resist temptation is weak, it makes sense to avoid the situation altogether. But when they advocate against dating at all until one is ready to consider getting married, it's an extreme--after all, a lot of people don't give thought to whether or not they are ready for marriage until a relationship makes the issue relevant. Entering a relationship knowing you are looking for a spouse seems to put an unhealthy kind of pressure on it. But, if the goal is to avoid premarital sex, it's enough to say, don't go make out in her bedroom, because it might not end there.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, although I'm unlikely to purposefully tune in to another of their programs, I am glad to hear that they aren't singing just one song all the time.
I thought it was odd today that the advice given to parents of 12 year olds and to 20-something males was exactly the same.
But then, as you say, they might've been doing a 'theme' show.
And I do think that there are people who need to avoid things that they can't control. If someone truly has a problem with "LUST" (and I mean a disruptive preoccupation with sex and an inability to relate to the opposite sex EXCEPT as potential sources of sex) then avoidance is a good first step. But is that really realistic or healthy advice for "most" men in their 20's?
I assume the show was going for a broader audience...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I was raising a distinction between avoiding spending any time alone with women at all, and avoiding situations that were specifically likely to lead to sex, like what they used to call "heavy petting" in CCD. If you believe that premarital sex is wrong, the latter approach doesn't seem out of line.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:don't go make out in her bedroom, because it might not end there.
So...where do you think it WILL end? The garage? Out back in the swimming pool?
Anyway, I was writing my post when you wrote yours and I totally agree. I don't think avoidance is a bad tactic, especially for those who know already that in certain situations they are likely to make a choice they'll regret later.
I do worry about using avoidance as THE tactic, especially for people who don't have a real problem in this area. I think it could actually make for problems where they didn't previously exist.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a group of people that desperately want to stay chaste until they are married, this is probably a good solution. It's all about priorities, The more important it is to you to avoid sex, the better this type of tactic becomes.
The problem would be that not everyone would operate on that level and each person needs some individual training.
But I understand it. If I known what I know now, I think I would have stayed far away from guys.
And I don't think that dating just to look for a spouse is alot of pressure. It's probably a really good way to weed out the people that don't have the same values as you.
Boy, it took me way too long to type this out. I'm too tired.
posted
It's not a true dichotomy, though. It isn't avoidance versus choices - it's making the choice beforehand or making it on the spot.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me go on the record of saying that Focus on the Family is probably a little too heavy on the avoidance, actually. They do teach how to deal with the situations themselves, but probably not well enough.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Bob is saying it CAN be a dichotomy, and that there are parents out there who teaching nothing but avoidance and don't equip the child with tactics for "on the spot" action. It is an entirely different ballgame, when you try to do what's right with little to no pressure, or tons of pressure.
edit: I have to leave for a while, so that you people don't have to attempt to muddle through what I type when I've had no sleep. I'll make things easier on you. : )
posted
Is there a way to frame this in a positive fashion? People do all sorts of things when raising their children, and no one's perfect. Anonymous strangers out there somewhere are trying to keep their kids as far away from what they think will hurt them.
--
I do think knowing exactly what to say in a situation like that helps. I think a very traditional culture also sets up a dillemma ocacsionally - if both are under obligation to be charming, flattering and a good date, it's hard to turn that off when the date definition of a good date includes some intense making out. You can always say no, but it's a trick to say no without feeling like you are going to hurt the other person's feelings. Knowing that you SHOULD say no in a tense situation - people need to know HOW. That's part of the maturing process, but it is a lot harder. It's like teaching someone the difference between crossing at the light and effectivly jaywalking. (Forgive the rough analogy.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed that as people mature, we tend to cut through a lot of the BS and just state what our boundaries are. Respectful suitors, for example, make it a point to know what the boundaries are, and usually have a few of their own -- i.e., aren't in a "take whatever I can" mode of thinking.
But that's the important thing about priorities. If one person's priorities are to secure as many copulations as they can, and the other person's priorities are to find a person with whom to share a life-long committed relationship, things seldom work out. (if you'll pardon the pun).
It is, however, useful to note that an adult pattern of behavior with regard to setting boundaries and sticking to them is really the goal, no? So what we're saying is that adolescents and young men (apparently) aren't capable of mature patterns of behavior.
I suspect that if our culture held out the expectation of respect for each other we would see better (as in more adult-like) decision making. I don't know where else one would get THOSE lessons but from ones parents, though. Seriously, if there's a lack of mutual respect in the home, then maybe the only option is teaching kids to stay away from the opposite sex.
But if every kid learned at home what it means to respect another human being, perhaps we could trust our children to be in the same room alone without raping each other.
Or are we saying that adolescent boys and young men are just uncontrolled hormone factories and the only way to remain "pure" for everyone is isolation?
<okay, I'm going too far into hyperbole here. Sorry...I think my real point is that if we want kids to deal with sex in a grown up, adult manner, I think we need to train to that standard. And it cuts across all levels of behavior, not just sexual.>
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if every kid learned at home what it means to respect another human being, perhaps we could trust our children to be in the same room alone without raping each other.
I know you were using hyperbole, but I think the problem with your analysis as one of mutual respect is that two people often will both willingly move beyond their preset boundaries.
After all, it's a lot easier to have resolve when thinking about an encounter in church than when you've been making out for 2 hours in a movie theater. And the progressive nature of excitement means it's easy to make small exceptions to the general rules in a serial fashion, and end up waaaay past the line you set for yourself earlier.
The other issue is how on earth do you teach someone how to back down from a severely excited state? What can you say beyond, "You shouldn't do X because..."?
My problem with the program isn't the idea of avoidance per se, but where they establish the boundaries for avoidance. Someone trying to stay chaste would do well to avoid most physical contact with a member of the opposite sex when alone. And it may be reasonable to avoid situations where one is alone with a member of the opposite sex. But things like dates in public with just one person seem necessary for learning how to relate to a potential spouse.
So while I would agree that from the sound of it the program went too far, I don't think there is any true distinction between avoidance v. choices. If a boy chooses not to go into a girl's bedroom because he's not sure he'll be able to resist temptation, he's making exactly as mature a choice as the one who goes in and chooses to go no further than a kiss on the cheek. Both could be described as "avoiding."
But I also see the dichotomy I think Bob is trying to articulate. Perhaps it’s not so much a matter of avoidance vs choices as counseling avoidance of the possibility of temptation vs teaching kids to acknowledge and deal with temptation when they encounter it. And this is definitely age-level specific. I’ve seen kids “dating” that are much too young to be pairing off (in elementary school, even). But to counsel 20 year olds not to date seems to me too extreme.
I also have to say, and I apologize if this is TMI, that reading Bob’s point about respectful suitors made me smile. He handled this issue in our relationship in the most upfront, respectful, and gracious way I have ever encountered.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is not so much that avoidance is not also a choice, but that it submarines an choice which is of similar importance, the choice of intimacy (in the non-physical sense). The methods advocated above for avoidance amount to a denial of intimacy, an intimacy that is not only non-harmful, but healthy to one with the emotional maturity to deal with it.
With intimacy does come the responsibility to understand one's own barriers and the barriers of others, but if those barriers are never approached (due to the denial of intimacy), then one unacquainted with them may find it harder to understand them when a crisis of self-control comes. I think this is the large harm of a pure avoidance strategy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hmm...maybe I shouldn't have made the dichotomy point. Afterall, avoidance is a choice as people have so rightly indicated.
What I'd like to see happen is not boys and girls resisting temptation in each other's bedrooms just so they can prove how strong willed they are. No, I think it's more a case of teaching why it is important. For many God and faithfulness, purity, etc. are a big factor. I didn't once hear Focus on Family discuss anything about mutual respect and self-respect though. And to me, those are sensible thing to talk about too, whether one is religious or not.
Dag, I also have to say that if two human beings have agreed upon a set of boundaries they are more likely to not push them. And it gives their relationship strength too. I guess I just don't think raging hormones and "thrill of the moment" are so overwhelming that two peole can't make a resolution and stick to it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a tough issue for everyone, I think. As a scientist, I see it from an evolutionary standpoint. Nature has so many ways to trick you into doing things you never planned. After all, think about it. Every single one of your ancestors for billions of years back were the ones who DID get pregnant. That's a pretty powerful force.
I think all the techniques mentioned above have their place. I don't think limiting close friendships with the opposite sex is a good idea, usually, but keeping off certain topics of conversation probably is. There is simply no reason to share some things until and unless you are ready to have the corresponding level of physical intimacy between you. Also, people to whom you feel a strong attraction inappropriately, I think it's good to avoid entirely, until that situation subsides.
I think for my kids, I plan to do my best to teach them, be totally open with them, so that they can tell me everything and talk over their most personal and intense issues freely with me, and give them my best advice, (realizing that I don't know the first thing about relationships either) and then expect that they will make some mistakes like all humans do, and continue to love and support them regardless.
I'm curious about people who went to all-girl or all-boy high schools, how they feel it affected the way they relate to the opposite sex.
[ August 29, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Just one aspect of what you said above...See, in the past, people DID plan on getting pregnant and having kids.
Our biology tells us we're ready in our early teens. Our society says "no, you're not." So, what exactly is the argument about nature but one of controlling our nature, presumably for a better (more desireable) outcome than what would be strictly "natural."
It always puzzled me when people talk about "what God intended," because from all the biological evidence, God must've intended for us to start having babies at 13 give or take 2 years.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I just don't think raging hormones and "thrill of the moment" are so overwhelming that two peole can't make a resolution and stick to it.
I agree that they're not so overwhelming they can't stick to it. I think sometimes it makes sense not to push yourself too close to the edge, though.
I have a parallel example. I don't keep sweets in the house generally, mainly because I will eat them. All of them. So I buy small bags when I want something sweet, even though it costs more, because it's easier for me to say, "Having a fudge round right now isn't worth getting in the car and driving to the store."
On a similar note, I find there are many things I can easily avoid entirely but have trouble doing in moderation. So I have a policy of avoidance of these things except when I can indulge safely with some self-limiting device built in. I've also found that I enjoy these things more when I make a point of choosing them rather than simply do them by default.
Now, where this parallel falls short is that I have no need to make sure that one day I'm ready to have a mature relationship with Little Debbie. Sweets are something I can ration, and I would be doing no harm to myself if I chose to avoid them entirely.
quote:I think it is not so much that avoidance is not also a choice, but that it submarines an choice which is of similar importance, the choice of intimacy (in the non-physical sense). The methods advocated above for avoidance amount to a denial of intimacy, an intimacy that is not only non-harmful, but healthy to one with the emotional maturity to deal with it.
I agree this is a danger, and it's not clear from Bob's description of the show that it made this point clearly, if at all. But it should be noted that it's their method of avoidance that's the problem. It's possible to avoid situations of immediate sexual temptation without ceasing interactions with the opposite sex.
My wife worked with a gentleman from Iran making glasses many years ago. He got his hand caught in the machinery and his thumb was almost ripped off. He needed to be rushed 1 mile to the nearest emergency room before he lost the thumb. My wife had her car and was willing to drive.
He refused.
For a single man to get in the car with a married woman was wrong, for it might lead to adultery. He knew it wouldn't lead to adultery, but he didn't want to give the impression to anyone seeing him get in or out of the car.
Luckilly they convinced him to do it anyway and he got there in time.
My thought was gee, its so sad that here was a culture that didn't trust their men not to wantonly rape any woman the moment they got the possiblity.
Is it worse to say, "The temptation to have sex is too strong, so have it anyway, but here is a condom so you can be safer." or "The temptation to have sex is too strong. Don't be alone with a girl, ever." THe problem with the second occurs when the boy finds himself alone with a girl. After years of being taught that just being alone with a girl may result in sex, once he is alone, will he give in to that teaching?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* this topic hits so close to home for me, it is almost painful. While some of you may be amused at Kat's flippant remark about arranged marriages, I believe Focus on the Family does somewhat support the "courtship" fad in fundamentalist Christian circles (which is where the parents pretty much arrange it)
I grew up listening to Focus on the Family. My mother loved them. They were one of the first Christian organizations to support homeschooling. Yes, they really are that conservative, and yes I believe that Bob_S has the correct read on what they teach. Their principle of homeschooling not for academic reasons but basically to remove them from worldly temptations so that you can raise them better, is much the same "avoidance" principle.
To this day my mother refuses to acknowledge anyone of the male half of the species as her friend. This caused endless conflicts for me growing up, given the technical classes I took were male-heavy and as a result I generally had more guys than girls as my friends.
posted
It is a very sad statement on what they believe Christian men (let along ALL men) are not just capable of but LIKELY to do. Really, doesn't say much for their view of anyone but themselves.
It preaches self-reliance and isolation.
As much as I think I will worry about bad things happening to my future children (watch out world!), I do not think that isolating them from the world is either desirable, healthy or anything BUT a completely selfish act. In many ways, I think it is a bad way to raise kids mainly because you would be doing a bad job of preparing them for the real world as you know it. Perhaps if they heed your advice and always stay isolated, they would do well with this method of instruction.
But if they actually have to work and live IN the world, I believe that the isolation method of instruction would be harmful to them. It would make the parent feel good, but do a major disservice to the child.
Fortunately, I don't know anyone who actually homeschools in this fashion. The homeschooled kids I know are extremely well adjusted and that seems to be in part due to the interest and care their parents take in (at least early on) managing the kinds of experiences they have in the broader world, not in denying them experiences.
But then, I've heard of the opposite kind of homeschooling too. And that does sort of scare me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My daughter and I would kill each other within two seconds of home-schooling. My son would eat it up.
I would like to protect them from all things harmful. The school bus. Recess. A teacher who belittles children.
But I really can't. I can teach them how to make choices, and how to live with the choices they make. I can provide positive things for them to do, and groups to be a part of. I WILL monitor their friends, because I know too well, as a teacher of behaviorally disordered kids, that children influence each other a great deal, in positive and negative ways.
I think the avoidance idea is great for younger kids. Never walk alone. Never go to a party with no parents. Etc. But when they are older? Ugh. I just have to trust what I have done, and let them go.
In the end, it's all about choices.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I was raised, and am raising my kids, with what is being labeled "avoidance" in this thread. Actually, in many respects, the avoidance tactics I use are more extreme than those being advocated by FotF (which I listen to rarely, but usually agree with, overall).
There ARE exceptions: life and limb (like the case Dan mentioned) absolutely take precedence. But good grief, how many pregnant teenagers say something like, "We never meant to go that far!" Why allow yourself or your child to be in that position?
quote: I guess I just don't think raging hormones and "thrill of the moment" are so overwhelming that two people can't make a resolution and stick to it.
Don't take this the wrong way, please, but I was 18 and in teen-hormone-fueled love/lust more recently than you. And I say you are wrong. And having compared notes with friends, it's not just me.
Moreover, I believe that each and every time you put yourself in temptation's way, you make it progressively more and more difficult. Willpower erodes. Ask anyone in the second week of a diet.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the child of a "Focus on the Family" adherent, I have to back Bob. I don't think the problem is with the idea of avoidance per se, it's the idea of total avoidance paired with an implicit policy of one-strike and you're out. I grew up thinking the world was just a bunch of physical temptations that were very dangerous, threatening entities. Essentially, to grow up, I had to leave the isolation (and break with my family), and start making decisions totally on my own.
This is essentially strict liability. I don't think it works in human interactions. Simply, we screw up. Alot. Although I would never doubt that Dr. Dobson has every good intention toward his listeners, I have found that his ideas work a hardship on the devout. Essentially, avoidance (in the FOF tradition) emphasizes the choice over the chooser, when the two things are not divisible.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
And by the way, I do not mean that the parents should be forcing their child not to be alone with a member of the opposite sex, etc. By the time they are in their mid to late teens, I think the child should be making that choice -- and I disagree that avoidance of temptation to the best of one's ability is not a choice, I consider it a very powerful choice. Parents can and should help, though.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I just don't think raging hormones and "thrill of the moment" are so overwhelming that two peole can't make a resolution and stick to it.
Certainly not, but therein lies the danger of rationalization. If you are on a diet and put a big ol' chocolate cake on your counter with the understanding that you will UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES eat it, you will probably resist pretty well for quite awhile. But if it stays on your counter day in and day out, and you really want a taste, how long until you nick a bit of frosting off for a taste? You know where this is going.
Most normal young men want to eat that cake. They are certainly strong enough to resist it, but because they want it so much, they may rationalize. Girls will do it to, though the desire is less direct. Telling yourself you are too strong to fall to temptation is a good foundation for other rationalizations. Because if you are so strong, you can put yourself in the very situations that you parents and church leaders warned you about and not have any trouble. And maybe you won't the first 100 times. But if you are consistently putting yourself into positions that make temptation easier, you are asking for trouble.
We must bring this back to the concept of youth who really do want to remain chaste before marriage. The motivation must come from within them rather than from external forces. So it is very true that they must know why they are resisting temptation. They must know why it is better to not give in to the little innocent pleasures because of where they lead, knowing that someday all those pleasures can be theirs with God's full blessing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted this before reading many of the other posts. As I read back, I see that I was certainly not the first to pose many of these ideas. Sorry for stepping on toes, and thank you, Rivka.
Edit: I actually don't know anything about "Focus on the Family", but I imagine their program is made to build upon the teachings these families are receiving in their own churches. They may assume that these families are well aware of the reasons for staying chaste and other such things, and it serves as a suppliment to that. So, as a suppliment, it may seem "incomplete" to an observer.
posted
This is my second try at posting something on this, but my parents computer is acting up and it ate my last reply...
I think the main problem I have with the "pure avoidance" method of conflict resolution is that it doesn't prepare you to deal with real life situations if you do find yourself in a potentially compromising situation.
If boys and girls are not suppose to be alone, ever, until they are married, or thinking about marriage, what kinds of messages are you giving your kids? That type of mentality is the same as teaching them that women (or men) are only good for reproduction, adn unless you are ready to reproduce, don't worry about them.
When you assume that attitude you are ignoring the fact that people have to get to know each other before marriage, or they won't have any way of dealing with the heartbreak and pain that comes with dating.
You date to find out what you like in a relationship, what you need in a partner. If you go into a dating situation only thinking about having sex and children you are discounting everything else they could be to you, simply by saying that unless that is your goal they aren't important enough to concern you at all.
I think that social interaction with your peers, both male and female, is the single greatest way to improve your "life skills"....you know, the ability to say what you think regardless of what others may think of you, and the ability to think on your feet and get out of compromising situations that you invaribly find yourself in from time to time.
Here is a personal example of what I mean:
I had a friend named "Steve" who got dumped, and took it really bad. Now Steve had been a friend for years, but when "Cindy" dumnped him he fell apart. He began hanging out at a house where there were a lot of parties....almost every night, really. There were all these people I would meet there wehn I went with him, and while they were all nice to me, they weren't the type of peole I would want to spend time with usually.
I was going there with Steve to look out for him. We were both older than a lot of those people partying, and I felt out of place, but I was "babysitting" Steve becaue he had begun to drink heavily. I began to really worry about him, and tried to talk to him about it, but he was too wrapped up in his pain to listen.
Now don't get me wrong, I had some fun times there too. A lot of the people there were restarunt people, so I knew a lot of them myself.
One night I walked in to a bedroom, and there were about 5 people in there snorting Coke. It wasn't the first time I had seen it, but I have never taken a drug that wasn't perscribed for me by a Doctor. I don't like what they do to people, and I have seen close friends I grew up with ruin their lives with drugs, so it isn't something that appealed to me.
I went to Steve after thinking about it for a while, and told him that is he knew how to get in touch with me if he needed me, but that I wasn't going to come back...not even for him. He got mad...after all, he wasn't doing drugs, and he was over 21 (well over) so drinking wasn't illegle..
But because of my past experiences, I looked him in the eyes and told him that I wasn't going to go to jail just for being in the same house as a bunch of users, and I told him that should leave too, and never come back.
I was putting myself at risk by being there, so the analogy breaks down a bit, but it doesn't change the fact that I knew what my boundries were, and wasn't going to break them for any reason.
You neevr know when someone is goig to start somking, or doing drugs, or making a pass....btu if all you do is isolate yourself and refuse to learn how to deal with both temptation and conflict then you will be at a loss when they come you way.
By all means, teach avoidance...but don't relagate the opposite sex to a minor role, or limit that role to wives/husbands; if you do you end up short-changing both yourselves and them. Teach kids to honor each other regardless of sex, and then it becomes a lot harder to objectify them as models of lust.
How the hell are you suppose to know what you want if you never spend any time dating? How do you learn what is and isn't appropreate without experience to guide you? Would it be so suprising that marriages fail because they never really got to know themselves, let alone each other? . . . .
quote: Don't take this the wrong way, please, but I was 18 and in teen-hormone-fueled love/lust more recently than you. And I say you are wrong. And having compared notes with friends, it's not just me.
Well, it wasn't that long ago, and I just got married last year.
Iremember the single scene all too well, and am so glad to be out of it. I said no more than a few times...not all the time, but...adn almost all of the women I turned down for sex asked if I was gay! What kind of message is that sending? I was a single, fairly intelligence hetrosexual young man who cared about his morals, and about who he slept with, but if I say no to sex I am gay?
We have taught each other that men are horndogs who only want sex from women. No exceptions.
Unless they are gay.
There are plenty of guys and girls that are making a lot of the same decisions I made, for a lot of the same reasons...
We don't end up on Jerry Springer, though, so you don't hear about us very often....
It is possible to admit that temptaions are present, but refuse to give in to them..or most of them, anyway.. You can say no, as long as you have the confidence to do so, and the ability to believe in yourself enough to do so.
And you don't get that type of confidence by removing all temptations, adn walling yourself away from the other sex. You get it from learning yur own worth outside of the bedroom, adn by realizing that you have control over your own actions.
You can't remove all tempations, but you can learn to deal with them in a rational manner.
Or a more rational manner, anyway, rather than being swept up in the first moment you are left alone with a boy/girl.
posted
BTW, I can't type! ...in case you couldn't tell!
Myn parents computer is on the fritz, adn the keyboard is a lot dofferent than mine at home.....and they don't have a spell check on their computer, except in word....
Sorry, but I hope I got what I intended across....
posted
Teaching avoidance isn't generally my problem.
Grading avoidance, on the other hand . . . well, heck, I'm doing that right now. And lesson planning avoidance . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
<---note kiss ON cheek!![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
