Breaking Barriers

[kejedo]

 

"Putting your arms affectionately around persons of the opposite sex who are not your husband, wife or close relatives is also toying with immorality."  Watchtower 3/1/64 Beware of Toying With Immorality 

 

Husb has mentioned people, especially men "touching on you." (You=Me). I am certain it troubles him. If I go alone, as I do most times, I guess he is home wondering about how many men are "touching on me."  It prevents him from appreciating the sacredness of our worship. 

Edited July 19, 2015 by kejedo

[kejedo]

(continued)Husb has mentioned people, especially men "touching on you." (You=Me). This accusation makes me feel dirty. I am certain it troubles him. If I go alone, as I do most times, I guess he is home wondering about how many men are "touching on me."  It prevents him from appreciating the sacredness of our worship, which is very different from breaking barriers. It could be breaking marriages.

p.s. you may have gathered (or remembered) that we are a mixed racial couple. I have to agree that he is right on this one, and our literature has not changed its position on hugging the opposite gender. What you may perceive as offering friendship is, quite frankly, a dangerous and unscriptural practice. Sorry, I usually try to avoid this subject when it comes up, but I, personally, would want to know if one of my well intentioned behaviors could be having just the opposite effect. 

[AH173]

"Putting your arms affectionately around persons of the opposite sex who are not your husband, wife or close relatives is also toying with immorality."  Watchtower 3/1/64 Beware of Toying With Immorality

I'm pretty sure a hug can be performed in a non 'affectionately' /sensual way.

I thought this thread was about 'breaking down barriers'? If I had a situation /problem where someone gets beyond their boundary, seriously trying to practice fruitage of the spirit, I would seriously stress a way to express friendship without causing concern to others.

The husband has a right to feel the way he does. All it takes I think a serious /concentrated effort to abide /respect husbands (spouse's) wishes. My thoughts. (husband of 27 years)

[kejedo]

hug

/həɡ/

noun

• 1.an act of holding someone tightly in one's arms, typically to express affection. Our literature uses the word affectionate, which by definition is what a hug is. 

[Tortuga]

I'm pretty sure a hug can be performed in a non 'affectionately' /sensual way.

 

A lot of the problem is perception. The intent may be good but the perception may be different. A brother may think he is being kind and supportive, however others, including the recipient, may think he is inappropriate. I know there are some good articles on this, I'll just need to find them.

[Tortuga]

Here is a good reminder that is almost 20 years old..

 

*** g96 5/22 pp. 6-7 Sexual Harassment—How to Protect Yourself ***

Proper Conduct for Men

Consider the matter of how men should treat women. Many experts caution against touching those of the opposite sex. They warn that a friendly pat on the back could easily be misinterpreted. “Juries take touching very seriously,” notes labor lawyer Frank Harty. His suggestion? “If it involves more than shaking hands, don’t do it.” True, the Bible itself makes no blanket rule on this matter. But in view of the current legal and moral climate, caution is in order—especially for those who have an unconscious tendency to touch as they converse.

Admittedly, such advice is not always easy to follow. Glen, for instance, comes from a Hispanic culture. “Where I come from,” he says, “people are just more prone to hug you than here in the United States. In my family we often greet friends with a kiss, but here we were cautioned not to be too quick to do that.” Bible principles, though, prove helpful in this matter. The apostle Paul told the young man Timothy: “Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.” (1 Timothy 5:1, 2, New International Version) Would that not rule out promiscuous, seductive, or unwelcome touching?

 

[AH173]

Thank you for the 1964 reference and the definition sister Pauline. Some may equate hugging as wrong. Some could hug and not be tightly /affectionate. I like the subhead of the article you partially quoted.

WHAT IS "TOYING" WITH SEXUAL IMMORALITY?

What is meant by "toying" with sexual immorality? By this we do not mean fornication or adultery, because these things are not "toying" with immorality. "Toying" with sexual immorality indicates that one may not at first intend to engage deliberately in fornication or adultery, but, knowingly or unknowingly, one is engaging in activity that easily leads to such. The point to keep in mind is that toying with immorality places one on the road to immorality, and it cannot always be stopped.

Now, then, what are some of the actions that amount to loose conduct or toying with sexual immorality without its actually being fornication or adultery?

One such would be for a married person to flirt with a member of the opposite sex who is not his mate. This can serve no good purpose. It is usually indulged in either to build up one's ego or for the sexual stimulation it brings. It is looking upon another with the wrong motive. If continued to its logical consequence, it would result in adultery.

Putting your arms affectionately around persons of the opposite sex who are not your husband, wife or close relatives is also toying with immorality. A person can express friendliness without going to this extent. While it may seem very innocent at first, such acts can lead and have led to fornication and adultery, resulting in some being cut off from the Christian congregation. Incidentally, the fact that persons may be married does not mean that they can take more liberties in this regard than single persons. Just as often, if not more often, it is married persons who get into difficulty by doing such things with those not their mates.

Telling obscene jokes is toying with sexual immorality. It begins to break down high Christian standards. The implication is that such things are not so bad if Christians can joke about them, and, after all, see how many people laughed! But is it clean or right? No! It leads in the wrong direction, in the direction of immorality, polluting one's thinking.—Eph. 5:3, 4.

Dancing with one who is another's marriage mate in such a way that you feel sexually aroused or stimulated is also toying with sexual immorality. Actually, there is no justification for a Christian to dance in close contact with another's marriage mate. Think of it this way. Would you like it if someone came to your home and put his arms around your wife for five or ten minutes out of every hour during the evening, just sitting, or standing in the middle of the room, hugging your wife? Why, of course you would not like it! Then why should it be justified just because music is playing or it is done in the name of dancing? It is not justified and should be avoided by Christians. There are other types of dancing that do not require close proximity of partners, a veritable embrace; dances such as square dances, or other group dances, or those performed by persons of the same sex, avoid this pitfall. Of course, even where a dance is performed by one person or persons of the same sex, if it is suggestive or immoral, obviously it is not for Christians.

Reading literature or looking at pictures that arouse you sexually is toying with immorality. Attending movies and watching television or stage shows that highlight immorality fall into the same category, as they fill one's mind with unclean thoughts.

Single persons that are keeping company with one of the opposite sex should beware of toying with immorality. The only valid reason for a Christian to keep constant company with one of the opposite sex is to cultivate an honorable association that will ultimately lead to marriage. But "romantic" walks into secluded places are dangerous, because your being alone with one of the opposite sex for extended periods of time may result in your being aroused to the point where "necking" or "petting" are indulged in. Impassioned, sexually arousing kissing on the part of single persons, even if they are engaged to be married, is improper because it arouses feelings that cannot be followed by sexual intercourse without its being fornication. It is better to avoid the situation that leaves one open to sexual immorality.

Dating men or women who are not dedicated to God can quickly lead to toying with immorality. To begin with, a Christian should not be cultivating close association with a worldly person. A person who is not guided by God's Word is likely to be infected with the loose code of morality prevalent in the world and is inclined to accept toying with immorality as a matter of course, as something that is acceptable social behavior. But it is not. It is contrary to God's will.

The context of the article or subhead that was mentioned is not what our brother Glenn is about. My thoughts.

[Tortuga]

The context of the article or subhead that was mentioned is not what our brother Glenn is about. My thoughts.

 

Agreed, however any man that touches a woman that isn't his mate can't be sure of the other persons perception of the situation, they also can not be sure of the perception of any observers. The FDS has given us some good reminders to balance our love with caution.

 

I don't want to skew this topic so I'm stopping now...

Edited July 19, 2015 by Tortuga

[Luezette]

The more I read this the more I'm so glad I did what I did with that unbaptized publisher as in telling him to keep his claws off me!!! Actually I had no idea it was "toying with immorality." I told him only because it was making me very uncomfortable. Wow!

Thanks be to Jehovah for such timely information!

[Dustparticle]

I'm pretty sure a hug can be performed in a non 'affectionately' /sensual way.

I thought this thread was about 'breaking down barriers'? If I had a situation /problem where someone gets beyond their boundary, seriously trying to practice fruitage of the spirit, I would seriously stress a way to express friendship without causing concern to others.

The husband has a right to feel the way he does. All it takes I think a serious /concentrated effort to abide /respect husbands (spouse's) wishes. My thoughts. (husband of 27 years)

I was thinking the same way. If I had a wife and she tells me no more hugs, then I have to respect it, yet for me it would be hard to apply it. Yes, hugs can be performed in non affectionately way and many times I have seen friends abide it too.

[Tortuga]

The more I read this the more I'm so glad I did what I did with that unbaptized publisher as in telling him to keep his claws off me!!! Actually I had no idea it was "toying with immorality." I told him only because it was making me very uncomfortable. Wow!

Thanks be to Jehovah for such timely information!

 

Dusty made an excellent point when he started this topic, physical contact can break down barriers. 

 

We all know the effect of physical contact, we have all heard about the single baby in the nursery that thrived because it was the only baby that was held. We have all seen people express love by hugging or holding hands without saying a word. 

 

Some times the barrier is subconscious, I remember reading that when a waitress touches a patron, they usually get a bigger tip. Think about that the next time your waitress puts her hand on your shoulder as she gives you the check.

 

Physical contact can break down barriers and the FDS reminds us that one of those barriers can be a persons self-control.

[kejedo]

A lot of the problem is perception. The intent may be good but the perception may be different. A brother may think he is being kind and supportive, however others, including the recipient, may think he is inappropriate. I know there are some good articles on this, I'll just need to find them.

 

 

"Putting your arms affectionately around persons of the opposite sex who are not your husband, wife or close relatives is also toying with immorality."  Watchtower 3/1/64 Beware of Toying With Immorality 

 

The sentence our brothers use is affectionately.They do not mention 'sensual' in this sentence. All hugging, unless in a wrestling match, is affectionate. One wold not hug others dis-affectionately. Are you asking others if they would like a hug, and getting their permission first?  It is a good question to ask your COBE about this, if you are a brother who is hug-oriented.  Social workers are told to ask, "May I touch your arm?" And if agreed, place a light touch on their upper arm, outer side. In Middle school, teachers were informed not touching, not even a hand shake. In some businesses, they train to use ROBs = retention oriented behaviors, which include a slight touch to the upper (outer) arm, as in the server scenario mentioned. 

Edited July 19, 2015 by kejedo

[Dustparticle]

 

hug

/həɡ/

noun

• 1.an act of holding someone tightly in one's arms, typically to express affection. Our literature uses the word affectionate, which by definition is what a hug is. 

 

You have a point here. There is another way to hug and that is you can hug someone from the side in which in a way it takes way a lot of affection, it affection is expressed.

 

 Also, the meanings of English words are twisted in many ways. It doesn't express the truth definition of words and it's meanings behind it too.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Dustparticle