Christian men and purity. Males only answer the poll, women feel free to comment.

I personally would question the narrative which suggests that a "boys will be boys" attitude is prevalent. Growing up, I think I heard that phrase maybe once or twice, in a movie or something.

I do think there is some strange cultural stuff going on in highschools. Sports culture is still sacred to america, and it affects the way we think. I think it's possible that we teach young men that, if they succeed in sports, they deserve women, or, when they cross a line, perhaps the general public is more inclined to excuse bad behavior among the stars of the show. The young women certainly aren't discouraged from giving all of their focus and attention to these stars of the show, so, it may seem as if the way they are treated reflects the way society feels ab out males in general.

But that isn't descriptive of the majority.

When I was growing up, we may have had our priorities out of order, but romanticism hadn't quite died, yet. We didn't care to ostracize people on the basis of purity. Love was pure enough.

And purity culture seems to me to be an overreaction to something, and a distortion of just one small aspect of christian morality.

spiritfilledjm said:

There has been an active post elsewhere on the forums about "Purity Culture." Purity Culture, at it's worse, is believed to be where women are encouraged to remain abstinent until marriage and if they don't do that then they are told that they are worthless in the eyes of God and man. At it's best, it's simply encouraging both sexes to remain pure until marriage as sex is meant as a gift from God in a marriage between one man and one woman and the Bible forbids in multiple areas pre-marital sex.

However, one thing I've noticed is that popular culture and secular society seem to believe that this is stressed only to females but not males. That males are told to do whatever they want because boys will be boys.

Personally, this was not my experience in church. I'd say about 75% of all interactions in small group discussions, whether as a teen or now, and youth group in general was addressing lust and thereby purity as well, whether it be in a small male-only setting or a youth group sermon, it was always made clear that the commands from God to remain pure is not only for females but for males as well.

I hypothesize that this was for two reasons:

1. Males aren't as open as women about what they discuss or their struggles or anything. Therefore, what is said in small group stays in small group...especially as teens. Come home from youth group, mom asks, "How was church?" "Oh it was fine." "Oh yeah, what did you talk about." "I dunno, church stuff." Therefore, it shouldn't be all that well known or obvious how often we do talk about purity and sexual temptation.

2. We do tend to overemphasize modesty to women only, and modesty and purity goes hand in hand. That, however, is because the Bible does only tend to address modest dress towards women, but the reason for this is a simple one. Males, historically, don't really dress provocatively...that's never been the male style. However, even in this times are changing, what with thirst traps on TikTok, sexting, skinny jeans, and whatnot. Therefore, I do believe that there is room for change in that and I do know that especially when it comes to sexting, that change is happening in discussions.

My ultimate question for the men and youth is, how often did or do you talk about sexual temptation and purity in your small group/men's group/youth group interactions?

Click to expand...

I pet 50% but really it's between 25% to 50% of the time depending on the group. With younger guys it is closer to 50% (if the group is dominated by them) but I notice as guys get older it becomes less of a problem and other things start to dominate (like theology, politics, etc). Older being defined as 27 or so and up.

I think the two reasons you gave are accurate as to why people don't see it as much, but it definitely is emphasized to men as well. I think the second reason you gave is probably a bigger contributing factor, because women get told very outwardly more about modesty but dudes it's more of an "inner" thing. By that I mean you see advice for it all over religious literature aimed at guys but I have never seen super popular blog posts or Twitter arguments about it. I'd even say that in religious books (at least those that I've read) it's emphasized more to guys, like the Bible for instance (thinking of all the sections of Sirach and Proverbs which speak of it towards men although it can be applied to all, or works like the Twelve Patriarchs, Hermas, desert father literature and in the Church Fathers and Saints, so far that I've read it seems to be aimed at males more).

I’m in my 50s, so it wasn’t discussed much when I was younger if at all. However, I think it is difficult to completely distinguish one’s religious attitudes about it and those of the popular culture that one lives in. The bible uses words like harlot, jezebel etc. to refer to women who are promiscuous. There is no biblical equivalent for promiscuous men, and when you read the Old Testament, King Solomon has 1000 wives and concubines. A 1000! Or even “concubine’ - a woman that lives with a man, has sex with him, but at a lower status than wife, shows just how ancient and fossilized the idea of granting men sexual freedom that women are not.
In pop culture, there are derogatory names for women who sleep with a lot of men, but not for men who sleep with a lot of women, unless you mean “Lady’s Man,” “Romeo,” names that are welcomed like a badge of honour.
My family and relatives are very religious, and I remember them joking about one 3rd cousin, who was quite handsome and traveled, as having a different girlfriend in every city. Had he been a woman, I doubt it would be said with the same intent, but more one of condemnation.

Even with the Daddy-Daughter dance, there is no Mommy-Son. Daddy’s Girl is a term for a daughter who looks up to her father and hopes she can find a husband as good as him. A Momma’s Boy, on the hand, implies a grown man who has an unhealthy relationship with his mother rather than being independent, or as in Pillow Talk, one that implies the boy is gay. Or Norman Bates.

I saw a performance artist who made an interesting statement: If you want to insult a woman, you call her an animal - a pig, a cow, a dog, and elephant. If you want to insult a man, call him a woman.

It’s always stuck with me, because it implies that being a woman is degrading, that a woman is somehow lower than a man, while at the same time, we talk of how we revere women. When a woman is raped, however, she is on trial as much as the rapist - what was she wearing? Why was she walking alone? What is her sexual history? We don’t do that to a murder victim - why were you walking alone? How much money were you carrying? Were you wearing expensive clothes? Weren’t you just asking for it?

Christians don’t live in a bubble. if 70% of Americans identify as Christian, then they make up part of the pop culture. When I was in high school, many of the popular kids happened to go to my church, but that didn’t mean they weren’t out getting drunk or having sex the night before. They just went out and got drunk on Saturday, and ask forgiveness on Sunday. So even if we were discussing it, none of us were really talking openly and honestly, but about rules no one was going to follow.

I agree with Beanieboy that the surrounding culture does colour all of this.

But I also think that - perhaps partly because of the modesty stuff, but perhaps partly because of other things - women and girls are taught much more shame and guilt about natural and healthy sexuality and sexual desire. We are also taught that if we do the wrong thing with someone, it's basically our fault... women are framed as the temptresses, the stumbling blocks, the reason why good men make bad decisions. I don't see that kind of narrative directed at men about how they interact with women.

I saw a really telling piece of research once, in which they'd surveyed lots of young Christian men, and found that many basically saw no real ethical difference between consensual sex and rape. They'd absorbed the message that sex was a sin, but because all sex was a sin, there was nothing especially problematic about neglecting consent in their relationships. As a woman, that's quite chilling.

spiritfilledjm said:

Males, historically, don't really dress provocatively...

Click to expand...

Or, relatively revealing dress in men hasn't been sexualised. A man can wear short shorts and a skimpy top (or no top) and that won't be seen as "provocative," even if he's showing a body every bit as objectively desirable as a woman dressed the same way. But you can bet she'll be seen as provocative. That's about our attitude to men's and women's bodies, rather than differences in the amount of skin showed.

(It drives me mad, for example, that a woman in shorts or a skirt short enough to see her knees is seen as immodest; but guys can get around in shorts that show off their legs and it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that a woman might find the view distracting!)

I'm getting a bit long in the tooth now, but when I became a Christian, I became involved in a youth group at two levels. The first was a group that already existed when I joined the church, and consisted of young members of the church who were all Christian. I don't think sex came up as an item of discussion very often, although I think there was a bit of romantic competition in some cases.

There was another youth group we started later for an outreach, and it had mainly non-Christian members. Whether sex was an issue or not I don't know, since they would not have told us anyway. Eventually it folded due to some of the members going way over the boundaries.

I've never belonged to any all-male group in church circles. We don't have one in our (Catholic) church, although I think there's one in my wife's (Baptist) church- men's breakfasts etc. But I have no idea what they talk about.

Now I'm Catholic, the only group I'm involved with (apart from the particular church I attend) is a Saint Vincent de Paul conference, and while we have spiritual discussions, sex isn't a topic. We're more concerned about the spirituality of service. There may be another "Group" in the offing, but once again we'd mainly be concerned with church issues, and evangelisation in particular.

On Paidaske's complaints about the perceptions of chauvinistic male and female dress, that's been a problem since the year dot.

As the joke goes, Adam bit the apple and feeling great shame, covered himself with a fig leaf. Eve too, felt shame and covered herself with a fig leaf. Then she went behind a bush to try on a maple leaf, a sycamore leaf, and an oak leaf, and she still thought none of them was the right one.

Off topic a bit, but I had a brief conversation with a woman once who managed a dress shop. She said she liked it when men came in. They were looking for something for their wife or girlfriend, and they knew what they wanted. Five minutes later they'd be out of the shop with their purchase. Not so the women!

I can't speak for females, not being one. But rest assured for most young males, the sex drive is very persistent.

I don't see human nature changing. We can try to outlaw (eg. rape) or legalise (eg. lgbd) various aspects of human behaviour, but no law will ever change human nature.

I think this discussion needs to be had in the context of access to inappropriate contentography as well. High school students are viewing it in English class! It's not just the men, either. Girls view it too, which further demeans their sense of self, and they come to expect to be treated the same as the women in the videos. And men go out and conquer [the women].

If youth groups and churches are not having discussions about purity, they need to start. Of course that's easy to say. When I was young, we never talked about sex; in fact, we had to implement the 6" rule that the shoulders of boys and girls must remain always at a 6" gap or more. But by the time I was in my late teens, no discussions about purity would have saved me from impurity.

While discussion about it in churches and groups is important, it is far more important for parents to teach children from a very young age about boundaries (this is mine, that is yours, the difference between yes and no {consent}, responsibility, etc), as well as internalizing biblical principles of purity, self-worth, the worth of others, and the most important - treating everyone of the opposite (or same, these days) sex like they are a brother or sister in the Kingdom, because that is the primary relationship we will have with them through eternity. Churches and schools need to fill in where parents can't, but I believe this is primarily the responsibility of families, and our churches need to teach and support the parents to this end.

spiritfilledjm said:

My ultimate question for the men and youth is, how often did or do you talk about sexual temptation and purity in your small group/men's group/youth group interactions?

Click to expand...

I don't recall it, ever.