SEX talks at the sunday meetings

by wannaexit 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  little witch

  Wanna I think this a most interesting post, and I am glad you bought it up.

  Another example of the "unity" of jw's. There is no accounting for age-appropriate sermons, and of course there are no seperate classes (age speaking, and growth speaking).

  This blunder occurs because the dubs want to be seperate from the dreaded "christendom".

  Other churches have different sunday school classes that are age appropriate. Even the adults are free to choose classes according to their own choices. But the dubs must maintain unity....

  I wonder how much their emphasis on carnal knowledge gives fuel to the pedophile, spousal abuse, and child abuse problems prevalent. So many don't do's and leaving nothing but frustation and the missionary position! If the wife objects (being obedient), then the man must hide his natural feelings of sexuality and will find an outlet for his suppressed urges. What better participant than a child who is seen in the congregation as willful and unbelievable?

  As long as it is done in private (duh) there are no repercutions!!!

  There theology directly relates to the problems. Sex and exploration are healthy and normal. They share the same flaw with the catholic church...Celabicy, guilt and condemnation is un-natural and leads to perversion.
• 

  ARoarer

  I think that the reason for so many sex talks with the graphic nature is because of the fact that those who originate these manuscripts are all perverts themselves and have no regard for the little innocent ones in the audience. Proof of this, you just have to read the new childrens publication. The wording in this book seems as if it was authored by pedophiles.
• 

  little witch

  Well said ARoarer, well said.
• 

  Xena

  I never noticed the talks being that graphic, actually I was a bit disappointed in them myself. They were the most titilating material we were allowed to hear...*sigh*

  There theology directly relates to the problems. Sex and exploration are healthy and normal. They share the same flaw with the catholic church...Celabicy, guilt and condemnation is un-natural and leads to perversion.

  Excellent point!
• 

  blondie

  Hi wannaexit, it just depends.

  I can remember the brother who had to give the talk in 1978? about oral and anal sex. He drew the short straw on that one. He called in sick at the last minute and another elder had to give it. I'm sure there are some that enjoy titillating the audience. I can remember one married couple running to the elders to run by every form of foreplay that had used "in the world" to make sure it was "okay." The elders got sick of that real quick. Maybe a new generation of elders has come up that enjoys this type of thing. Maybe the WTS thinks if they spell it out detail by detail, people will see themselves in the picture.

  I agree with the age appropriateness. Little 3 year olds don't need to hear it, or 8 year olds or 12 year olds. That is why they have parents to tell them at the appropriate time.

  Blondie (who learned the technical term for how her father had been abusing her)
• 

  Room 215

  Little witch, Blondie, ARoarer, you've hit the nail on the head with regard to the Society's aversion to age-appropriateness and its almost-leering preoccupation with matters sexual. The latter is a vestige of the Rutherford-Knorr era.

  Knorr and his contemporaries at Bethel during the Rutherford era, all of whom took vows of singleness, were particularly hung up on the subject. His ``new boys" talks at Bethel were legendary for their blue content.

  The aversion to age-appropriateness is yet another manifestation of the WTBTS contrariness, of being different for its own sake, i.e.: ``we oppose war, but don't call us `pacifists;" ``we worship God, but don't call us `a religion', more recently ``yes, we're a religion but don't list us under ``Church Services" or ``Houses of Worship" in the local phone book or newspaper;''' ``we believe the Bible is inerrant, but don't call us `fundamentalists;'" ``don't say John the Baptist; it's John the BAPTISER; B.C.? what B.C.? A.D.? What A.D.? ``Old Testament? What Old Testament? New Testament? What New Testament? ......... and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum ...... (yawn).
• 

  ARoarer

  Room215,

  I agree. Regards to you and your family