Xequecal wrote:
They don't all do it, but I've met enough to know it's relatively common amongst religious fundamentalists. Seriously, when you meet a 15-year old that doesn't know what a condom even is, what strategy do you think his parents are using? These are parents that do things like tear out the women's clothing section of department store catalogs to prevent their teenage children from seeing them and becoming aroused. They are very much forcing abstinence on their kids by actively preventing them from even learning about the existence of any alternatives, in addition to not teaching them anything about how sex actually works. The fact that sex occurs is something that is simply not talked about, and they would prefer that their kids don't even know about it at all.
First, there is no such thing as "forcing abstinence on your kids". Parents are entitled to raise their children with the values, mores, and restrictions they see fit, as long as the child's needs are provided for. The idea that they would prefer their kids not know about sex is totally asinine; what they want, for the most part is for people to wait until marriage. It is an entirely understandable viewpoint that teaching children about ways to avoid the consequences of something they want to do anyhow will encourage them to do that behavior; the risks that they will do that behavior anyhow and possibly suffer the consequences notwithstanding.
No religious parent thinks that they will prevent arousal in their kids; they know perfectly well how THEY got kids, and they eventually want GRANDKIDS. Don't be silly. What they don't want is the portrayal of sexuality and arousal that you see in everyday life- including the women's underwear section. Maybe the message that "it's ok to have your picture taken in underwear and presented to millions of people, in exchange for money" is what they want to prevent? Is there some societal consequences from having to pick out your Hanes without seeing some size 1 19-year-old stand there with a sexy pout on her face while wearing it? I don't object to underwear adds, but I can see legitimate reasons to do so.
Quote:
Some people are very much God-fearing in the extreme sense. They think that any amount of questioning of their religion is a serious sin and will provoke God's wrath, including completely unconscious, internal questioning that naturally occurs when one receives conflicting information. As such, they actively attempt to avoid any information that could cause them to do so, and similarly try to shield their children from said harmful knowledge.
Actually no, practically no one thinks this. And no, it doesn't matter how many of them you've met to "know" this; it fundamentally isn't true. "Questioning" isn't a sin in any Christian teaching. That isn't how the concept of sin works. It has nothing to do with protecting them from the knowledge, and everything to do with the way that knowledge is presented by media, schools, etc. The parents generally aren't sure quite how to present it themselves, but they know they don't like society's general methods, so they just don't present it at all.
Quote:
A significant motivation for the campaign against stuff like Gardasil, evolution in public schools, sex education, "immorality" on television, etc. is pretty much this. "Change the channel" is not a reasonable solution when your plan to prevent, say, homosexuality in your kids is to not let your kids know that homosexuality exists. They see two guys kissing on TV once and, well, ****, the illusion is ruined. Similarly, the theory of evolution is not compatible with the "truth" that the world is only 6,000 years old, and knowing about evolution might cause doubt, and we can't have that, so it can't be taught.
Actually no, it has nothing to to with any "illusion" or preventing kids from knowing such things exist. It has to do with the fact that such material is not presented on TV or in school in a way the parents approve of. Media and public education in this country are controlled by certain agendas, that don't match up with the agendas of the people you are discussing (disregarding for a moment the fact that their views are not as homogenous as you have convinced yourself.) regardless of how correct the information is (i.e. evolution). Many people have made it patently obvious that they are looking for any excuse to wrest the control of childrens' upbringing away from parents in order to "protect" them from parental views they don't agree with, and the parents are reacting. The double standard is amazing.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
LOL
