Is The Church Sexually Repressive?

[thesometimesaint]

Other than the grooming standards, there is nothing I had to comply with at BYU that I didn't have to follow as a member anywhere in the world.

 

The grooming standards of the US military I had were far more demanding than anything I had at BYU.

[BlueDreams]

I've seen more lives destroyed by unsafe rebellion against repression than by responsible hedonism, and this is consistent with the high number of STIs and teen pregnancies in places where abstinence only sex education is taught. A better commandment would be for safe, consensual, and responsible sex, rather than no sex, and I much prefer Aleister Crowley's definition of chastity.

 

This is an absolutely holey argument. All the effects of a given philosophy should be considered in endorsing it's widespread use in a culture/group. It's like only looking at the cases of a very hierarchical family structure (husband rules to roost/has the final say) to indicate that such systems are good and healthy and ignoring every case of abuse that has occurred in said systems. There can be healthy expressions of sexual activity outside of marriage. But to ignore the vast cases where it really really isn't, is blinding.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Other than the grooming standards, there is nothing I had to comply with at BYU that I didn't have to follow as a member anywhere in the world.

 

The only problem I really have with them is the way in which they're enforced (or not). I rather like the general model of governing oneself. But what I've seen is that it often fosters a sort of vigilante policing of standards that are often inconsistent. So for example, BYU has a policy about how late someone of the opposite gender can stay over. Fine, get it. But the problem is that anyone can (and should) call you out on it. They're particularly strict on campus (their right) and lead to really stupid things like guys walking around knocking on parked car windows to "remind us" of what time it is. That's obnoxious and intrusive. Or having very strict swimming suit expectations that are difficult to meet up....but then inconsistently enforcing that with lifeguards who may or may not ask you to put a clunky top on to swim lanes.....which makes absolutely not sense. Basically my problem is that others are constantly becoming the judges for correct behaviors, not oneself. And these others are super inconsistent and can do so on their whims.

 

But it bothers me far less now than it ever did....probably because I don't live on campus and am in grad school. Those 2 things tend to really loosen the pull of the honor code.

[Tsuzuki]

Then I and the Church agree with you. We just choose to define responsible as a married husband and wife.

What is you arbitrary definition of responsible?

-guerreiro9

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

[Tacenda]

All that without an emoticon.... good post though and I agree completely which in and of itself is strange.

Because he was serious for once.

[VideoGameJunkie]

The no sexual relations outside of marriage is definitely more important for temple endowed members.

[cinepro]

Without speaking to the other points of the article, I can only say that when you get down to the ward and individual level in the Church, there can be more weirdness than you could possibly imagine.

 

So I might be disinclined to generalize based on a person's individual experience, but I would never categorically disbelieve them.

[Tsuzuki]

This is an absolutely holey argument. All the effects of a given philosophy should be considered in endorsing it's widespread use in a culture/group. It's like only looking at the cases of a very hierarchical family structure (husband rules to roost/has the final say) to indicate that such systems are good and healthy and ignoring every case of abuse that has occurred in said systems. There can be healthy expressions of sexual activity outside of marriage. But to ignore the vast cases where it really really isn't, is blinding.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Sex outside of marriage is the norm in modern society, and marriage itself is on the decline, so of course there are cases of unhealthy sexual expression outside of marriage (just as there are within marriage), but forced abstinence isn't the answer.

[thesometimesaint]

Sex outside of marriage is the norm in modern society, and marriage itself is on the decline, so of course there are cases of unhealthy sexual expression outside of marriage (just as there are within marriage), but forced abstinence isn't the answer.

 

The Church is not forcing abstinence on anyone. We all agreed to follow the rules of the Church to maintain our membership in good standing. Those not willing to follow the rules can leave at any time.

[Tsuzuki]

The Church is not forcing abstinence on anyone. We all agreed to follow the rules of the Church to maintain our membership in good standing. Those not willing to follow the rules can leave at any time.

 

In other words, it's forcing it on its members as a condition of membership. You can say that that's a good thing, but it's still being forced by definition.

[Tsuzuki]

The no sexual relations outside of marriage is definitely more important for temple endowed members.

 

I think this is an important consideration, and anyone willing to swear an oath should be bound by it.

[thesometimesaint]

In other words, it's forcing it on its members as a condition of membership. You can say that that's a good thing, but it's still being forced by definition.

 

What? I didn't say whether it was a good thing or not. Just that we all agreed to it. The rules of the road in California say that to legally drive in the state I must agree to abide by the rules. The state is not forcing me to drive anywhere.

[guerreiro9]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

So two people promising to commit to one another for the duration of their lives or in the case of some for eternity is not enough?

I don't know what this has to do with divorce unless you're saying that people should not engage in sex until they are confident they will never divorce?

Again it seems that we are in agreement except that you cannot define responsible while I can.

-guerreiro9

Edited August 14, 2014 by guerreiro9

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

You sure have an over simplistic view of what a marriage is. It is more than just a piece of paper. Part of the problem is that to many people these days don't get that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So two people promising to commit to one another for the duration of their lives or in the case of some for eternity is not enough?

I don't know what this has to do with divorce unless you're saying that people should not engage in sex until they are confident they will never divorce?

Again it seems that we are in agreement except that you cannot define responsible while I can.

-guerreiro9

It gets old when all some one can do is offer criticism of your position. Esp when you didn't even ask them for that. 

[USU78]

I wish people, even BYU attendees and graduates, would stop proclaiming that BYU rules are the rules of the Church. BYU rules, might reflect some aspects of Church Doctrine teachings, but the interpretation and "enforcement" of Church teachings at BYU are not binding on the general membership of the Church.

 

Testify!

[Danzo]

Unfortunately, I have to call BS on the article in question.

 

I wish journalist would do more fact checking in their articles.

I never, in my life have heard of someone being banned from attending church for any sin (other than actively disrupting meetings).

I have  known of plenty of fornicating people who attend church.

Never in a Disciplinary council that I have attended has someone been told not to attend church. 

Even excommunicated members and non members can attend church. 

 

There is plenty of room for discussion without being deceitful.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Danzo

[Garden Girl]

The article isn't the best. Do coeds at BYU violate the law of chastity and other teachings of the Church AND remain students at BYU even without the slightest clue on the part of the Priesthood leaders? Rather than going off on a rant about being a sexual liberated feminist, the author should have spent more time and energy discussing "how" the culture (the people of the Church) of the Church in the US attempt to teach good principles in damaging ways. (Used gum, wilted rose, etc) Unfortunately for the teachers of such ridiculousness and the students who hear it, such teachings are in opposition to the Atonement and the Doctrine of the Church. Any analogy about "Who would want you because you are now a "used" item", ignores the fundamental aspect of the Atonement: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."

 

I think, hope, the Church is not using this rhetoric anymore, but rather concentrating on the "why" for the Law of Chastity as outlined in Elder Jeffrey Holland's counsel in "Of Signs, Symbols, and Sacraments."  That made a huge difference in my view, having been raised on just "no, no, no." 

 

GG

[Calm]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

It may not have been able to solve it, but the likelihood of a temple sealed couple being divorced is much lower than most other nonmember marriages so they are doing something better than the surrounding culture.

Suggesting they dispense with their standards when the standards of the general society are leading to higher rates of divorce and less marriage doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

[Calm]

I think, hope, the Church is not using this rhetoric anymore, but rather concentrating on the "why" for the Law of Chastity as outlined in Elder Jeffrey Holland's counsel in "Of Signs, Symbols, and Sacraments."  That made a huge difference in my view, having been raised on just "no, no, no." 

 

GG

Unfortunately there will be church members who likely teach this along with other disavowed folklore because that is what they were taught and they either haven't notice that such are in disrepute, have been demonstrated to be false doctrine or don't care for some reaon.

But I do not see the higher church leadership as teaching this stuff and when we do hear it, I think there is plenty we can appeal to in order to prevent it from being passed onto another generation as much as possible.

[Hamba Tuhan]

[Guest]

This is an article posted by an alleged BYU student on how she wants to make so BYU can be a place where students are allowed to have sex.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/college/news/a29830/sex-ban-brigham-young-university/

As I read it, I found it entirely fascinating. I don't believe her story at all. The reason being is her alleged experience in the Church is so different from mine or anyone else I know. I can't imagine any of the many bishops I have had banning a young woman from even attending Church for a month for claiming that a return missionary sexually assaulted her. Nor do I believe that people, especially younger people in the Church are as judgmental as she seems to think they are. Most people in my generation and younger (under 30) couldn't care less if a person has had sex before or not. In fact, some guys may prefer that the girls they date aren't virgins.

Stories like these remind me of my sister, who having left the church, now tries to paint our leaders growing up as terrible people. I was there. I know them. So I just don't believe any of this.

Delete Edited August 16, 2014 by Pa Pa

[Raingirl]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

There will always be divorce as long as there are imperfect people. And as long as we have our agency.

[Kenngo1969]

All that without an emoticon.... good post though and I agree completely which in and of itself is strange.

Imagine that!  Perhaps the Millennium is closer than we think?

[Guest]

Something better than a piece of paper, that's for sure. I'll be more keen to listen to the church on matters of sex and marriage when it can solve the problem of divorce.

Could you expand on this, before I comment?