Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids / Christians in Aussie Public School Religious Classes Teaching Girl Students “Not To Make Their Nipples A Distraction and Temptation for Men”

Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids / Christians in Aussie Public School Religious Classes Teaching Girl Students “Not To Make Their Nipples A Distraction and Temptation for Men”

Most of my commentary on these stories are farther below the excerpts.

(Link): Teaching children that dinosaurs didn’t exist: how public schools fail their brief by Marion Maddox

    Feb 25, 2014
    Religious education in Australian schools should be scrutinised: most parents do not want children to be taught creationism, or their daughters told that their nipples are a ‘temptation to men’

Most people who read this are probably going to focus on the dinosaur teaching, and even get offended at the ‘homosexual feelings’ comment. I am not terribly interested in any of that. Here is where I got tripped up (emphasis mine):

    Another primary school’s principal demanded an apology and is now hosting a departmental investigation after SRI [Special Religious Instruction] volunteers gave year 6 children a “Biblezine,” advising girls how to avoid making their nipples a “distraction and temptation to men,” explaining that wives must “submit” to husbands and instructing children never to act on homosexual feelings. She called the material “completely inappropriate,” “against fundamental school values” and said it “smacks in the face of everything we do.”

Oh please.

In case you are wondering, this is a Christian group teaching this nonsense (from (Link): Vic principal calls for abolition of compulsory religious instruction):

    SAMANTHA DONOVAN: The system, I understand, in Victoria has changed, in that now parents can opt in to the classes, whereas previously it was an opt-out system. Doesn’t that give parents more of an option?

    JOE KELLY: Yes, it does and it doesn’t. It was very clear at this school that parents were very confused about what actually was on offer.

    Quite a number of them thought the course was a study of religion, a comparative religious course – which I have no objection to.

    But the course is not that – it is one, it is a course of instruction in Christian dogma, and there are children that attend this program because parents, for a whole range of reasons, either don’t understand exactly what it is, I’ve spoken to some parents who have their children going because they don’t want them sitting out in the corridors doing nothing for that period of time. I’ve had other parents say, look, my husband’s Indian, we have our own religion, but I don’t want my son to look different or to be out of sync with the rest of the class.

    So there’s a very dysfunctional element about the whole management of it.

But wait, there’s more – more insanity:

(Link): Uproar at ‘Biblezine’ sex tips for kids

    Feb 22, 2014
    by Jill Stark

    Parents and teachers have called for an urgent overhaul of religious education in schools after year 6 children were given material claiming girls who wear revealing clothes are inviting sexual assault, and homosexuality, masturbation and sex before marriage are sinful.

    Students at Torquay College were presented with “Biblezines” as a graduation present at the end of their Christian education program, run by Access Ministries – the government accredited provider of religious instruction in Victorian schools.

    The magazines, Refuel 2 and Revolve 2 – which intersperse the text of the New Testament with dating advice, beauty tips and music reviews – warn girls not to go bra-less because “your nipples are much more noticeable and a distraction and temptation for men”, and not to wear tube tops and low-rise jeans because men are “sexually stimulated by what they see”.

    “The Bible says not to cause anyone else to sin. Are you putting sexual thoughts about your body into guys’ heads? If you are showing a lot of skin you probably are,” it states.

    The material, produced by the News Corp-owned Nelson Bibles, America’s largest Christian publishing house, also “exposes the lie of safe sex”, claiming that condoms condone promiscuity, and urges those who think they are gay never to act on it.

    In response to an agony aunt-style question about, “How far can you go before you are no longer pure?”, the document reads: “Let’s put it this way: How much dog poop stirred into your cookie batter does it take to ruin the whole batter.”

    …. Access Ministries says it did not approve the Biblezines, or their content, and they were a graduation gift from local churches, which normally donate traditional Bibles.

    In a statement, chief executive Evonne Paddison said: “This year there was a huge rush for the Bibles and, for reasons we do not yet understand, it seems as though 15 copies of Refuel 2 were handed out. Students were asked to return them on the day . . . Our agreed curriculum teaches the basic beliefs of the Christian faith and does not stray into areas of sexuality at all. We are extremely disappointed that this has occurred and will continue to investigate how it happened.”
    [—- end article excerpt ———]

There are parts of this stuff I actually agree with, and parts I do not.

The burden should not be upon females to dress a certain way. The burden is on men to control their thought lives and actions.

I am a “visually oriented” female who gets mighty turned on by the sight of a shirtless Hugh Jackman in the movies or movie posters, but I don’t let my thoughts wander past, “Wow, he sure is a good-looking man, and he sure is in great shape.” I don’t sit there and get into X-rated mind games starring Hugh Jackman.

It’s a part of being self-disciplined. I don’t sit here demanding that everyone cover up shirtless Hugh Jackman posters or stop printing them. I don’t e-mail or write Mr. Jackman letters demanding he keep a shirt on and wear bags over his fine face when he’s in public. I take responsibility for me and my thoughts.

I don’t demand that one man, or the entire male gender, dress a certain way for my benefit. Neither should Christians – males, especially – be lecturing females about modesty. If a male has an issue with lust, that is on him and is his responsibility, not the entire female gender or females he finds attractive.

Here is a previous blog post I’ve written about this topic:
(Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy

From the article:

    In response to an agony aunt-style question about, “How far can you go before you are no longer pure?”, the [Christian sex advice] document reads: “Let’s put it this way: How much dog poop stirred into your cookie batter does it take to ruin the whole batter.”

Aside from the fact I have no doubt that your typical ex-Christians, feminists, post-evangelicals, emergents, and liberal Christians will go on endlessly in their blogs, forums, and groups about how this view makes fornicators – females especially – feel so shamed and horrible (a point I am not completely sympathetic to, see (Link): this post for more), I am not sure the analogy fits anyway, or that it would help a kid who wonders about where sexual limits are.

There are some branches and groups of Christianity which teach that absolutely any and all physical contact, so much as hand holding, or a kiss on the cheek, between boy-girl, prior to marriage is wrong, sin, or constitutes fornication, while other Christians would totally disagree.

(The groups who teach these things about hand-holding and kissing-on-the-cheek, are usually the extreme Quiverfull, Reconstructionist groups and SGM type churches, who advocate “courtship,” and who teach that dating is “worldly”. They are in time warps where they remain stuck in the years 1832 or 1952.)

Some Christians believe that anything short of penis- in- the- vagina intercourse is peachy and perfectly fine, so that they do not consider anal sex or oral sex (male- on- female, or female- on- male) sinful. Some Christians think any and all masturbation (self, or boy- to- girl, or girl- on- boy forms) is sinful, while others do not.

I don’t think one is going to find too many Christians who believe that 100% of all pre marital physical contact is sinful. Therefore, I’m not sure it’s too helpful for a Christian group to imply in a booklet handed out to kids that compares kissing, hand holding, petting, and necking with “poop in cookie batter.”

I do believe the Bible teaches that fornication is wrong – more specifically, penis in the vagina action – is sinful. So I don’t have a problem with Christians believing that or teaching it in principle, but I’m not sure about teaching it in public schools, at least not in the fashion it was done in this circumstance.

But I think the most obnoxious, idiotic part of the whole spiel was the “Ladies your nipples are distracting and tempting to the male gender.”

Don’t get the wrong idea. I am not in favor of women throwing their ta-ta’s around in public all over the place (not even for breast feeding, even if the boob is kept under a blankie – and boy does that opinion ever piss off mommies), but I would be ten times shades of offended and angry if I were a 15 year old girl sitting in a public school room where a teacher handed me a pamphlet that tells me this – as if to assume I’m already guilty of flashing my perky ta ta’s around, or something.

Even if I were, that doesn’t mean males should stop and stare – remember what I said above, there’s some responsibility on the part of males here.

Does that pamphlet contain a chapter for males telling them,

    “Be sure, guys, to wear a jock strap and something to keep things tucked in, if ya know what we mean, because when you’re out in gym shorts on the football field or track, and women see your package wiggling around, it sure is a turn on! And do you keep your T-shirt on during basketball? You should. Because you running around with your biceps and pecs on display sure gets the wimmin all hot and bothered.”

My guess is no, it probably does not have that sort of material in it. And even though women do – yes WE DO – get turned on by the sight of male bodies (at least ones in good shape), males never get the purity and modesty lectures – there is a double standard going on in Christianity.

One of the articles I quoted said some of this Christian material handed out to the students said that wives must submit to their husbands: no, no they do not, not in the way taught by gender complementarian Christians. But do those kids ever hear the opposing views to such views of gender roles? Such as present on these sites:

Probably not.

Do these Christian educators ever mention lifelong singleness and celibacy as options to the kids, or are most of their views about sex predicated upon the idea that “everyone in class will get married, and married by age 25, so they just have to maintain virginity until age 25-ish.”

Because if that is their view point, they are in error and are being unbiblical. I’m in my 40s and still waiting to get married.

Telling me when I was 15 years old that I would only have to wait for marriage-n-sex until I’m 20 or 25 years old would not have helped me.

Not everyone in every society, Christian or not, will get married, either due to deliberate choice, or due to circumstance. Christians seldom acknowledge this fact, leaving older, adult celibates without any guidance on what to do. Telling a 40 year old women who desires sex and marriage to “just hold on until you marry at age 21 or 25” does her no good at all.
——————————————————————-
(h/t to Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group for first link)
——————————————————————-
Related posts this blog:

(Link): Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? – Christian Double Standards – Hypocrisy

(Link): Funny Satirical Piece: Woman Mocks Demands for Female Modesty By Shaming Males (and their judgy Mothers) For Being Immodest

(Link): The Annoying, Weird, Sexist Preoccupation by Christian Males with Female Looks and Sexuality

(Link): A Grown-Up, Not Sexed-Up, View of Womanhood (article) – how Christian teachings on gender and singlehood contribute to raunch culture and fornication etc

(Link): Why Do Christians Ask if Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation – Why Not Explain that Celibacy is an Option?

(Link): Slut Shaming and Virgin Shaming and Secular and Christian Culture – Dirty Water / Used Chewing Gum and the CDC’s Warnings – I guess the CDC is a bunch of slut shamers ?

(Link): Jesus Christ was not afraid to meet alone with known Prostitutes / Steven Furtick and Elevation Church Perpetuating Anti Singles Bias – ie, Single Women are Supposedly Sexual Temptresses, All Males Can’t Control Their Sex Drives – (but this view conflicts with evangelical propaganda that married sex is great and frequent)

(Link): The New Homophiles: A Closer Look (article) Re: Christian Homosexual Celibates and Christian Homosexual Virgins

(Link): Christian Gender and Sex Stereotypes Act as Obstacles to Christian Singles Who Want to Get Married (Not All Men Are Obsessed with Sex)

(Link): Anti Virginity Editorial by Christian Blogger Tim Challies – Do Hurt / Shame Feelings or Sexual Abuse Mean Christians Should Cease Supporting Virginity or Teaching About Sexual Purity

(Link): Gender Complementarian Product for Females: Don’t Base Your Value on Your Looks, but Wait, Yes, You Should

(Link): Slut-Shaming Is Bad—But The Overreaction Against It Also Hurts Women by J. Doverspike

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Groundbreaking News: Women Like Sex (part 1, 2) (articles)

(Link): Ryan Gosling and Shirtless, Buff Cowboy Photos on Social Media – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented (Part 2)

(Link): Atlantic: “The case for abandoning the myth that ‘women aren’t visual.’”

(Link): Women Are Visual And Like Hot Looking Men (Part 1) Joseph in Genesis Was A Stud Muffin

(Link): Superman, Man Candy -and- Christian Women Are Visual And Enjoy Looking At Built, Hot, Sexy Men

(Link): Boy Bands, Rock Singers, and Other High School Crushes – Yes, Women Are Visually Stimulated and Visually Oriented

(Link): Christian Stereotypes About Female Sexuality : All Unmarried Women Are Supposedly Hyper Sexed Harlots – But All Married Ones are Supposedly Frigid or Totally Uninterested in Sex

(Link): Do men really have higher sex drives than women? (article/study)

(Link): The Secret Women’s Porn Problem (article about Christian women who use porn)

(Link): Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage – their marketing has been jeered by ex Christians, atheists, liberal Christians, and secular left wingers / Re: Day of Purity Campaign

(Link): Pat Robertson raises the old canard about females dressing modestly and males supposedly being visually oriented

(Link): New study: Average American man is ugly and fat – And yes, men, you should panic because American women DO judge you based on your looks

(Link): Real Every Day, Average Men Ain’t All That Attractive – and yes, male looks matter to Christian women / Ageism and Desirablity

(Link): Douglas Wilson and Christian Response FAIL to Sexual Sin – No Body Can Resist Sex – supposedly – Re: Celibacy