Is The Church Sexually Repressive?

[Senator]

They? Who are you referring to?

 

You know......

 

THEM!

[Erin15]

Just for the record, I've been in the church a very very long time and I've never once heard the chewed gum thing people keep bringing up.

In fact, this board is the only place I have ever heard mention of it, so I cannot help but wonder if it is not as widespread as the members of this board are making it out to be.

[Calm]

There are a lot of variations, I've encountered two different versions that i remember, once in Kansas, once in California.

Elizabeth Smart said she was taught the chewed gum version iirc in a salt lake county school.

[why me]

She's following a specific branch of feminism from what I could get called sex-positive feminism...and they're not known for being super in line with more traditional feminists (for lack of a better phrase). 

 

So though I do think the use of feminism and accepting whatever form of sex (that's consensual) as one and the same, as alienating and ridiculous, I don't think it shows an immaturity about feminism and what it is. She's just chosen a very specific off-shoot in feminist thought.

 

With luv,

BD

I don't believe that she is a sex positve feminist. However, she does see herself as a sexual being that should not have rules to obey in regards to her own sexuality. Also, sex positive feminism has very little support among other feminists because of its support of sex workers etc. I also think that we need to be aware that there seems to be a name for everything and usually this name sounds very academic. And so, we have sex positive feminism for those women who wish to be sexually free and sexually active and who may see porn as acts of women's liberation from male sponsored patriarchal confines.

 

But is it really a feminism but just a name to give license to a promiscuous lifestyle.

 

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it

[Erin15]

It's nothing new.

It's just hedonism.

It's been around since ancient times.

[BlueDreams]

I don't believe that she is a sex positve feminist. However, she does see herself as a sexual being that should not have rules to obey in regards to her own sexuality. Also, sex positive feminism has very little support among other feminists because of its support of sex workers etc. I also think that we need to be aware that there seems to be a name for everything and usually this name sounds very academic. And so, we have sex positive feminism for those women who wish to be sexually free and sexually active and who may see porn as acts of women's liberation from male sponsored patriarchal confines.

 

But is it really a feminism but just a name to give license to a promiscuous lifestyle.

 

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2014/03/sex-positive-feminism-doing-patriarchys-work-it

 

I didn't say I agreed with the ideas. Only that, according to her blog she ID's as being sex-positive (she used that exact phrase) and a feminist. So there ya have it. I think it is a feminism with some major flaws that inevitably devalue both male and female humanity by inadvertently objectifying them in many ways. But that wasn't much of my point in the first place. 

[Stargazer]

If that is your logic the only reason we can throw away the idea of chastity is because of condoms and birth-control pills? Interestingly Crowley himself was opposed to the idea of abortion.

 

 

A lot of fanciful words to try to convince people a word has the opposite of its actual meaning.

 

Crowley was a moral imbecile, a self-satisfied aristocratic egomaniac with delusions of spirituality and understanding. He sympathized with just about every revolting political philosophy of his day and hoped that the Soviets or the Nazis would accept Thelema. He was cruel, racist, and was uncaring about the pain he inflicted on others. His philosophy is inferior to that of the average child who has learned that hurting others is wrong.

My goodness. I am in complete agreement with you twice in one evening!!

[why me]

I didn't say I agreed with the ideas. Only that, according to her blog she ID's as being sex-positive (she used that exact phrase) and a feminist. So there ya have it. I think it is a feminism with some major flaws that inevitably devalue both male and female humanity by inadvertently objectifying them in many ways. But that wasn't much of my point in the first place. 

I believe that you are referring to this:

 

The truth is, I'm not a virgin. I'm a sexual woman and a proud feminist, and I don't feel bad about it. But it's hard to admit that, because women at BYU who aren't virgins are treated as inferiors and that's not fair.

 

No where is she claiming that she is a sex positive feminist which would imply much more. . Rather she is claiming to be a sexual woman and a proud feminist. But what kind of feminist she is is a mystery. My point was simple: she slams the modesty code. However the feminists from the 60s and especially in the 70s wanted women to be more modest dressers and to not fall victims of male objectification. Or they wanted women to be seen differently than sex objects which would support BYU.

 

She just wants to have sex because she is sexual and does not want any modesty and chasity codes to squash her sexuality. And yet, she is at BYU. Many religious colleges and universites do have moral codes. However notre dame did get into some trouble four years ago and many catholic scholars weighed in:

 

There is a lesson here for all Americans. Notre Dame fell into relativism and expediency because it rejected the Church as the authentic interpreter of the moral law. In this post-Christian era, American culture is following a similar path by reducing morality to the unguided consensus of individual choices. If no code of right and wrong has moral authority – not even the Ten Commandments – then society is ruled by the conflict of interests, and might makes right. The jurisprudence of such relativism is legal positivism in which no law can be criticized as unjust because no one can know what is “just.”

 

Rice shows why what happened to Notre Dame is symptomatic of what’s happening in other Catholic colleges, indeed in colleges with non-Catholic religious affiliations. He shows how the abandonment of principle at the college level spills over to the general culture, with devastating effect, as religious standards get pushed out of the public square. And, finally, he shows why people who have never seen the Golden Dome, never rooted for the Fighting Irish, and never graced a Catholic Church, also have a stake in what happened to Notre Dame.

 

http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/what-happened-to-notre-dame/

 

I do believe that the author of the cosmo article wants byu to separate itself from church teaching and become more relative in cultural and moral interpretations. However, do not men also have to be modest in dress? Can they walk around shirtless showing tan and muscle? Or can they wear muscle pants? I  would like to know if there is also a dress code for men.

 

Edited August 16, 2014 by why me

[halconero]

Just for the record, I've been in the church a very very long time and I've never once heard the chewed gum thing people keep bringing up.

In fact, this board is the only place I have ever heard mention of it, so I cannot help but wonder if it is not as widespread as the members of this board are making it out to be.

 

I got the rose petal one. That losing your virginity is like losing your rose petals, which can never be regained.

[Stargazer]

I got the rose petal one. That losing your virginity is like losing your rose petals, which can never be regained.

Is "losing your virginity" a negative? It depends. It is expected of both partners after a wedding, and then of course it is a glorious thing, something to be celebrated and enjoyed. In that case, you toss your rose petals happily into the air. You're just supposed to wait until the appropriate time, that's all.

And if you fail to wait, then has the world come to an end? No. You can repent and move on, and when you do, then you have now become a virtual virgin.

[BlueDreams]

 

I believe that you are referring to this:

 

The truth is, I'm not a virgin. I'm a sexual woman and a proud feminist, and I don't feel bad about it. But it's hard to admit that, because women at BYU who aren't virgins are treated as inferiors and that's not fair.

 

No where is she claiming that she is a sex positive feminist which would imply much more. . Rather she is claiming to be a sexual woman and a proud feminist. But what kind of feminist she is is a mystery. My point was simple: she slams the modesty code. However the feminists from the 60s and especially in the 70s wanted women to be more modest dressers and to not fall victims of male objectification. Or they wanted women to be seen differently than sex objects which would support BYU.

  No, I'm talking about her blog, not Cosmo. A blog that I won't directly link to for reasons mentioned in a previous post. In it she was very blunt about her views on this matter. But if you need the direct quote here it is:

 

However, despite all this, I remain sex positive.

What does sex positive mean, you ask? Well, let me tell you. Sex positivity is the idea that men and women alike should have the right to express themselves sexually without being judged. Sex positive as it relates to feminism focuses on the idea that sexual freedom is essential in the fight for equality and women's freedom. In our society, men are often allowed, and even encouraged, to act upon their sexual urges with no fear of retribution or consequence because they have been taught since infant-hood that sexual desires are an innate part of being a boy. But with women, from the time we are young girls, we are told that our sexuality should not be talked about and should be kept secret, as if it were something to be ashamed of.

 

And for those who want a little philosophy of men mingled with scripture (I remember someone saying that), here ya go

Morality is an individual idea. It is a code either a culture or you yourself decide is ethical and acceptable. There is not one right or wrong way to morally govern your life. All you have to do is travel to a different country to see how different someone's morality can be simply because they grew up in a different culture. For this reason, I do not believe it is right for anyone to judge another person's actions. I mean, this is pretty cut and dry, people. Even Jesus taught that. You don't have to agree with others' lifestyles; but you don't have the right to look down on them for their decisions

 

You want the post just google her name, lds, and "sex-positive" and it'll be on the first page. But I prefer not to link to it because some of her posts are explicit and describing abuse (this one isn't).

 

She just wants to have sex because she is sexual and does not want any modesty and chasity codes to squash her sexuality. And yet, she is at BYU.

 

I won't say I know her motives entirely. I personally don't think that's entirely it. I think it also has to do with reactivity to her own past traumas and problem with sex. But I won't pretend to know.

 

I do believe that the author of the cosmo article wants byu to separate itself from church teaching and become more relative in cultural and moral interpretations. However, do not men also have to be modest in dress? Can they walk around shirtless showing tan and muscle? Or can they wear muscle pants? I  would like to know if there is also a dress code for men.

 

I believe the author (who isn't exactly byer's but another lady named Ruiz) probably just wanted a cool controversial buzz story to sell.

 

And yes there's a dress code for men at BYU. But culturally how it is maintained differs. While guys may have to shave before taking a test or get rankled by a professor. There have been incidents where girls get things like modesty notes where some guy finds it necessary to tell them that their outfit is making them think impure thoughts (outfits that are often not even against the honor code). So in code it's about the same and maybe a little more strict for guys. In practice it can be a means for shaming girls because culturally, we've consistently focused more on women's modesty than men. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Is "losing your virginity" a negative? It depends. It is expected of both partners after a wedding, and then of course it is a glorious thing, something to be celebrated and enjoyed. In that case, you toss your rose petals happily into the air. You're just supposed to wait until the appropriate time, that's all.

And if you fail to wait, then has the world come to an end? No. You can repent and move on, and when you do, then you have now become a virtual virgin.

 

Great in theory, but often falls way short in practice. Messages that both genders get about sex growing up can severely hinder their view about sex and sexuality. Even telling that sex is good - nay - sacred....can be limiting to their view. Not because it isn't either, but because what happens in sex remains a mystery, their bodies are left largely off limits and unknown to them, and complications/actions surrounding it are completely left, at best, with ambiguous terms for what not to do before marriage. Thus you get the good girl syndrome. Or men being overly anxious about their sexual urges. Or a number of other unhealthy views that I've found in both men or women as I've started out with therapy (aggrandizing one's porn use due to shame, heavy gender stereotypes about male/female sexual desires, incapability to talk about sex with one's partners, lack of information about sex before marriage, etc.)

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited August 16, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Erin15]

And if you fail to wait, then has the world come to an end? No. You can repent and move on, and when you do, then you have now become a virtual virgin.

I have had much experience with people in that situation, and it is not as simple as you make it sound.

Yes, you can be forgiven, but the spiritual scars remain.

People who were unchaste before marriage often suffer from a reduced ability to pair-bond and enjoy physical intimacy far less with their spouse than those who waited. People who engage in habitual casual sex often lose their ability to form trusting relationships all together.

In fact, I have noticed that they suffer from nearly identical symptoms as people who have been abused, although usually less severe.

[BlueDreams]

I have had much experience with people in that situation, and it is not as simple as you make it sound.

Yes, you can be forgiven, but the spiritual scars remain.

People who were unchaste before marriage often suffer from a reduced ability to pair-bond and enjoy physical intimacy far less with their spouse than those who waited. People who engage in habitual casual sex often lose their ability to form trusting relationships all together.

In fact, I have noticed that they suffer from nearly identical symptoms as people who have been abused, although usually less severe.

 

.....

No, just....no. On about 8 different levels. People's problems are literally my career choice/education (Marriage and Family Therapist). This has so many problems with it that I wouldn't even know where to start. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Guest]

The American legal system is filled with better commandments than the Almighty.

So you have more faith than the Church?

[Stargazer]

I have had much experience with people in that situation, and it is not as simple as you make it sound.

Yes, you can be forgiven, but the spiritual scars remain.

People who were unchaste before marriage often suffer from a reduced ability to pair-bond and enjoy physical intimacy far less with their spouse than those who waited. People who engage in habitual casual sex often lose their ability to form trusting relationships all together.

In fact, I have noticed that they suffer from nearly identical symptoms as people who have been abused, although usually less severe.

I know it is not as simple as I make it out to be, but that is not because the Atonement and forgiveness is complicated. It is as you say, residuals that haunt us. Unnecessarily, in most cases.

I am not without personal experience in the matter, Erin. But I've forgiven myself for most of my past peccadilloes - too many people for some reason find this hard to do. And it may be because too much emphasis is laid upon it, as can be found in Elder Kimballs' book The Miracle of Forgiveness.

Everyone's different. Some are just more different than others.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Stargazer

[Guest]

Did they get rid of the law of chastity when I wasn't looking? If so, then congratulations on the new sex-positive Mormonism. Though I'm somewhere on the asexuality spectrum, sex-positivity is something that I embrace as a matter of principal.

So are you suggesting the Church do away with any standards concerning sex outside of marriage?

[strappinglad]

People's problems are literally my career choice/education (Marriage and Family Therapist).

I learned a lot about teaching in my Ed classes.... then I taught school.

[BlueDreams]

I learned a lot about teaching in my Ed classes.... then I taught school.

 

 

Haha, so true. The cool thing about the program is that you're doing therapy for clients as you are learning, so it's very hands on, experiential oriented learning and I love it.    

[VideoGameJunkie]

I know someone who was temple endowed RM who had pre marital sex and he felt wicked bad and guilty and unclean because he made covenants in the temple claiming he would wait until marriage, but gave into temptation. He confessed his sexual sins to the Bishop, and has repented like crazy and feels super saddened. Can this man truly be forgiven and still receive all the blessings of the afterlife? I think he can because of how sincere he is to repent and how sorry and shamed he is.

[Calm]

The atonement will work, but we have to let it and that includes laying our guilt and shame at Christ's feet.

Edited August 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[VideoGameJunkie]

How do you lay your guilt and shame at Christ's feet?

[katherine the great]

Can this man truly be forgiven and still receive all the blessings of the afterlife? I think he can because of how sincere he is to repent and how sorry and shamed he is.

Of course he can. At some point though we need to put our faith in Christ's atonement and forgive ourselves. Wallowing in guilt holds us back from continuing to progress.

[Tsuzuki]

So are you suggesting the Church do away with any standards concerning sex outside of marriage?

Not necessarily. It could make them optional, like the Word of Wisdom originally was. You want to swear an oath of chastity? Awesome. But you shouldn't be pressured to just to participate in the religion.

[Stargazer]

Haha, so true. The cool thing about the program is that you're doing therapy for clients as you are learning, so it's very hands on, experiential oriented learning and I love it.

One of my sons and his wife are in definite need of marital counseling. Is the doctor In?