Narratives Re: Regrets on Promiscuity

Calm · September 2, 2022

1 hour ago, DT_ said:

Why do some couples go to therapy after years of marriage?

We did because of new circumstances added stress to our relationship and we needed new ways to process the change and to cope.

smac97 · September 3, 2022

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

Quote

A variety of reasons. Why do you ask?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove in the opening post.

Well, a few things:

First, that the Law of Chastity sure seems to be coming across as the superior alternative to the licentiousness inherent in the nearly-anything-goes/if-it-feels-good-do-it system of ethics brought about by the Sexual Revolution. As Joseph Smith so aptly put it: "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." The merits of the Law of Chastity are being made manifest by the moral black hole at the center of the Sexual Revolution.

Second, the articles I cited and quoted in the OP, have, in a very roundabout way, validated the basic premise of the Law of Chastity of connecting (or re-connecting) sex to marriage.

3 hours ago, DT_ said:

Would you agree there are married couples who lose interest in sex?

Yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · September 3, 2022

3 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

The main focus should be on WHY physical sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage between a husband and wife. Practicing or experimenting sexually should not be desired and is not required before marriage BECAUSE... any act of sharing one's body sexually with someone else is or at least should be considered such a personally emotional experience for the one who is sharing his or her own body that nobody but a spouse should be allowed to experience that. The "sex" stuff is not for or at least should not be for random dating partners who are only curious to find out what the "sex" stuff feels like. It is only for or at least should be only for nobody else but a spouse, someone who is willing to commit forever to loving and nurturing the other as much as being loved by a spouse.

That is the point that should be made perfectly clear, and then nobody needs to add those list of do's and don't because everyone would understand why there is none of that or at least should be none of that going on before marriage.

Very good insights! Thank you for sharing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Scott Lloyd · September 5, 2022

On 9/2/2022 at 5:34 PM, Jim Dandy said:

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.
...
Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.
...
Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

The main focus should be on WHY physical sexual intimacy should be reserved for marriage between a husband and wife. Practicing or experimenting sexually should not be desired and is not required before marriage BECAUSE... any act of sharing one's body sexually with someone else is or at least should be considered such a personally emotional experience for the one who is sharing his or her own body that nobody but a spouse should be allowed to experience that. The "sex" stuff is not for or at least should not be for random dating partners who are only curious to find out what the "sex" stuff feels like. It is only for or at least should be only for nobody else but a spouse, someone who is willing to commit forever to loving and nurturing the other as much as being loved by a spouse.

That is the point that should be made perfectly clear, and then nobody needs to add those list of do's and don't because everyone would understand why there is none of that or at least should be none of that going on before marriage.

Virtual up vote.

Calm · September 6, 2022

Smac, I am wondering if you are planning on responding to Bluedreams’ response here https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74744-narratives-re-regrets-on-promiscuity/?do=findComment&comment=1210111776 or if you missed it or something. I am very interested in this conversation as it is an important topic, imo.

The Nehor · September 6, 2022

On 9/2/2022 at 9:45 PM, smac97 said:

First, that the Law of Chastity sure seems to be coming across as the superior alternative to the licentiousness inherent in the nearly-anything-goes/if-it-feels-good-do-it system of ethics brought about by the Sexual Revolution.

I am more undecided. Licentiousness is a lot of fun.

smac97 · September 6, 2022

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

Quote

Quote

The basic principles I've never had a major problem. Fidelity in marriage is generally good advice. But I would strongly rearrange how it's taught and the emphases given. For example. I'm not fond on vague language like "sexual behavior." It has this weird tendency to unnecessarily splits certain things as non-sexual v sexual, when really anything from attraction, holding hands, cuddling, kissing, and more are forms of sexual behavior.

I wonder how this would play out, how we would go about shifting from vagaries like "sexual behavior" to more specific descriptions of behaviors/actions. Consider, for example, the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet:

In what ways do you think the foregoing could be improved (that is, in formal instruction in a church setting, as I think parents could be more candid)?

honestly, I’d probably do a major rewrite of the parts you quoted to give an idea how massive: in bold are the parts I’d generally keep bold and underlined are parts I’d keep with changes:

Quote

Physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the expression of love between husband and wife and for the creation of children. God has commanded that sex be reserved for marriage.
...
Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can guide your sexuality into healthy contexts. The Spirit of the Lord will teach you when there are sexual attitudes or behaviors that need to change. It can guide you as you work to live in better alignment with Christ-like principles while developing sexually in your teens and young adult years.
...
Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to guide you from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents, trusted loved ones, and leaders.

Using “specific” was not my best moments of word choice.

It looks like you did not use that word. I did. You said: "I'm not fond on vague language like 'sexual behavior'" which precipitated my comment about "shifting from vagaries like 'sexual behavior' to more specific descriptions of behaviors/actions."

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

I mean clearer principles using correct wording to help others guide themselves. I’m not interested in a large specific do/mostly-don’t list like found in the FTSY.

I like the idea of "clearer principles" in the abstract, but I wonder how you get "clearer" without devolving to more "specific do/mostly-don't list{s}." Again, from FTSY:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

This seems like a combination of "broad" ("{n}ever do anything that could lead to sexual transgression") and "clearer" ("do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body").

I wonder if metaphors could be utilized here to strike a balance. For example, I have liked this one:

Quote

Elder Spencer W. Kimball in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness told this story about three men applying for the job of driving buses for a transportation company. The first one said he was such a good driver that he could drive steep mountain roads with the tire at the edge of the precipice and never go off.

The second driver boasted that he could drive so accurately that half the tire could be over the edge and the bus would not leave the road.

The third driver pleased the employer and was awarded the job when he said, “Well, sir, I can keep just as far away from the edge as possible” (pp. 217–18).

However, I don't think this works well relative to the Law of Chastity because it reinforces a fundamentally flawed premise. After marriage, we are supposed to go over the precipice/edge. What was previously dangerous and reckless becomes, after marriage, normal and acceptable. The metaphor substantially fails because there are no circumstances in which a driver should try to get as close to "the edge of the precipice." The "third driver" is praised for the wisdom in "keep{ing} just as far away from the edge as possible."

This is, I think, where may Latter-day Saints are erring in their characterization of sexuality. We say, metaphorically, to stay absolutely as far away from the "precipice" as possible before marriage, but after marriage going over the edge is just fine. We characterize sex as dangerous, verboten, even dirty (the "licked cupcake" and "chewed gum" comparisons), only to then turn on a dime and say that after marriage, sex is "beautiful and sacred" and is "ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. ... Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

I would also likely give diferent advice for different age groups. This often gets lumped as for anyone 11 to married. Meaning an 11 year old is getting the same basic advice that a 20-something would as would those in their 30’s, 50’s, or 80’s if single. That makes no sense to me. The italicized are the parts I find the most problematic. The first is a really hard standard to follow.

Could you elaborate here? In broad terms, the italicized portions of the FTSY pamphlet are problematic for "those in their 30’s, 50’s, or 80’s if single" in what ways?

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

For me pre-marriage there was litterally nothing that could tempt me enough to have sex. I’m not saying this to brag, I just had really strong deterrents from my childhood and family history that made sex outside of marriage super unappealing. It didn’t matter what I did, I had some hard no’s in my 20’s with most of my dating that were impossible to budge.

I can appreciate that. It seems like plenty of Latter-day Saints have moral bulwarks which can be undermined or weakened. Rationalization and justification. Incremental movements and experimentations.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

(Note, my no’s were still more flexible than what’s mentioned after this as things not to do…they also changed a little as I aged and became aware of what i was comfortable with that did’t lead to some caution from god). So this advice q felt pretty irrelevant to me. I know others that really struggle with “sexual temptations.” Just about anything had them struggling with maintaining boundaries around their sexual behaviors to match up with their personal beliefs and relational desires. This usually tied to different concerns that they needed to help address in their lives. Because they were hyper focused on not transgressing they would miss on really exploring and working on why they were struggling to better manage themselves. So for them this also didn’t really help.

This is a very good insight. I am wondering if this is an aspect that is too individualized and specific to the person's circumstances to be addressed in a broad way like what is addressed in FTSY.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

The second part is too broad. “Sexual feelings” can mean just about anything and can happen at any point. They’re healthy and good and should be happening pre-marriage to some degree. What happens with this wording is that people will leave their sexual development a little hobbled. Some can go so far as to completely turn off their sexuality and desires. They are the ones most likely to struggle with arousal, desire, describing what they want, anxiety and/or guilt etc when married. It takes quite a bit to dismantle this. Some, it may take years.

This is a really good point. I will add my own two bits:

Bit #1: I think the leaders of the Church are trying to discourage deliberate and overt effort "that arouses sexual feelings." Looking at porn, situational circumstances conducive to misconduct, etc.

Bit #2: The generalized counsel could go further in acknowledging how fun and enjoyable sex is, and then pair that acknowledgment with counsel about it being powerful and important, and thus needing to be constrained within parameters. See, e.g., here:

Quote

Our appetites and passions are like a spirited, powerful horse. If they are allowed to run wild, unharnessed and unbroken, they will take us where they please. They may take us to dangerous and harmful places. But we would not destroy a fine horse just because it is high-spirited. When bridled so that we become master, the horse can serve us well. Likewise, when we become master over our desires and feelings, we learn to redirect them within the bounds of the gospel. These feelings then become our servants. They can increase our ability to feel joy and love.

And here:

Quote

Elder Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught that “the gift of the Holy Spirit … quickens all the intellectual faculties, increases, enlarges, expands and purifies all the natural passions and affections; and adapts them, by the gift of wisdom, to their lawful use.” Passions are not inherently evil. Passions in righteous people can be a vehicle to create great goodness.

The message of the gospel, then, is that we don’t have to surrender to our weaknesses and the yearnings of the flesh. The good news of the gospel is that through the Atonement of our Savior and the appropriate use of agency we can experience a fundamental change in our nature.

And here:

Quote

The choice is given, whether we live in the physical world as animals, or whether we use what earth offers us as a means of living in the spiritual world that will lead us back into the presence of God.

This means specifically:

Whether we choose selfishness or whether we will deny ourselves for the good of others;

Whether we will cherish indulgence of appetite [and] passion, or whether we will develop restraint and self-control.

Whether we choose licentiousness or chastity;

Whether we will encourage hate or develop love;

Whether [we] practice cruelty or kindness;

Whether [we] be cynical or sanguine—hopeful;

Whether we be traitorous—disloyal to those who love us, to our country, to the Church or to God—or whether we will be loyal;

Whether we be deceitful, or honest, our word our bond;

Whether [we have] a slanderous or a controlled tongue.¹⁰

Whether a man remains satisfied within what we designate the animal world, satisfied with what the animal world will give him, yielding without effort to the whim of his appetites and passions and slipping farther and farther into the realm of indulgence, or whether, through self-mastery, he rises toward intellectual, moral, and spiritual enjoyments depends upon the kind of choice he makes every day, nay, every hour of his life.

And here:

Quote

In the building of character as in the transforming of a landscape, the laws of peace and of happiness are ever operative. Effort, self-denial, and purposeful action are the stepping-stones of progress. Indulgence and sin are vandals and destroyers of character. Only regret and remorse follow in their wake.

Self-control means the government and regulation of all our natural appetites, desires, passions, and affections; and there is nothing that gives a man such strength of character as the sense of self-conquest, the realization that he can make his appetites and passions serve him and that he is not a servant to them. This virtue includes temperance, abstinence, bravery, fortitude, hopefulness, sobriety, chastity, independence, tolerance, patience, submission, continence, purity.

These are good, but they seem to essentially conflate self-mastery with self-denial.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

My personal model when I’m teaching this is what I call the “good better best model (and sometimes bad)” to better understand the parameters around sexual interactions. The best follow basic principles of matching commitment level to sex. It also includes principles of patience, honesty, communion, loyalty/fidelity etc to relational experiences. It’s fostering understanding of one’s body and others in healthy, balanced ways. It includes seeking out both consent and mutual desire from one’s partner. Better and good categories take parts of this but may not incorporate the whole package. Bad are things that are harmful to oneself or others. Non-consensual touch of any sort for example. All can move into healthier categories through growth, healing, better understanding, etc.

This is where your training and expertise come in. You can address these things on an individual level, and that is wonderful. But can these things be addressed in macro, Church-wide way?

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

This is definitely apart of those “cultural boundaries” I was thinking of. They can range, honestly. With shame, they can include fear oriented statements (like excessive focus on “consequences”), it can be hyper focus on specific actions rather than guiding principles that the individual can decide what’s best for them based on it.

I wonder if broad principles could be gleaned from teaching methodologies used in firearm instruction. It seems the overarching emphasis is on safe and prudent behaviors and habits that, if followed, will facilitate an enjoyable experience with shooting. Such instruction also emphasizes safety, both for the shooter and others, and also due care and consideration given to the risks inherent in working with firearms.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

It can be weird things, like the weird practice of checking parked cars at Byu properties after a certain hour in parking lots, that encourage monitoring other people rather than helping others learn to know and monitor themselves. It can be our squeamishness to talk using proper terminology and not educating you about their changes. It’s many of our beliefs around masturbation and demonizing certain sexual acts. Its poor interpretations of Alma talking to his son corianton that shame people into believing when they’re struggling with some aspect around sex (usually porn, fyi) they’re now committing the sun second only to murder and denying God. All of these are cultural interpretations or beliefs that just aren’t helpful.

I've long wondered about the sin of Corianton. Sexual transgression was part of it, but not the whole. From Alma 39:

Quote

1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee?
2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom.
3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.
4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.
5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?
6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.
7 And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good.
...
11 Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.

I think the predominating aspect of Corianton's misconduct was his hypocrisy, and the effect it had on the Zoramites. They saw him as someone representing and bringing a message from God, and then rejected that message due to the hypocritical behavior of the messenger. Corianton undermined their faith, or their ability to develop faith. The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted and undermined that message through his hypocrisy.

I wonder if the error here has been to skip over this and draw a one-to-one correlation between sexual transgression and the "abomination" language in verse 5. Corianton betrayed and undermined "the ministry wherewith {he} was entrusted," with the result being his bringing "great iniquity {} upon the Zoramites. Sexual transgression, though very serious, was how he committed the "crime."

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

I’ve mentioned my probs with the FTSY. But, yes, we’ll meaning bishops can go even further. I had one who is the reason I decided to start asking my YSA wards if I could give lessons on sex and chastity in some way. He literally used the analogy of a bomb drawn on a white board to describe sex. Sex was the bomb and rando sexual behaviors of were the fuse. The counselor’s wife then told us the cringey story of knowing that her daughter hadn’t done more than a quick peck before she was married and that she was so pure when she entered into the temple.

Yes, I can see how these examples could be angst-inducing.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

yes, the easiest is giving people access to age appropriate information about their bodies and about sexuality. It would also be encouraging understanding and balance of one’s sexuality with your values. Learning to talk to God and introspect as to how one’s doing with this. Learning to communicate more realistically about sex. Not as shameful or sacred but moreso something neutral that our decisions and attitudes around create it’s meaning.

Good stuff, this. I just wonder how it can be distilled and distributed. Your individual clients benefit from your one-on-one therapeutic advice, but scaling that out to a Church-wide audience seems pretty tricky. Therapists, after all, could be just as prone to going "beyond the mark" as the above-bishop (comparing sex to a bomb) or the counselor's wife (implying anything other than "a quick peck" prior to marriage is not "pure").

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

i should note I know this is a lot. I’m not expecting rapid shifts. Rather these things are the direction I hope we move toward. I’ve given presentations to wards and groups around topics of sex several times. Many i asked to do. In my YSA’s this entailed carefully getting leaders on board.

Yep. I think an adversarial approach doesn't work.

On 8/24/2022 at 3:46 PM, BlueDreams said:

More than once I was talking to entire ward councils. It’s entailed limiting words and phrases or my personal opinions (like some things around masturbation and most sex acts being neutral) for other parts to still come in. Each time it’s been met extremely well in the end. Though my ideals entail a big shift, my practice in how I present this does not.

Any ideas on how this sort of thing could be scaled up? You are a valuable, but scarce, resource.

Thanks for your thoughts.

-Smac

DT_ · September 6, 2022

On 9/2/2022 at 8:45 PM, smac97 said:

Second, the articles I cited and quoted in the OP, have, in a very roundabout way, validated the basic premise of the Law of Chastity of connecting (or re-connecting) sex to marriage.

A lot of people are getting married after 30. What do Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development and Belsky's risk model predict about people who wait after 30? Haase, Schmidt, and Ludke use Belsky's risk model to explain why some adults have poorer social relations.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-19737-004

https://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/erik/stage6.html

On 9/2/2022 at 8:45 PM, smac97 said:

First, that the Law of Chastity sure seems to be coming across as the superior alternative to the licentiousness inherent in the nearly-anything-goes/if-it-feels-good-do-it system of ethics brought about by the Sexual Revolution. As Joseph Smith so aptly put it: "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." The merits of the Law of Chastity are being made manifest by the moral black hole at the center of the Sexual Revolution.

I don't think evolutionary psychology predicts promiscuity. Most women are not promiscuous, so there's no need to panic.

Edited September 6, 2022 by DT_

DT_ · September 6, 2022

I changed the link.

Edited September 6, 2022 by DT_

DT_ · September 6, 2022

On 9/2/2022 at 8:45 PM, smac97 said:

Second, the articles I cited and quoted in the OP, have, in a very roundabout way, validated the basic premise of the Law of Chastity of connecting (or re-connecting) sex to marriage.

Would you agree Erikson's Stages and Belsky's risk model predict a lower subjective well-being for people who wait after age 30?

MrShorty · September 6, 2022

Obviously, I cannot speak for @BlueDreams, but I will inject my opinion.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I like the idea of "clearer principles" in the abstract, but I wonder how you get "clearer" without devolving to more "specific do/mostly-don't list{s}."

I'm not sure that devolving into do/don't lists is necessary. Sometimes when I think about this problem, I feel like the main problem is trying to understand the basic, underlying principles that form the basis of the law of chastity (or maybe I'm the only one that really doesn't understand them). In the spirit of "teach them correct principles then let them govern themselves," I would be inclined to better articulate the basic principles of the law of chastity.

We often might start by "defining" chastity. Outside of the temple, we usually define it as some form of "abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage." [CHI 38.6.5] From there we usually find ourselves seeking do/don't lists as we try to decide exactly what behaviors/feelings/experiences we are abstaining from and what behaviors/feelings/experiences constitute fidelity/infidelity. I recall an interesting infographic many years ago showing the results of a survey of college students where they were given a list of a dozen or so behaviors (from "passionate kissing" to various penetrative sex acts with or without orgasm) and asked to state which of these activities constituted "having sex". Interestingly, there wasn't a clear demarcation, in the aggregate, between activities that these students considered "having sex" and "not having sex". In a completely different context, I recall a sex therapist talking about older couples when "standard" sex acts become more difficult or unreliable who talked about finding sexual pleasure in some of these other activities (like passionate kissing). If "passionate kissing" is a sexual activity, we don't exactly condemn it when engaged by our dating singles. However, we would condemn it if engaged in by a married person who is kissing someone not their spouse. Clearly, this doesn't really get into the underlying principles that help us understand abstinence/fidelity and what they mean and why these are important.

Sometimes we move into "purposes" of sexuality. I usually see two purposes given [see same CHI section] -- Procreation and strengthening marriage. Occasionally I see a third purpose -- building self-control/self-mastery.

I think a lot of our sexual ethic is driven by procreation. We strongly believe that children do best (sometimes entitled) when born and raised in a stable, loving, two (opposite sex) parent family. I feel like a lot of our sexual ethic is driven towards making sure children are not conceived and born outside of marriage. But procreation by itself seems insufficient to explain our views on many solo sexual activities, or heterosexual activities that do not involve any chance of germ cells finding each other, or homosexual activities, as these have nothing to do with procreation. Sometimes we talk about self-control, but it seems to me that we always talk about self-control in terms of abstinence rather than in terms of what we are supposed to be learning to control.

I have seen some (including apostles -- if memory serves Elder Renlund used this, and Elder Bednar said something in his 2013 GC talk) say that the foundational principles come from our understanding of the plan of salvation. Whenever I have encountered these claims, I have found them interesting and somewhat instructive, but rarely comprehensive enough to fully explain our sexual ethic.

I have sometimes felt like "temperance" (meaning reduce/minimize/moderate pleasurable experiences) is a driving principle. Under this, we convince ourselves that God wants us to limit or moderate sexual pleasure because they are too strong. Insert reference to Kellogg and why he came up with Corn Flakes.

I don't have the knowledge or understanding to do it (if it isn't obvious from above), but that's where I would go. I don't think do/don't lists are helpful or necessary. If we could really get to the underlying principles behind our sexual morals, we would be better able to govern ourselves (independent of age or stage of life). For now, all attempts I have found to explain underlying principles have been superficial, inaccurate, or otherwise unsatisfying.

JustAnAustralian · September 7, 2022

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a really good point. I will add my own two bits:

Bit #1: I think the leaders of the Church are trying to discourage deliberate and overt effort "that arouses sexual feelings." Looking at porn, situational circumstances conducive to misconduct, etc.

Bit #2: The generalized counsel could go further in acknowledging how fun and enjoyable sex is, and then pair that acknowledgment with counsel about it being powerful and important, and thus needing to be constrained within parameters

I agree. At least the current strength of youth booklet differentiates between sexual transgression (fornication & adultery) and things that can lead to it. (Which also ties in with the temple covenant definition of the law of chastity, and the various acts that don't, may, or must result in a membership council).

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the predominating aspect of Corianton's misconduct was his hypocrisy, and the effect it had on the Zoramites. They saw him as someone representing and bringing a message from God, and then rejected that message due to the hypocritical behavior of the messenger. Corianton undermined their faith, or their ability to develop faith. The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted and undermined that message through his hypocrisy.

I wonder if the error here has been to skip over this and draw a one-to-one correlation between sexual transgression and the "abomination" language in verse 5. Corianton betrayed and undermined "the ministry wherewith {he} was entrusted," with the result being his bringing "great iniquity {} upon the Zoramites. Sexual transgression, though very serious, was how he committed the "crime."

I've read it a similar way to you for a while. It specifically said "these things" not "this thing". So like you said, it covers both abandoning his ministry, and cavorting with the harlot. And the advice? Stop doing it and get your butt back on your mission. He was leading them away from the gospel, essentially spiritually killing them. Perhaps that's why the next focus was on denying the Holy Ghost.

JustAnAustralian · September 7, 2022

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

I recall an interesting infographic many years ago showing the results of a survey of college students where they were given a list of a dozen or so behaviors (from "passionate kissing" to various penetrative sex acts with or without orgasm) and asked to state which of these activities constituted "having sex". Interestingly, there wasn't a clear demarcation, in the aggregate, between activities that these students considered "having sex" and "not having sex".

Those of us who are old enough to remember or care about Bill Clinton's trial, might remember that it included trying to define sexual relations too.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

Quote

The original definition had three subparts. Judge Wright, who was presiding at the deposition, ruled that only the first subpart applied, leaving the definition as follows: For the purposes of this definition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes... [1] contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.... "Contact" means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing. (real page 947, pdf page 22)

The document also mentions what I assume is the study source for the infographic you saw

Quote

Some evidence of the uncertainties inherent in this phrase comes from a study by two researchers, Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch, who surveyed around 600 undergraduate college students to determine their usage of the phrase to "have sex" with someone." The researchers asked their subjects whether it would be accurate to say they "had sex" with someone under a number of different conditions.3 " One of the conditions was that the person had engaged in "deep kissing (French or tongue kissing)" with someone else.39 Only 2% of the respondents would say that they "had sex" under those circumstances.4O If the condition was that the other person "had oral (mouth) contact with your genitals," slightly over forty percent of the subjects would say that they "had sex" with that person.41 Nor surprisingly, in the case of penile/vaginal intercourse, virtually all the respondents (99.5%) would say they "had sex" with their partner. 2

The Nehor · September 7, 2022

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Those of us who are old enough to remember or care about Bill Clinton's trial, might remember that it included trying to define sexual relations too.

Those were simpler times. So quaint and naive.

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I've read it a similar way to you for a while. It specifically said "these things" not "this thing". So like you said, it covers both abandoning his ministry, and cavorting with the harlot. And the advice? Stop doing it and get your butt back on your mission. He was leading them away from the gospel, essentially spiritually killing them. Perhaps that's why the next focus was on denying the Holy Ghost.

Nibley theorized it was some kind of fertility cult. Otherwise why did Corianton have to travel off to another area to find a prostitute and how many prostitutes are individually well-known? Now a fertility priestess running orgies or whatever? That makes sense and also would do a lot more damage to the ministry. It would also explain why his sin was so well known that it caused such a major scandal. Most meetings with prostitutes are not public.

Meadowchik · September 7, 2022

There's so much a person cannot know about sex and about such experiences with another person that I can't in good conscience recommend making a lifelong commitment that includes it, without experiencing it first. I think people benefit from an understanding of their own relationship with sex and that relationships benefit from such mutual understanding too.

Also I think LDS young people do rush into marriage with the motivation to be able to engage in activities the law of chastity prohibits outside marriage. I think they even do this on an unconscious level because that biological drive can be so strong.

Taking the edge off of the initial overall mystery, and developing wisdom about such experiences, can help people make better decisions about their long term commitments.

Promiscuity isn't the only alternative to the LDS definition of chastity. And being sexually active before marriage can be done within the boundaries of circumspect moral choices.

Rain · September 7, 2022

19 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Obviously, I cannot speak for @BlueDreams, but I will inject my opinion.

I'm not sure that devolving into do/don't lists is necessary. Sometimes when I think about this problem, I feel like the main problem is trying to understand the basic, underlying principles that form the basis of the law of chastity (or maybe I'm the only one that really doesn't understand them). In the spirit of "teach them correct principles then let them govern themselves," I would be inclined to better articulate the basic principles of the law of chastity.

We often might start by "defining" chastity. Outside of the temple, we usually define it as some form of "abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage." [CHI 38.6.5] From there we usually find ourselves seeking do/don't lists as we try to decide exactly what behaviors/feelings/experiences we are abstaining from and what behaviors/feelings/experiences constitute fidelity/infidelity. I recall an interesting infographic many years ago showing the results of a survey of college students where they were given a list of a dozen or so behaviors (from "passionate kissing" to various penetrative sex acts with or without orgasm) and asked to state which of these activities constituted "having sex". Interestingly, there wasn't a clear demarcation, in the aggregate, between activities that these students considered "having sex" and "not having sex". In a completely different context, I recall a sex therapist talking about older couples when "standard" sex acts become more difficult or unreliable who talked about finding sexual pleasure in some of these other activities (like passionate kissing). If "passionate kissing" is a sexual activity, we don't exactly condemn it when engaged by our dating singles. However, we would condemn it if engaged in by a married person who is kissing someone not their spouse. Clearly, this doesn't really get into the underlying principles that help us understand abstinence/fidelity and what they mean and why these are important.

Sometimes we move into "purposes" of sexuality. I usually see two purposes given [see same CHI section] -- Procreation and strengthening marriage. Occasionally I see a third purpose -- building self-control/self-mastery.

I think a lot of our sexual ethic is driven by procreation. We strongly believe that children do best (sometimes entitled) when born and raised in a stable, loving, two (opposite sex) parent family. I feel like a lot of our sexual ethic is driven towards making sure children are not conceived and born outside of marriage. But procreation by itself seems insufficient to explain our views on many solo sexual activities, or heterosexual activities that do not involve any chance of germ cells finding each other, or homosexual activities, as these have nothing to do with procreation. Sometimes we talk about self-control, but it seems to me that we always talk about self-control in terms of abstinence rather than in terms of what we are supposed to be learning to control.

I have seen some (including apostles -- if memory serves Elder Renlund used this, and Elder Bednar said something in his 2013 GC talk) say that the foundational principles come from our understanding of the plan of salvation. Whenever I have encountered these claims, I have found them interesting and somewhat instructive, but rarely comprehensive enough to fully explain our sexual ethic.

I have sometimes felt like "temperance" (meaning reduce/minimize/moderate pleasurable experiences) is a driving principle. Under this, we convince ourselves that God wants us to limit or moderate sexual pleasure because they are too strong. Insert reference to Kellogg and why he came up with Corn Flakes.

I don't have the knowledge or understanding to do it (if it isn't obvious from above), but that's where I would go. I don't think do/don't lists are helpful or necessary. If we could really get to the underlying principles behind our sexual morals, we would be better able to govern ourselves (independent of age or stage of life). For now, all attempts I have found to explain underlying principles have been superficial, inaccurate, or otherwise unsatisfying.

I've noticed that lessons and talks on keeping the sabbath holy have stopped giving lists (applications) and started talking about the principles. I wonder if comparing them would help any.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Rain

MrShorty · September 7, 2022

@Rain Comparing to Sabbath lessons could be interesting. One contrast that immediately comes to mind is that I don't think we are prepared to allow each other the same liberty to decide right/wrong for ourselves. For Sabbath observance, one family might decide that hiking is a good Sunday activity, another family may decide that they will forbear from hiking on Sunday, both based on the same fundamental principles of Sabbath observance, and we are okay letting each family go their own way. We usually consider sexuality much more morally significant. Are we prepared to let people come to different conclusions about the morality of sexual activities? It sometimes seems that debates over masturbation are among the more contentious, and it maybe comes down to not wanting to let others come to different conclusions.

ksfisher · September 7, 2022

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

being sexually active before marriage can be done within the boundaries of circumspect moral choices.

But not within the bounds of the Lord's commandments.

BlueDreams · September 7, 2022

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

It looks like you did not use that word. I did. You said: "I'm not fond on vague language like 'sexual behavior'" which precipitated my comment about "shifting from vagaries like 'sexual behavior' to more specific descriptions of behaviors/actions."

I like the idea of "clearer principles" in the abstract, but I wonder how you get "clearer" without devolving to more "specific do/mostly-don't list{s}."

@MrShorty noted orienting to clear principle based teachings. The way I have not devolved in a do/don't list usually goes like this:

- I make a self-depricating joking that I won't go into a list of what to avoid because I prefer not to be a hypocrite...I then segue this into basic principles (this is for YSA's, not youth...I'm more cautious with youth). I also note early on that what you decide is your physical/personal boundaries may change as your relationship changes, how you are personally doing, etc. I may give the example that I never liked the idea of kissing on a first date...but that's a me thing. I would note that one must also respect what others place as their boundaries and not try to push against them even if you find them too strict. And to decide if there seems to be an incongruence whether this is a relationship that one is comfortable in. This teaches us to honor where we're at, while respecting where another is, and treating the differences we find as they should in dating...a point to decide if this is a good partner. All of this is between you and the Lord...to pray about where you are sexually. And to turn to the LORD FIRST when you have a concern before seeking an outsider's opinion. I usually would make a joke that Bishops would prefer not to have a seat at that discussion, from what I've seen, but if you're struggling in one way or another they may have resources available. I would give personal testimony of what that looks like (vague-ing out unnecessary details)

- I've labeled my version of these principles the "good better best (and sometimes bad)" view. The best most are generally reaching for is sex within a committed marriage/sealing with principle of love, charity, patience, etc guiding how we share our bodies. Good and better have aspects of this, though maybe not all of it. Bad are things that actively harm (or could harm) another/self or are done with no consent. Note I'm not talking the old school description of masturbation as "self-harm" moreso re-creating trauma or avoiding emotional pain via sexual activity. In short bad is not healthy, not safe, and not secure. I personally do think there are good sexual relationships outside of marriage. I believe they're just better with greater commitment and best when sealed for eternity in this life or the next (to give an example). Best could also be behavior that fits the context, that casual dating may have a different degree of physical touch than seriously dating than engaged than marriage.

- I may pull up the scripture about "bridling all your passions." I point out that bridling is different from riding wild OR repressing and over-controling one's desires. Both can lead to problems and risks. instead it learning and valuing one's desires, and guiding it appropriately.

- I would lead that to basic information of what they are experiencing as part of sexual development and that it's normal to be curious and having questions. I'd try to answer what they have and/or teach how to carefully seek out information to understand a term without necessarily finding porn or piss-poor information. Again, this varies by age. I've given or prepared different presentation based on age group. Here's a basic break down for the principles for 14-18 year olds I have in a presentation as an example:

•Understand yourself

•Understand where you’re at

•Work through your areas of biggest concern

•Interact/date accordingly

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Again, from FTSY:

This seems like a combination of "broad" ("{n}ever do anything that could lead to sexual transgression") and "clearer" ("do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body").

I hope the above clarifies my differences between broad and specific. For me, broad is more principles to figure yourself out with. Specific is more information on sexual development and terms to have clear info to help navigate said principles.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I wonder if metaphors could be utilized here to strike a balance. For example, I have liked this one:

However, I don't think this works well relative to the Law of Chastity because it reinforces a fundamentally flawed premise. After marriage, we are supposed to go over the precipice/edge. What was previously dangerous and reckless becomes, after marriage, normal and acceptable. The metaphor substantially fails because there are no circumstances in which a driver should try to get as close to "the edge of the precipice." The "third driver" is praised for the wisdom in "keep{ing} just as far away from the edge as possible."

I would agree with the problems mentioned. This creates and emotional disparate state around sex. And it leaves to a lot of problems I get where these come from. People are wanting youth to avoid some of the pitfalls that can occur from sex out of marriage. And to be sure, they're there. But doing so with language of fear, excessive caution, hyperbolic language/analogies, isn't helpful. Besides this also misses the benefits of learning and practicing one sexuality (again, in contextually appropriate ways) as one is growing up and learning to develop the language around dating. I prefer a more congruent picture.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

This is, I think, where may Latter-day Saints are erring in their characterization of sexuality. We say, metaphorically, to stay absolutely as far away from the "precipice" as possible before marriage, but after marriage going over the edge is just fine. We characterize sex as dangerous, verboten, even dirty (the "licked cupcake" and "chewed gum" comparisons), only to then turn on a dime and say that after marriage, sex is "beautiful and sacred" and is "ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife."

Yep. Doesn't work well.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate here? In broad terms, the italicized portions of the FTSY pamphlet are problematic for "those in their 30’s, 50’s, or 80’s if single" in what ways?

To be clear this was more to the parts in general. Not just to this part: Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. ... Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

But I would say that one's sexual expression should grow as you grow. I think it's completely appropriate to give less leeway to an 11-14 year old on what they do with another person. They young, barely being introduce to sexual hormones, and have little to no solid ground about self-identity, relationship development, etc. But this changes as you age. By later teens there should be greater sense of moral boundaries around sexuality, greater exploration in balancing attraction with other relationship and personal factors. And by 20's this shifts and grows again as they're more likely to be in far more serious relationships and more likely to have at least one of those relationships end with marriage. There needs to be more balance of sexual expression with where they're contextually out...both in personal development and relationally. Honestly I would hope they were making out and fooling around a little more than an 11 year old....those that do tend to transition a little easier or at least have a basis for sexual recovery if something goes off the rails when they ad sex. Furthermore, the concerns of a 50 year old newly singled or never married are very different from that of a 20 something year old. They're usually more grounded in who they are, more likely to have had sex in a previous relationship, etc. You need to talk to them differently and recognize the changed context. Hopefully that clarifies a little.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

This is a very good insight. I am wondering if this is an aspect that is too individualized and specific to the person's circumstances to be addressed in a broad way like what is addressed in FTSY.

I think so.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

This is a really good point. I will add my own two bits:

Bit #1: I think the leaders of the Church are trying to discourage deliberate and overt effort "that arouses sexual feelings." Looking at porn, situational circumstances conducive to misconduct, etc.

I get that may be what they're going for, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Again it's too broad and after a certain age people are more likely to just ignore it because it becomes irrelevant or beat themselves up over with even mild expressions of it. Let's take the porn one, because we likely have a level of agreement on it. I generally agree that most porn* should not be a thing, especially for teens. My reasons are several: It doesn't give good information, it's giving an exaggerated and self-oriented view of couple's sexual experiences, it gives a distorted understanding of pleasure and response, it's completely unrealistic to long term sexual partnering and personal sexual development....and that's before you get into industry practice. But when it's just lumped into "arouses sexual feelings," other behaviors that honestly have little ramifications and honestly some benefit can get entangled in this. I've heard more than one person in their 20's associate "lust" with "sexual attraction" of any sort. Some overtly, some subtly by simply ignoring the need for physical chemistry in a serious relationship. There's been more than one guy who feels bad for things like quasi-conscious masturbation in the middle of the night. Even on things that need some re-direction and refinement (say mild amounts of porn watching), can become massive spiritual stumbling blocks via shame as they treat it like their meh actions are the end of the world.

To me, it's okay to "arouse sexual feelings" as long as they're contextually appropriate. As in they match where they're at developmentally, what they value, and where they're at relationally. So if a person gets aroused while making out with their gf/bf, koodos to them...it means their body works and they're hopefully very attracted to their partner. If an 11 year develops a massive crush and has...let's say an exciting dream... good! That's developmentally appropriate and hopefully their parents are teaching them about how to best understand what's okay and not okay to do with these floods of new emotions. etc.

*I say most, because I think there are things within marriage that technically constitute porn that are perfectly acceptable. Such as Naught pics sent to each other, flirty texts/letters, etc.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Bit #2: The generalized counsel could go further in acknowledging how fun and enjoyable sex is, and then pair that acknowledgment with counsel about it being powerful and important, and thus needing to be constrained within parameters. See, e.g., here:

I prefer that the counsel acknowledge that sex can be a wide range of things (fun, enjoyable, deep, meh, etc) in a loving relationship and that other forms of sexual expression can help us prefer for wider ranges of expression once married. instead of "needing it to be constrained within parameters," I would probably say "can be expressed within certain parameters"

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

And here:

And here:

And here:

These are good, but they seem to essentially conflate self-mastery with self-denial.

In all of them there are small tweaks I would make. In part for the conflation of self-denial with mastery, but also with a picture of mastery that infers almost complete control over desires and passions. That's unrealistic and I would prefer people not reach for that. Rather, I'd prefer they learn to accept their desire and guide it slowly and gently to what they would like for their lives and relationships.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

This is where your training and expertise come in. You can address these things on an individual level, and that is wonderful. But can these things be addressed in macro, Church-wide way?

There's been efforts moving in that direction. Videos on their online formats that when covering sexual concerns have slightly different language than in the past. There was a series a while back that had licensed therapists talking with I want to say church leaders (I can't fully remember) about certain sexual concerns. These are usually on the edges, but they indicate small changes that may add up to more later. For example masturbation has drastically shifted. It's gone from mentioned quite a bit in strongly condemnatory statement in early talks/materials from the 70's and 80's to quoting somewhat from these in the 90's to giving small no-no statement usually tied to porn use in the 00's to barely mentioned if only via inference in the 10's/20's. There' been moves to clip bishops giving advice to married couples about what's appropriate in the bedroom I think in the 90's. Again, I don't know what would shift it entirely (thought I think of all our current taboos, that has the most likelihood of doing so...there's no scripture backing for our stance on it). Maybe time? Who under the age of 40 really remembers the time when leaders were super against any form of birth control, for example? I haven't met a single person my age who is hesitant to use it at some point in their marriage to some degree. The closest was my friend who hesitated around a vesectomy in part for church policies around more permanent methods of BC...and then got preggo again, was pissed realizing just how much she didn't want another, and soon got that vesectomy, as it was clear they were really done.

In some ways I think it'll take both. People like me in local/regional experiences and changes to universal practice/focus.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I wonder if broad principles could be gleaned from teaching methodologies used in firearm instruction. It seems the overarching emphasis is on safe and prudent behaviors and habits that, if followed, will facilitate an enjoyable experience with shooting. Such instruction also emphasizes safety, both for the shooter and others, and also due care and consideration given to the risks inherent in working with firearms.

I mean technically with what you take from it. Though I’d point out that guns, when safety is ignored, have far greater potential for harm: namely death or maiming. Gun's main purpose ultimate either is superflous or a weapon to kill or hinder something/someone. Plus guns are not universally enjoyed. I am not comfortable with guns and there’s really no big ramification to not wanting a gun in my home or life. and valuing them in society for recreation is by no means universal nor needs to be. So it’s definitely not the analogy I’d go for.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I've long wondered about the sin of Corianton. Sexual transgression was part of it, but not the whole. From Alma 39:

I think the predominating aspect of Corianton's misconduct was his hypocrisy, and the effect it had on the Zoramites. They saw him as someone representing and bringing a message from God, and then rejected that message due to the hypocritical behavior of the messenger. Corianton undermined their faith, or their ability to develop faith. The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted and undermined that message through his hypocrisy.

I wonder if the error here has been to skip over this and draw a one-to-one correlation between sexual transgression and the "abomination" language in verse 5. Corianton betrayed and undermined "the ministry wherewith {he} was entrusted," with the result being his bringing "great iniquity {} upon the Zoramites. Sexual transgression, though very serious, was how he committed the "crime."

The first thing mentioned by alma as a concern was pride that quickly devolves from there. In total, corianton effectively decided to follow some sort of cult prostitute while a missionary in an area hostile to the church and seeking reasons to dismiss them while pridefully assuming he’s right in whatever. To me it would be the equivalent of finding a porn star and following with her groupies in order to have sex with her on a mish. Along with over focusing on the sexual aspect of the problem, There’s a problem of generalizing all sexual sins as equally bad. Usually I’m having to go through this story with someone who’s biggest sexual sin is occasional porn watching. Because we don’t differentiate in the poor paraphrase “sexual sin is next to murder and denying the HG” they often living with a guilt of committing grave and terrible sins. When it’s just not. Not all of types a types of sexual sin. Just like lying about stealing a cookie before dinner to your mom is not the same degree of concern as massive embezzlement, Sexual sins also have degrees of concern and gravity to them. Looking at vanilla porn is not the same as looking at child porn. Going a little too far with a girl friend while single is not the same as going too far with a co-worker as a married man. Though certainly all sin separates us from God, the process for redemption and depth of depravity or corruption to one's mind and soul are different and matter. Both in healing and in believing you can be healed. Shame/excess guilt hinders the latter. Not believing stops one from accepting healing steps.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Yes, I can see how these examples could be angst-inducing.

Good stuff, this. I just wonder how it can be distilled and distributed. Your individual clients benefit from your one-on-one therapeutic advice, but scaling that out to a Church-wide audience seems pretty tricky. Therapists, after all, could be just as prone to going "beyond the mark" as the above-bishop (comparing sex to a bomb) or the counselor's wife (implying anything other than "a quick peck" prior to marriage is not "pure").

It would take care and a shift in how we tend to do things, but most of what I mentioned, minus the sex ed part, is really just a change in focus and emphasis moreso than a drastic policy shift. Some of it could be shifted quietly, some of it naturally will as people change with the times and think about what just didn't work for them. Some (such as dating customs and such) may likely be left for local leaders and cultural direction as these are fairly innocuous once you get past certain safety and healthy thresholds. Most wouldn't need a therapist to manage or change the messaging....at least beyond maybe consultation by those who make material or policy guides for what is then distilled by GA's and such to local leaders. And of course I would expect error, concerns, and mistakes made. I'm not expecting a perfect dissemination, just a better means of teaching that gets a little better as we grow and learn.

On 9/6/2022 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

Yep. I think an adversarial approach doesn't work.

Any ideas on how this sort of thing could be scaled up? You are a valuable, but scarce, resource.

Thanks for your thoughts.

-Smac

Teach principles as mentioned above, discourage excessive focus on specific actions and do/don't lists being given, Encourage bishops/leaders to have youth seek first guidance from God in their growth, relationships, and sexual development. Don't excessively discipline low grade problems (I consider basic porn use on that list), encourage referals to when problems seem unmanageable or need more support to the member and are available, allow for some cultural flexibility in application, give training and utilize local resources when doing so (such as people like me) when it's available for leaders/members, correct when there's big breaches or flubs that come to attention. Much of this is there at least somewhat done to some degree. It's just encouraging more of it.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 7, 2022 by BlueDreams

Meadowchik · September 7, 2022

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

But not within the bounds of the Lord's commandments.

That actually depends on who you ask, who they believe in, and what they think their Lord commands.

BlueDreams · September 7, 2022

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There's so much a person cannot know about sex and about such experiences with another person that I can't in good conscience recommend making a lifelong commitment that includes it, without experiencing it first. I think people benefit from an understanding of their own relationship with sex and that relationships benefit from such mutual understanding too.

Also I think LDS young people do rush into marriage with the motivation to be able to engage in activities the law of chastity prohibits outside marriage. I think they even do this on an unconscious level because that biological drive can be so strong.

Taking the edge off of the initial overall mystery, and developing wisdom about such experiences, can help people make better decisions about their long term commitments.

Promiscuity isn't the only alternative to the LDS definition of chastity. And being sexually active before marriage can be done within the boundaries of circumspect moral choices.

I can and am just fine maintaining a standard of keeping certain forms of sexual expression (intercourse) off the table. There are benefits to it*...some of these can include more patience with sexual problems, less comparisons to previous partners, less sexual expectations, less baggage from previous partners to sift through, it's a little easier for them to shift gears, and it's less likely for them to over prioritize sex in marriage, etc.

I think this is a common cultural refrain that technically would make sense, but often has a specific approach to what marriage is that isn't recognized as also having problems. Namely it's a little consumeristic. In other words: does this person meet my needs and expectations. This is particularly common for places like the US because we tend to be individualistic. And in this scenario, test driving makes sense. But it's not the only way to look at it, and I'm personally not a fan of the model of doing so.

To be clear sex is important in marriage for sure, but honestly what makes or breaks it usually are factors that can be sussed out before marriage: communication, clear expectations, an ability to meet in the middle, basic chemistry (attracted, enjoy kissing/making out with said person, feel an urge to do more with them), flexibility v. rigidity in expectations, ability to support and manage challenges, clear sex ed and learning the basics on how to communicate around physical intimacy, knowing the partner and marrying a partner to work with, not a means to an end (means being things like babies, social expectations, money, "fixing/saving the partner," escape, etc). I can't tell if a couple will struggle just by whether or not they had sex before marriage or not. I can tell by some of these patterns whether the relationship will fall flat.

* I won't say there are no benefits or it's absolutely terrible for a relationship if the partners had pre-marital sex (or even were more "promiscuous" before meeting their marital partner). That's also not true. It's more about what role sex played in both the formation of their relationship, what they believe about sex, and their expectations around sex that decides whether it helps make or break it.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 7, 2022 by BlueDreams

Meadowchik · September 7, 2022

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I can and am just fine maintaining a standard of keeping certain forms of sexual expression (intercourse) off the table. There are benefits to it*...some of these can include more patience with sexual problems, less comparisons to previous partners, less sexual expectations, less baggage from previous partners to sift through, it's a little easier for them to shift gears, and it's less likely for them to over prioritize sex in marriage, etc.

I think this is a common cultural refrain that technically would make sense, but often has a specific approach to what marriage is that isn't recognized as also having problems. Namely it's a little consumeristic. In other words: does this person meet my needs and expectations. This is particularly common for places like the US because we tend to be individualistic. And in this scenario, test driving makes sense. But it's not the only way to look at it, and I'm personally not a fan of the model of doing so.

To be clear sex is important in marriage for sure, but honestly what makes or breaks it usually are factors that can be sussed out before marriage: communication, clear expectations, an ability to meet in the middle, basic chemistry (attracted, enjoy kissing/making out with said person, feel an urge to do more with them), flexibility v. rigidity in expectations, ability to support and manage challenges, clear sex ed and learning the basics on how to communicate around physical intimacy, knowing the partner and marrying a partner to work with, not a means to an end (means being things like babies, social expectations, money, "fixing/saving the partner," escape, etc). I can't tell if a couple will struggle just by whether or not they had sex before marriage or not. I can tell by some of these patterns whether the relationship will fall flat.

* I won't say there are no benefits or it's absolutely terrible for a relationship if the partners had pre-marital sex (or even were more "promiscuous" before meeting their marital partner). That's also not true. It's more about what role sex played in both the formation of their relationship, what they believe about sex, and their expectations around sex that decides whether it helps make or break it.

With luv,

BD

Mating and pairing off can be a little--or very--consumeristic regardless of approach to sex.

And it's arguable that insisting on chastity or virginity is more shallow and much less about individual and relational health. An abstinence mindset can preclude the development of moderated sexual behaviour because it is so restrictive about sexual behaviour altogether. That moderative habituation is something that people can adapt both individually and in their couple. I do not think that being good at abstinence is comparable to being good at management of healthy sexuality. It can effectively be the same in some cases at some times but it's no where close to the wide spectrum of harmonious ways a couple can manage their sexual lives together.

BlueDreams · September 7, 2022

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Obviously, I cannot speak for @BlueDreams, but I will inject my opinion.

I'm not sure that devolving into do/don't lists is necessary. Sometimes when I think about this problem, I feel like the main problem is trying to understand the basic, underlying principles that form the basis of the law of chastity (or maybe I'm the only one that really doesn't understand them). In the spirit of "teach them correct principles then let them govern themselves," I would be inclined to better articulate the basic principles of the law of chastity.

We often might start by "defining" chastity. Outside of the temple, we usually define it as some form of "abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage." [CHI 38.6.5] From there we usually find ourselves seeking do/don't lists as we try to decide exactly what behaviors/feelings/experiences we are abstaining from and what behaviors/feelings/experiences constitute fidelity/infidelity. I recall an interesting infographic many years ago showing the results of a survey of college students where they were given a list of a dozen or so behaviors (from "passionate kissing" to various penetrative sex acts with or without orgasm) and asked to state which of these activities constituted "having sex". Interestingly, there wasn't a clear demarcation, in the aggregate, between activities that these students considered "having sex" and "not having sex". In a completely different context, I recall a sex therapist talking about older couples when "standard" sex acts become more difficult or unreliable who talked about finding sexual pleasure in some of these other activities (like passionate kissing). If "passionate kissing" is a sexual activity, we don't exactly condemn it when engaged by our dating singles. However, we would condemn it if engaged in by a married person who is kissing someone not their spouse. Clearly, this doesn't really get into the underlying principles that help us understand abstinence/fidelity and what they mean and why these are important.

Sometimes we move into "purposes" of sexuality. I usually see two purposes given [see same CHI section] -- Procreation and strengthening marriage. Occasionally I see a third purpose -- building self-control/self-mastery.

I think a lot of our sexual ethic is driven by procreation. We strongly believe that children do best (sometimes entitled) when born and raised in a stable, loving, two (opposite sex) parent family. I feel like a lot of our sexual ethic is driven towards making sure children are not conceived and born outside of marriage. But procreation by itself seems insufficient to explain our views on many solo sexual activities, or heterosexual activities that do not involve any chance of germ cells finding each other, or homosexual activities, as these have nothing to do with procreation. Sometimes we talk about self-control, but it seems to me that we always talk about self-control in terms of abstinence rather than in terms of what we are supposed to be learning to control.

I have seen some (including apostles -- if memory serves Elder Renlund used this, and Elder Bednar said something in his 2013 GC talk) say that the foundational principles come from our understanding of the plan of salvation. Whenever I have encountered these claims, I have found them interesting and somewhat instructive, but rarely comprehensive enough to fully explain our sexual ethic.

I have sometimes felt like "temperance" (meaning reduce/minimize/moderate pleasurable experiences) is a driving principle. Under this, we convince ourselves that God wants us to limit or moderate sexual pleasure because they are too strong. Insert reference to Kellogg and why he came up with Corn Flakes.

Very, very well said. I definitely do think that procreation drives are sexual ethos and language around it. Which is astounding since most of our sexual experiences will not lead to a baby or even pregnancy. I wish it would focus first and foremost as a potent means to share and express love, connection, and commitment through enjoyment/mutual pleasure FIRST. And OUT of that space (ideally) would grown children who then benefit from homes that are filled with love and close ties that started with the parents. It then makes sense to hold off actions that could lead to kiddos for a relationship that can support said kids. It then gives clearer understanding for why we should care and foster our sexuality with intention and direction. (though I'd point out the obvious...that this is generally from a hetero-stance)

Personally, on that 3rd somewhat mentioned purpose, I find self-mastery a little limiting in terminology and my experiences. For me, it was a means to learn more of Christ and God. First by submission then by expression...both by a thoughtful and careful relationship with God to guide it.

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't have the knowledge or understanding to do it (if it isn't obvious from above), but that's where I would go. I don't think do/don't lists are helpful or necessary. If we could really get to the underlying principles behind our sexual morals, we would be better able to govern ourselves (independent of age or stage of life). For now, all attempts I have found to explain underlying principles have been superficial, inaccurate, or otherwise unsatisfying.

Don't sell yourself short, Mrshorty ....you have more understanding around this than you think you do.

With luv,

BD

BlueDreams · September 8, 2022

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Mating and pairing off can be a little--or very--consumeristic regardless of approach to sex.

It can be. But the ulterior reasons and assumptions for it can make a big diff. For example I watched with interest several posts on my period app that were discussing cohabitation pre-marriage. Several mentioned it as an absolute necessity...and a few that didn't were almost apologetic that they didn't. (Which is funny, because the research has been pretty consistent that cohabitation is at best neutral to marital strength and at worst more likely to end in divorce and less satisfaction). Most of the reasoning for cohabitation were tied to fear based reasons: gaging a person, really knowing a persons living habits, testing to see if they were really a good fit, etc. It had a general belief that marriage/relationships were hard and you had to really really know every last detail about a person before tying the knot (if one ever did). This is different then having say similar values lead/guide finding a partner to help form stronger social or family relationships. This form of checking the dating market means you're looking for a partner that isn't just tied to what you want, but is tied to cultural, social, and community grounding. It's looking for someone who doesn't just fit you, but that you and them can then help meet the goals and communal needs together. This is not individualist consumerism. It's communal in nature, laden with social values and goals. It's a little more grounded than just you and what you desire and fits your individual current circumstance and.

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And it's arguable that insisting on chastity or virginity is more shallow and much less about individual and relational health. An abstinence mindset can preclude the development of moderated sexual behaviour because it is so restrictive about sexual behaviour altogether. That moderative habituation is something that people can adapt both individually and in their couple. I do not think that being good at abstinence is comparable to being good at management of healthy sexuality. It can effectively be the same in some cases at some times but it's no where close to the wide spectrum of harmonious ways a couple can manage their sexual lives together.

Just as it's an error to conflate pre-marital sex with excess promiscuity, it's an error to conflate abstinence/ and chastity with its most rigid manifestations. Extremes tend to foster their own problems. There is a difference between personally striving to follow the law of Chastity and allowing for others to have their own journey with it and insisting on virginity as a pre-cursor to a relationship. If you haven't read my posts to smac it may be helpful to do so. I am by no means suggesting an absolutist victorian stance that's skiddish around talking about, understanding, and even exploring one's sexuality pre-marriage. Nor do I think it great if someone is "good at abstinence" ...I don't even know whath that means but it usuals seem to focus on avoiding any form of sexual expression, thought, or even decent education. Not a fan of that. I'm just not willing to go as far as to say that limiting some forms of sexual expression to marriage doesn't have it's value. To me that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

With luv,

BD

Edited September 8, 2022 by BlueDreams

BlueDreams · September 8, 2022

2 hours ago, Jim Dandy said:

I had pre-marital sex and I regret it. If it had been only with the woman I married then maybe I would not have as much regret about it, but the fact that I gave in to other women still tears me up inside when I think about the fact that I let it happen. I was never the instigator, although I did become attracted and aroused by all the attention. The consequence of having those memories is all it takes to bother me. I would much rather have felt pure and untouched by any woman other than the woman I married. That I was only for her, and she was only for me, in that way. If not with the first one, then the next one, and I was ready and willing to marry each one that I had sexual relations with. I gave so much of myself to those women that my sharing changed who I was before it happened. The woman I married and will remain married to will never break my heart. All of those other women left me, even after I gave them so much of myself. My heart and soul and all the best I had in me at those times of my life, which I know isn't saying a lot but it was the best I had in me to give at that time. THAT is why pre-marital sex should never happen, or if it does it should be only with a man and woman who are ready and willing to marry each other forever, or at least until they part at death if they don't believe a marriage can last forever. There should be no practice runs or experiments only to see what it feels like. When it ends it can pull a man apart inside. It really hurts, badly. If and when any love is involved in it.

I’m sorry this eats you up. Though this is likely a good reason for you (you seem like a bit of a romantic at heart…as well as someone who does best in a strongly committed relationship). That isn’t necessarily Everyone’s experience nor is it inevitable. My husband was also not a virgin when I met him. Though he differs from you in several ways after that. It was exactly with one other, he was youngish and it was a bit of an act of rebellion. He initiated and though he found the girl nice he was by no means in love nor had illusions that he’d one day marry this person. He doesn’t regret it. He doesn’t really think about it. In his own words he “learned what he needed to from the experience” and called it good. I didn’t have sex with anyone before him. I did play around a bit. None were “hook ups” as those weren’t my thing. There was a time it went too far for me and felt wrong. I course corrected and called it good. No regrets on my end. neither of us think of it as saying or being anything in regards to our marriage. It just is. Regret to me seems like you’re picture this massive ideal that is constantly compared to one’s own reality. That’s a painful way to live. I’ve had moments of it in other ways, and wouldn’t wish it on another. My story has pain and wrong turns; mistakes and problems. Some my making, some others. So is my husband’s. Personally, my only ideal is that this story in God’s hands can be consecrated for my good. And it has. I love my story. I love the way we came together. I love the partner I’m with. He loves me. I feel like I’ve received so many gifts in my life, not because I was “pure”…but because I was messy and God purified me and endowed me with wisdom from it. Still is. i can’t imagine a better ideal.

I think, fairly innocently, we came up with temporal ideals of this perfect life which entails meeting a person and both of you only having each other before and after. And though it sounds romantic, I hate that anyone would hold that as THE way to be married. Your story is yours. It’s good and beautiful in its own right. I hope you one day can fully see that

with luv,

BD

Edited September 8, 2022 by BlueDreams

Narratives Re: Regrets on Promiscuity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members