DD wants a purity ring

[java]

I live in a rural area. Small middle school. This year only 42 kids are in the graduating class.

A few years ago there were kids doing inappropriate stuff on the bus. They were 11 and 12.

Self respect is something that a ring can't replace. And if kids want to fool aroun they will find a place to do it.

 

[luvsJack]

Well, apparently I would.

If it's supposed to be a "symbol of purity", shouldn't actual purity be a prerequisite to wearing one? Wouldn't any form of premarital sex be breaking the "symbolism" of it?

Otherwise its just a practice of talk the talk but don't walk the walk and it means nothing.

As was said many pages ago it is a promise between the person wearing the ring and God. Its not even about the ring, its about the promise the person makes.

No one has to be "pure" when they make that promise. Whatever the promise means is between them and God. Whatever decisions they make is between them and God.

No one is talked into wearing it or forced to wear it. In most churches it is simply that they are taught what the Bible says about sex, love and marriage. Everything after that is up to them.

 

[luvsJack]

I live in a rural area. Small middle school. This year only 42 kids are in the graduating class.

A few years ago there were kids doing inappropriate stuff on the bus. They were 11 and 12.

Self respect is something that a ring can't replace. And if kids want to fool aroun they will find a place to do it.

You are very right. Which is why self respect is something that has to go along with it. No one can expect their child to put a ring on and thats it.

Our Youth Minister did a series on temptation not too long ago and one week he talked about this kind of temptation. He doesn't pretend that the temptation isn't there.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

As was said many pages ago it is a promise between the person wearing the ring and God. Its not even about the ring, its about the promise the person makes.

No one has to be "pure" when they make that promise. Whatever the promise means is between them and God. Whatever decisions they make is between them and God.

No one is talked into wearing it or forced to wear it. In most churches it is simply that they are taught what the Bible says about sex, love and marriage. Everything after that is up to them.

You mean them, God and whatever message board mom wants to put it on? Talk about the ultimate "status" symbol. Everything is good, then one day, you notice dd isn't wearing the ring anymore......wonder if it'll be between her and her God then.

ETA: and "her" could mean any girl deciding to wear one.

 

[luvmy3]

Well, apparently I would.

If it's supposed to be a "symbol of purity", shouldn't actual purity be a prerequisite to wearing one? Wouldn't any form of premarital sex be breaking the "symbolism" of it?

Otherwise its just a practice of talk the talk but don't walk the walk and it means nothing.

If you have premarital sex, you can take a Mulligan.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

If you have premarital sex, you can take a Mulligan.

 

[luvsJack]

You mean them, God and whatever message board mom wants to put it on? Talk about the ultimate "status" symbol. Everything is good, then one day, you notice dd isn't wearing the ring anymore......wonder if it'll be between her and her God then.

ETA: and "her" could mean any girl deciding to wear one.

That would depend on the parent, I guess. Taking off the ring, would simply mean she took it off. It doesn't have to "mean" anything. IF dd decides to wear a ring and IF she decides to take it off, will I talk to her? Maybe. But, only as a parent wanting to make sure her child is making good choices not as in judging her. I can only speak for my own situation, not that of other parents.

Its not a status symbol for anyone.

Actually all of this has been discussed previously in this thread.

 

[dadddio]

38 pages in a thread about a child who wants to wait until marriage before she has sex. Wow.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

38 pages in a thread about a child who wants to wait until marriage before she has sex. Wow.

Not really. More like unfamiliar adults pushing their views about sex onto an unsuspecting 11 year old girl without her parents' knowledge or input.

 

[dadddio]

Not really. More like unfamiliar adults pushing their views about sex onto an unsuspecting 11 year old girl without her parents' knowledge or input.

Are you referring to the people in this thread, or the people who discussed the issue with the OP's child? According to the OP, she was cool with the topic being discussed. Her stated concern was how the child might be affected down the road if she broke her 'promise'.

 

[luvsJack]

Not really. More like unfamiliar adults pushing their views about sex onto an unsuspecting 11 year old girl without her parents' knowledge or input.

So a church youth group should not discuss what is written the Bible about things that are pertinent to a teen and their life? What exactly is it that you think they SHOULD do?

I think that an 11 year old should, perhaps, not be included in a youth group which is normally reserved for 13 and up or 12 and up. Or perhaps there should be "older youth" and "younger youth" or some such distinction. But, I can't imagine sending my child to church and not expecting them to discuss things that are written in the Bible. That doesn't even slightly make sense.

No one is "pushing" anything. Unless the church this child attended is a lot different from most, they give the information, they discuss how it pertains to the kids' lives and how it pertains or pertained to their own life (the speaker). What the kid decides to do with the information they are given is up to them.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Daddio, you asked how the thread got to 38 pages, and I told you. Various opinions went all over the place within the thread re what I referred to, and more. Read inside if you want to know more.

luvsJack, come on. I think we've already beat this one to death. It's also teetering on a religious discussion when talking about what goes on in church and interpretations of the bible, etc.

 

[luvsJack]

Daddio, you asked how the thread got to 38 pages, and I told you. Various opinions went all over the place within the thread re what I referred to, and more. Read inside if you want to know more.

luvsJack, come on. I think we've already beat this one to death. It's also teetering on a religious discussion when talking about what goes on in church and interpretations of the bible, etc.

Maybe we have and maybe it is. I just get really tired of others telling me and others here what does or doesn't go on in a church setting or what it amounts to. Its been teetering on religious discussion from the beginning.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Maybe we have and maybe it is. I just get really tired of others telling me and others here what does or doesn't go on in a church setting or what it amounts to. Its been teetering on religious discussion from the beginning.

I'm sure the Mods have been following this one, and apparently chose to leave it open, probably because it's a good topic that primarily centers around sexuality and parenting.

For some, it's a religious issue, and for some, it's not. For you, it's obvious it is. And I think you've made your points well. Everyone knows where you stand. But not everyone agrees, kwim? And that's ok. It was a good discussion that got a lot of people thinking about it, anyway.

Daddio's inference was that it's that

38 pages in a thread about a child who wants to wait until marriage before she has sex. Wow.

My guess is that his thinking is more in line with yours.

My response was deliberately contrary simply to show that there is a whole other line of thinking here as well.

Most people probably fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[luvsJack]

I'm sure the Mods have been following this one, and apparently chose to leave it open, probably because it's a good topic that primarily centers around sexuality and parenting.

For some, it's a religious issue, and for some, it's not. For you, it's obvious it is. And I think you've made your points well. Everyone knows where you stand. But not everyone agrees, kwim? And that's ok. It was a good discussion that got a lot of people thinking about it, anyway.

Daddio's inference was that it's that

My guess is that his thinking is more in line with yours.

My response was deliberately contrary simply to show that there is a whole other line of thinking here as well.

Most people probably fall somewhere in the middle.

Its perfectly ok not to agree, most definitely right about that.

What is not ok is to purposely put down or make fun of something that is important to others and I see way too much of that around here.

 

[Momvic5]

38 pages in a thread about a child who wants to wait until marriage before she has sex. Wow.

Yes, and it seems we have come to the conclusion that 11 year olds are too young to make a choice to wear purity rings, - but they are not too young to make a choice to fool around and play spin the bottle/kissing games while not being supervised. Too young for purity rings but not too young for condoms. You missed all the fun.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Yes, and it seems we have come to the conclusion that 11 year olds are too young to make a choice to wear purity rings, - but they are not too young to make a choice to fool around and play spin the bottle/kissing games while not being supervised. Too young for purity rings but not too young for condoms. You missed all the fun.

Mind blown.

 

[EMHDad]

Yes, and it seems we have come to the conclusion that 11 year olds are too young to make a choice to wear purity rings, - but they are not too young to make a choice to fool around and play spin the bottle/kissing games while not being supervised. Too young for purity rings but not too young for condoms. You missed all the fun.

LOL funny, but seriously, where did someone say 11 was ok for spinning the bottle and condoms? I really must have missed those posts

 

[Momvic5]

LOL funny, but seriously, where did someone say 11 was ok for spinning the bottle and condoms? I really must have missed those posts

Go back about 5-6 pages....basically it is argued that - we are naive if we do not think that our pre-teens do not have many opportunities to experiment in sexual activities.

 

[luvmy3]

Go back about 5-6 pages....basically it is argued that - we are naive if we do not think that our pre-teens do not have many opportunities to experiment in sexual activities.

Actually it was 12 and 13 year olds but we don't need to split hairs. And again, you are taking what was said all to personally. If you know your 12/13 year old has no opportunities to experiement because you know exactly where she is, and what she is doing then great. I would bet that the vast majority of parents of kids that age aren't supervising their children 24/7 and those kids, if they wanted to, would have opportunities to fool around. Does that mean they all do, of course not. Does that mean that your dd does, of course not. But, if you don't think there is opportunity for that age group to experiment then yes, you are naïve in your thinking.