Narratives Re: Regrets on Promiscuity

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Here you go.

That line of thinking seriously creeps me out.

Those are not from the article, but from Smac's comments.  I agree that that is a misinterpretation of the sexual revolution as a whole, but in some circles that may have been true.  There were womanizers who abused the "liberation' of "meaningless sex" and took advantage of women who were deceived and experimenting with myths and lies about sex.  The author appears to be one of those victims of the lies.  Men were also victims of those lies.  

Do you have anything in the article that you disagree with, or is it more Smacs comments? 

Edited August 23, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Those are not from the article, but from Smac's comments.  I agree that that is a misinterpretation of the sexual revolution as a whole, but in some circles that may have been true.  There were womanizers who abused the "liberation' of "meaningless sex" and took advantage of women who were deceived and experimenting with myths and lies about sex.  The author appears to be one of those victims of the lies.  Men were also victims of those lies.  

Do you have anything in the article that you disagree with, or is it more Smacs comments? 

I was just thinking of the many times where the two articles repeat the mantra that it is the man who instigates, the man with the desire, the woman whose choice it is not to give the man what he wants.

Quote

 

It is also a story about the triumph of the playboy. 

The new sexual culture isn’t so much about the liberation of women, as so many feminists would have us believe, but the adaptation of women to the expectations of a familiar character: Don Juan, Casanova, or, more recently, Hugh Hefner.

 

The message here seems to be that men are more sexual, and the sexual revolution just means doing what men want rather than what women want. I wholeheartedly agree that what is best is commitment and intimacy and love. That's a given. As far as the list of recommendations, I think most are common sense, though again, they lean heavily on the idea that men are aggressors who can't be trusted ("would I let this happen to her?" And I'm puzzled at the linking of sex and self-worth. The one author mentions how her Catholic upbringing linked sex and shame, and then she tells us that after she started being a slut, she felt more shame. 

I do, obviously, agree with the following, generally speaking:

 

Quote

Sex must be taken seriously. Men and women are different. Some desires are bad. Consent is not enough. Violence is not love. Loveless sex is not empowering. People are not products. Marriage is good. 

 

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The message here seems to be that men are more sexual

I think that is largely true and borne out by much data. 

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and the sexual revolution just means doing what men want rather than what women want.

I think that is also largely true that non-committal/loveless/meaningless sex better meets the needs and desires of men, in general.  Sex seems to meet physical needs for men, while it seems to be more emotional for women in general.  That is why I think the sex revolution was much more damaging for women in general and less so for men.  Women, it turns out, were not getting their needs met by meaningless sex.  Not that women don't like sex, but that what they want is sex as a manifestation of a deeper relationship.  I think deep down, that is what men want too, but the physical aspect of it is/can be less tied to the emotional side.   You don't really see too many women equivalents to Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Heffner.  

I think the idea that men are the aggressors who can't be trusted is largely born from that disparity of physical vs emotional approach to sex that exists between men and women.  The article is right to note that we are not the same sexually.  I think that is where this idea that "man cannot be trusted" comes from in that for men it really was meaningless, but for most women it probably really wasn't, or at least they didn't want it to be.    

 

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

There's a difference between "asserting female sexuality" and the belief that men are pigs, so women should let them have what they want.

I agree.

And to the extent that smac's characterization of the sexual revolution was framed in that way, I would disagree with it. However, I don't think it would be out of line (at all) to say there were many pushing the belief that 'men are pigs; so if women truly want to be empowered / liberated / free then they ought to behave like pigs as well.'

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Do I think women (as well as men) should be empowered to "initiate sexual advances, enjoy 'sex without consequences,' experiment with new forms of sexuality, etc."? Yes, if they want to. I also think they should be free to choose abstinence, marital fidelity, and so on.

Again, I agree with you on both of these points, but that's a more modern view.

The kind of messaging that was prevalent during the sexual revolution (and to which these women were responding) wasn't "yes, if you want to" it was "yes, and you ought to."

It was this kind of rhetoric that soured my mother (and many others), against that strand of feminism.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

My issue with smac's OP is first, that it returns to the idea that men are the natural instigators of sex, and women exist simply to accommodate or reject that instigation.

A reasonable complaint.

 

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Second, it does not reflect that there are different kinds of feminism and "sexual liberation," such that it's all lumped together into, for want of a better word, "slut culture."

Well, sure, there are different kinds of feminism. And I took the articles to be expressions of regret and disillusionment for having followed one particular strand - one that was arguably the dominant view decades ago and still remains prominent today.

 

[DT_]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

No, it has just evolved.  VR hookups will become the next iteration of the revolution.   In some ways that may be better than the alternative, in other ways it may be so much worse.

I need a reference. I don't think the vast majority of women have ever participated in VR hookups.  The women who do participate in VR hookups do it for a living. Regular hookups (declining rapidly) are still more common than VR hookups. There is no evidence that social media explains the decline in hookups.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023121996854

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Is it just me or has something been lost in the human experience since the rise of social media?

It has more to do with the increase in relationship standards. It's getting much harder for young men under 25 to find a girlfriend.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-state-our-unions/202208/the-rise-lonely-single-men

Edited August 23, 2022 by DT_

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Those are not from the article, but from Smac's comments.  I agree that that is a misinterpretation of the sexual revolution as a whole, but in some circles that may have been true.  There were womanizers who abused the "liberation' of "meaningless sex" and took advantage of women who were deceived and experimenting with myths and lies about sex.  The author appears to be one of those victims of the lies.  Men were also victims of those lies.  

Do you have anything in the article that you disagree with, or is it more Smacs comments? 

I know. I don't have access to the articles in full, and I'm just going by what smac quoted and how he's interpreting it. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

When you say that you don't want to be "stuck" to a man, are you talking about marriage in general or sealing, or both?  As a missionary, the discussion where we taught about sealing families for eternity was always one of the highlights for people that drew them to the restored gospel.  Eternal family by choice is the way I roll. 

 

No I'm talking about the concept of women being obliged to labor in the home dependent on a man for his income and overall protection...of course the idea is that she is creating the nest and nurturing children...but I think it puts women and children in perilous danger and actually forces an imbalance in a mate relationship which would have been happier for both, and naturally better for any children in their care.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I know. I don't have access to the articles in full, and I'm just going by what smac quoted and how he's interpreting it. 

It seems that the parts you disagree with are not interpretations of the article but rather disagreements with it, or additions to it.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is largely true and borne out by much data. 

I think that is also largely true that non-committal/loveless/meaningless sex better meets the needs and desires of men, in general.  Sex seems to meet physical needs for men, while it seems to be more emotional for women in general.  That is why I think the sex revolution was much more damaging for women in general and less so for men.  Women, it turns out, were not getting their needs met by meaningless sex.  Not that women don't like sex, but that what they want is sex as a manifestation of a deeper relationship.  I think deep down, that is what men want too, but the physical aspect of it is/can be less tied to the emotional side.   You don't really see too many women equivalents to Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Heffner.  

I think the idea that men are the aggressors who can't be trusted is largely born from that disparity of physical vs emotional approach to sex that exists between men and women.  The article is right to note that we are not the same sexually.  I think that is where this idea that "man cannot be trusted" comes from in that for men it really was meaningless, but for most women it probably really wasn't, or at least they didn't want it to be.    

 

 

I think a big part of that is our sexual organs are like night and day, and explains a lot. Hopefully the men will have patience and help a woman out. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is also largely true that non-committal/loveless/meaningless sex better meets the needs and desires of men, in general.  Sex seems to meet physical needs for men, while it seems to be more emotional for women in general.  That is why I think the sex revolution was much more damaging for women in general and less so for men.  Women, it turns out, were not getting their needs met by meaningless sex.  Not that women don't like sex, but that what they want is sex as a manifestation of a deeper relationship.  I think deep down, that is what men want too, but the physical aspect of it is/can be less tied to the emotional side.   You don't really see too many women equivalents to Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Heffner.  

I think the idea that men are the aggressors who can't be trusted is largely born from that disparity of physical vs emotional approach to sex that exists between men and women.  The article is right to note that we are not the same sexually.  I think that is where this idea that "man cannot be trusted" comes from in that for men it really was meaningless, but for most women it probably really wasn't, or at least they didn't want it to be.    

There are some in-between spaces between committed monogamy and meaningless sex from ongoing hookups, friends with benefits, and the all the rest. Almost everyone tires of meaningless hookups eventually. Even the sluttiest of us messed up humans.

There are female equivalents to Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Heffner. There are quite a few of them. They just don’t get publicized a lot because society doesn’t have a place to laud such women. I have known some. I dated one of them. She was sweet and beautiful and goofy and fun and just loved sexual novelty and was endlessly seeking out new techniques, toys, and partners.

[BlueDreams]

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

I have recently come across two articles, both written by women, expressing regrets about buying into the generalized narrative on the Sexual Revolution.  The interesting thing is that both authors are expressing this regret from an emphatically non-religious point of view.  

This reminds me of 2 books that survey 100 young men and women (teens/early 20s). They gave an overview of how younger people are learning, practicing, and experiencing their sexuality in our cultural landscape. Both were Written by Peggy Orenstein. They gave a broader perspective about the experiences and pitfalls of the current younger generation

 

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

Anyway, back to the article:

Fair points, these.  Although I think she would do better by considering constraints on sexual behavior as benefitting both women and men.  We're all in this together.

Men, if left without sexual constraint, may descend into inappropriate and harmful behaviors.  Same with women.  The tragedy arose when many women, under the rubric of the Sexual Revolution, abandoned a source of power they had previously wielded for the sel-protection and benefit: access to the sexual act.  Perry is quite right about "sexual asymmetry," but she doesn't finish the thought.  Broadly speaking, the advantage on the male half the population (being bigger and stronger) was offset by the advantage on the female side (controlling access to sex) (I am speaking, again, broadly).

The Sexual Revolution essentially had many of its female advocates (most of which, I think, styled themselves as "feminists") saying: "Men are pigs because they are predisposed toward casual sex, buying sex, etc.  Let us women now join them in their wanton depravities.  Let's give 'em what they want.  Sex without meaning or significance."

There was already a tragedy there. Though it's brushed on a little more in the second article, the sexual revolution was in response to a world that did not give a lot of space for women to understand their sexuality and fed rigid roles in sexuality that could harm both men and women. Though the sexual revolution came with it's own loose ends and problems, I wouldn't call what it was reacting to the ideal we'd want to regain entirely either. I also find it weird to call it a "source of power" particularly when that's not exactly the case. The sexual revolution also gave access to better autonomy. Autonomy and legal acknowledgement of marital rape, for example. To more easily leave abusive marriages. To better decide what happens to ones body and when and where and why. don't get me wrong, it has definite baggage an moves that I find excessive of stupid. But it's not an either or. Either chastity/marriage culture with women as gate keepers to sex  was good or the Sexual revolution and free love/experimentation is good. Both cultural counters had and still have problems that haven't been fully addressed. They have limitations in use. They have great positives too. 

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

Maybe the better approach would be . . . to re-attached sex to marriage.  After all, married people have both more and better sex than their single counterparts, many of the beneits of which pertain directly to connecting the act to the marital institution.

Ironically this study also puts a damper on just how prolific the hook-up culture really goes. 61% of single people hadn't had sex in the last year. That is a solid majority. I got curious to see if there were other stats and found another, that pointed to solid majorities being uncomfortable making out or performing certain sexual actions on the first few dates. Others point to it both declining in number and generally being a minority of people who are participating in casual sex. In some ways the "hook up culture" or "casual sex" is a little overblown. It's more often a phase in people's lives that they move through at times. 

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

It's almost as if the Lord knew what He was doing when He gave us the Law of Chastity!

Much of this comes across as a diluted and secularized version of the Restored Gospel.  The Law o Chastity.  The Word of Wisdom.  The For the Strength of Youth pamphlet.

The Church's guidance, though more stringent, is still better. 

The next part of of the article is . . . kinda brutal:

"The last 60 years have proved that assumption to be wrong. We need to re-erect the social guard rails that have been torn down. To do that, we have to start by stating the obvious: Sex must be taken seriously. Men and women are different. Some desires are bad. Consent is not enough. Violence is not love. Loveless sex is not empowering. People are not products. Marriage is good. "

I wanted to note on this part particularly. Again a PART of the sexual revolution ended with experiments and niches where some of this applies. Other areas, notsomuch. Many others niches point to reducing shame while matching sexual interaction with personal values and general respect/care for partners. And marriage can be good. It is much of the time. Also can be a person's living hell. A lot of this reminds me of the caution I have with extrapolating an experience that comes to my office as an indictment of entire movements, cultures, or types of experiences. I get the people who are struggling in one way or another. Each culture and practice has pitfalls. Those are the stories I have easiest access to. These women found the pitfalls of the sexual revolution via hook-up culture. It's not a great way to perceive what's actually happening overall. 

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

The second article is by Bridget Phetasy, entitled "I Regret Being A S___" (I'm censoring the word, as I find it offensive even in its self-deprecating or nominal use).  It was actually written in response to Perry's book (on which the above article is based).  

I'm not sure the unyoking has "benefited men," either.  I think both sexes have been materially injured by succumbing to the Korihor-like philosphies inherent in the Sexual Revolution, albeit in some different ways.

I think it's come with problems, that I can agree with.

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

But otherwise, yes, "unyoking sex from consequences" (and, more importantly, from marriage) has been a colossoal error.

I can't fully say that. “Unyoking sex from consequences” leading to hook up culture is not all that happened from things like the pill and other methods of birth control. It's also allowed women and families better control of their health and lives. It's allowed married couples to enjoy love making, without as much fear that another child they can't support may come into the world. It's freed some I've known from painful disorders that would have eaten up their sexual desire and hindered how they express themselves in their marriage. It's helped people struggling to reign in their behaviors to not be pummeled by their errors as they work to gain better control of their lives and psyche.  In some rare cases it likely saved the lives of those whose bodies couldn't handle a pregnancy. None of these are hypothetical. All of them I've seen real examples of. This still came from the same movements...we just don't think to couple them together because the "without consequences" does not include these things as consequences. Sex was not just "with consequences" it could be downright risky and life threatening from certain "consequences" of desiring a partner. And those have drastically reduced too. 

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

Meaningless sex and promiscuity, in the "Hook-up Culture" and outside of marriage, will have this effect.  Conversely, attaching significance to (and substantial constraints on) sex by fusing it to marriage will substantially increase the likelihood of happiness with this aspect of the human experience.

Generally, fusing it with any form of more judicious partnering will begin to reduce the problems with hook-up culture ascribed here.

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

The next part is interesting:

Three problems here:

First, she seems to continue conflating (A) meaningless, promiscuous, "hook-up culture"-based, outside-of-marriage sex with the (B) the beautiful sort of sex arising between a husband and wife truly committed and devoted to each other.

Second, past (and, perhaps, ongoing) mischaracterizations of undifferentiated sex (again, conflating (A) and (B)) by "{w}ell-meaning mothers and aunts" seem to continue to skew her perspective.

She seems to have been burned by 2 prominent cultural values that can have real serious pit falls. 2 areas that gave/fed into problems she had in different ways, but that were still corrosive. The conflation is there because neither of these messages are really healthy sex they're trying to but they're often reactionary to each other.

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

Three, the author errs in her seeming disparagement of "sex" as being "inextricably linked" to "self-worth."  I think it is, or it ought to be.  We ought to hold sex in high regard, with much esteem.  We need to treat it with significance and import, even sanctity.  I think the best way to do that is by re-connecting it to marriage.

Yeah, no. Just no. I would want people to value their sexuality (sex-positive message, ps). I would want them to treat it with care and in balance with other aspects and values in their lives. But I would want anyone anywhere to realize that it is no more tied to self worth, than hair or clothes or job or education or how many kids you have or what calling/community position you hold or whether you married, divorced, or are signle. Self-worth is intrinsic to me. It's there because you are a child of God. If it's been scuffed up and dirtied by difficulties in life, it is still of divine worth.... So intrinsically valuable to Jesus came to redeem us to give us a way home. Treating sex as sacred is not the same as seeing you as better or worse based on how you personally experience it.

 

Have more to say, but it's been a busy day. Ironically I was giving a long presentation on sex for moms/moms-to-be. It was lively and fun.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 8/23/2022 at 7:52 AM, smac97 said:

To the extent the Church and its members have erred, it has been to (wrongly) give the impression to kids that sex is "dirty" or bad (see Calm's comments above).  While such sentiments were, I think, intended to have a deterrent effect on extramarital sexual behavior (the Church's actual teachings about sex are, I think quite good), they have done some harm that needs correction.

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. It would lead to really funny interactions such as the one I had last night where someone did the math and realized I was single (and an active member) when I started doing sex therapy. It sounds like a walking contradiction and I have to reeducate that I didn't become a sexual being when I got married. I've been one for most of me life. How I express that has shifted to the context that I was in. That context differed based on safety, relationship commitment and development, and personal health. This orientation, though based on general doctrines IMHO, is not clearly stated and explained in most circumstances that I've had growing up. Though I should also say, I've almost never received push back from members when I've explained my model around the LOC and varying related principles.  

On 8/23/2022 at 7:52 AM, smac97 said:

An example:

Plenty of people have difficulty transitioning from pre-marital abstinence to post-marital sexuality.  Therapy, time, patience, communication, prayer, etc. can help in such things.

They do, but I would say the majority didn't have to to the degree that they did. There are some that it would have always been a challenge due to physical complications and big T traumas. But there are many that the cultural boundaries around sex helped formulate their problems. It's the very contrast of a mentality that notes "pre-marital abstinence" to "post-marital sexuality" that fosters a bumpy ride. I remember that when I got married I was a little angry for so many of my clients. I had never had intercourse prior. But it was a smooth and cheerful transition for several different reasons that our either a little taboo or just not done broadly in a LDS culture (at least in the states, particularly in the mountainwest region). I felt mature and grounded in my sexuality well before I was married. I had clear understanding of both the joys and the concerns that can come from a sexual relationship. I'd learned and practiced how to communicate frankly and openly about sex. My expression with my partner had progressed physically in line with the context of commitment we had in our relationship. I didn't need therapy. I needed a community and personal experience that helped foster sex. I knew that my job in these cases is an artificial fix for what could be a better flow in families and communities alike. It's needed, but I wish it wasn't needed as much, and my honeymoon cemented that it probably could be less needed if we tweaked our cultural beliefs and assumptions around this.. 

On 8/23/2022 at 7:52 AM, smac97 said:

And yes, the Church can do a better job of messaging and helping young adults have a proper perspective and reasonable expectations about "sex life" after marriage.  Overall, though, the difficulties of the foregoing transition (particularly when properly mitigated and planned for) are much better than what the Sexual Revolution has to offer.

They come with different problems. I admit, when I read Ornsteins book, much about the hook-up culture was simply foreign to me. It usually entailed a lot of drinking, fear of connection, and meaningless relationships. I was glad that it was foreign to me. But then, some of the problems and beliefs people have that have gone largely unchecked in our culture are also strange to me. I'm glad I somehow missed many of them and was able to look critically and reject/rearrange others in my head. They came with women with less understanding of their bodies and sexuality, difficulties communicating, men who struggle to manage and understand their sexuality, weird patterns of guilt and hurt when neither are really warranted, etc. Is the problems more severe on one hand than the other? I'd probably say they're different I'd personally opt out on either.

On 8/23/2022 at 7:52 AM, smac97 said:

Not sure what this is about.  

I do. It happens a lot. There's usually a family or local community culture that doesn't not fit the church teachings but is not necessarily healthy. These are left unscrutinized, validated, and even assumed to be what it means to be a good member...because again they're less culturally conflicting to the LOC than say rampant promiscuity. This ends up cementing unhealthy beliefs around sex. These vary, but I've had more than one person give me a belief they see as church-wide that I end up gently nudging back to family practice within a larger church whose other members may not see it or believe the same.  

On 8/23/2022 at 7:52 AM, smac97 said:

Teaching a little girl wearing a dress to keep her legs together caused trauma?

I would think the part that would be problematic is not teaching her to sit without exposing her underwear. It's tying that to males peering at her at the age of 3. That context is not healthy IMHO.

(quick pet peeve: I think people over use the word trauma. Like I get that beliefs and perspectives can harm/hinder....but it's still not the same as experiencing trauma in tighter definitions. It stretches the word out too far, but it's kinda the hot thing right now among some newer therapists I'm seeing that see trauma literally everywhere).

 

With luv,

BD

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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:

Quote

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.

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)?

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

Quote

Plenty of people have difficulty transitioning from pre-marital abstinence to post-marital sexuality.  Therapy, time, patience, communication, prayer, etc. can help in such things.

They do, but I would say the majority didn't have to to the degree that they did. There are some that it would have always been a challenge due to physical complications and big T traumas. But there are many that the cultural boundaries around sex helped formulate their problems.

Could you elaborate on these "cultural boundaries" (as you seem to be characterizing them as contributing to sexual dysfunction)?

I assume you have in mind something along the lines of guilt-and-shame-based counsel and instruction.  I quite agree with what others (notably Elizabeth Smart, but also members of this board) have said about descriptions, metaphors, etc. that seek to invoke shame or guilt or disgust as a basis or motivation for keeping the Law of Chastity.  This article is instructive: The Damaging Effects of Shame-Based Sex Education: Lessons From Elizabeth Smart

Quote

A couple months ago, several Christian bloggers created a conversation about the potentially harmful aspects of idolizing virginity and purity. While I think that abstinence is a great goal for kids (and one I will encourage for my own), I also believe that it is vitally important that we not use shame in an attempt to scare our children into complying with our own sexual ethics. While I think it’s great to explain the benefits of abstinence, I do believe that Christians have begun to rely too heavily on a shame-based rhetoric that motivates teens into compliance for fear of being “dirty” or undesirable.
...

Last month, Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped, raped and held captive for nearly a year, spoke about the way these messages discouraged her from running from her captors. She spoke from her own experience at a recent forum on human trafficking at Johns Hopkins University. She describes the feelings of shame she felt after her rape:

I’ll never forget how I felt lying there on the ground. I felt like my soul had been crushed. I felt like I wasn’t even human anymore. How could anyone ever love me or care for me after this? I felt like life had no more meaning to it. And that was only the beginning.

She further explained how she had no concept that sex could occur outside of marriage:

I was raised in a religious household where I was taught that sex only happened between a married man and a woman. After that rape, I felt so dirty … can you imagine going back into a society where you are no longer of value? Where you are no longer as good as anybody else?

Raised in a religious household, Elizabeth recounted a school teacher who urged students against premarital sex and compared women who had sex before their wedding nights to chewing gum:

I thought, “Oh my gosh, I’m that chewed up piece of gum, nobody re-chews a piece of gum. You throw it away.” And that’s how easy it is to feel like you no longer have worth, you no longer have value. Why would it even be worth screaming out? Why would it even make a difference if you are rescued? Your life still has no value.

Elizabeth went on to advise that we focus on teaching children their inherent value. “The best thing we can do is educate young people as young as we can reach them, “she said. Survivors of rape need “permission to fight back, ” and that requires them “to know you are of value.”
...

No woman, ever, is a chewed up piece of gum. No woman is a cup of spit. No woman is a used car or a dirty rag or a used-up piece of duct tape or a plucked rose or a licked cupcake. No matter what she’s done.

Didn’t Jesus come to tell us that?

We can do better.

This is sound counsel, both as to girls and boys, both as to victims of abuse and those who have voluntarily engaged in inappropriate behavior.

For the Strength of Youth seems to set a healthy tone in terms of affirmative and uplifting encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity rather than invoking shame/guilt.  But I wonder if some (many?) YW/WM leaders, bishops, etc., intending to emphasize the importance of the Law of Chastity, embellish to the point of getting into shame-based instruction.

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

It's the very contrast of a mentality that notes "pre-marital abstinence" to "post-marital sexuality" that fosters a bumpy ride. I remember that when I got married I was a little angry for so many of my clients. I had never had intercourse prior. But it was a smooth and cheerful transition for several different reasons that our either a little taboo or just not done broadly in a LDS culture (at least in the states, particularly in the mountainwest region). I felt mature and grounded in my sexuality well before I was married. I had clear understanding of both the joys and the concerns that can come from a sexual relationship. I'd learned and practiced how to communicate frankly and openly about sex. My expression with my partner had progressed physically in line with the context of commitment we had in our relationship. I didn't need therapy. I needed a community and personal experience that helped foster sex. I knew that my job in these cases is an artificial fix for what could be a better flow in families and communities alike. It's needed, but I wish it wasn't needed as much, and my honeymoon cemented that it probably could be less needed if we tweaked our cultural beliefs and assumptions around this.

It sounds like your training and experience helped in significant ways.  Is that a fair characterization?  If so, how could your experience be approximately replicated for those of us who lack your skill sets and background?

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

Teaching a little girl wearing a dress to keep her legs together caused trauma?

I would think the part that would be problematic is not teaching her to sit without exposing her underwear. It's tying that to males peering at her at the age of 3. That context is not healthy IMHO.

Perhaps that is another aspect of instruction about the Law of Chastity that requires correction/clarification.  Part of shame-and-guilt-based instruction can include attempting to create a sense of "responsibility" for how Teen A's behavior could adversely affect Teen B.  It seems like this pretty much always manifests with Teen A being a girl and Teen B being a boy, and also often arises in the context of discussing "modesty" in clothing.  

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

(quick pet peeve: I think people over use the word trauma. Like I get that beliefs and perspectives can harm/hinder....but it's still not the same as experiencing trauma in tighter definitions. It stretches the word out too far, but it's kinda the hot thing right now among some newer therapists I'm seeing that see trauma literally everywhere).

Yes, we as a society are increasingly resorting to hypberbole, and in so doing we dilute the meaning and significance of words like "trauma," "violence," "hate," etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

On 8/22/2022 at 9:44 PM, jkwilliams said:

The problem I see with what you are quoting is that women are still seen as the gatekeepers, the ones whose job it is to say "no" to men.

I don't see it as a problem, but as an inevitability. Who potentially suffers the most from sex? Women. Because they can get pregnant, which is virtually inescapable even if abortion is available on demand, because the trauma of becoming pregnant and then aborting is still on the woman. Meanwhile, the man can vanish into thin air, and in cases of casual one-nighters doesn't necessarily even know that he's a father. The woman is left holding the bag, and because she can be left holding the bag, for her own sake she better darned well control the bag.

After my dad provided me with the information about sex and where babies came from (and he didn't provide me with any moral direction about it), I knew instinctively that women were necessarily the gatekeepers to sex, and why. It seemed self-evident, because of the obvious risks involved.

 

[Stargazer]

On 8/23/2022 at 5:42 PM, jkwilliams said:

The message here seems to be that men are more sexual

I believe that this is largely true, with of course, many outliers. I myself am kind of an outlier -- generally, I can take it or leave it. 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are some in-between spaces between committed monogamy and meaningless sex from ongoing hookups, friends with benefits, and the all the rest. Almost everyone tires of meaningless hookups eventually. Even the sluttiest of us messed up humans.

There are female equivalents to Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Heffner. There are quite a few of them. They just don’t get publicized a lot because society doesn’t have a place to laud such women. I have known some. I dated one of them. She was sweet and beautiful and goofy and fun and just loved sexual novelty and was endlessly seeking out new techniques, toys, and partners.

The problem with outliers is we tend to generalize them too much. My late wife once had a brief conversation with a guy she interacted with one time downtown in a shop, and upon detecting her German accent, he asked her in all seriousness how the drugs were in Germany. As in, "I do drugs, so everyone else does them, too."

I've never run into a woman with proclivities like the ones you describe. Obviously I shouldn't generalize that there are no such women out there, but I've been married three times, and at the risk of sharing too much, none of my wives were into sexual novelty.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I believe that this is largely true, with of course, many outliers. I myself am kind of an outlier -- generally, I can take it or leave it. 

My personal belief is that male sexual desire is different from female desire, but that doesn't mean men are somehow "more sexual" than women.  

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My personal belief is that male sexual desire is different from female desire, but that doesn't mean men are somehow "more sexual" than women.  

Of course they're different, no question of that. Depending upon one's definition or understanding of "being sexual" you may be correct. Or you may be wrong. One of my sons was married to a woman who was far "more sexual" than he was. It led to their divorce. It is, of course, highly personalized.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The problem with outliers is we tend to generalize them too much. My late wife once had a brief conversation with a guy she interacted with one time downtown in a shop, and upon detecting her German accent, he asked her in all seriousness how the drugs were in Germany. As in, "I do drugs, so everyone else does them, too."

I've never run into a woman with proclivities like the ones you describe. Obviously I shouldn't generalize that there are no such women out there, but I've been married three times, and at the risk of sharing too much, none of my wives were into sexual novelty.

I was already talking about outliers. Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Hefner are not typical men in regards to sexuality. I am saying there are equivalent women but where would they be lauded?

For example: https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a37401601/letting-go-of-sexual-shame-coming-out-as-polyamorous-bisexual/

I’ve been in environments where both men and women have much fewer inhibitions about sharing what they want and my conclusion would be that it is not dissimilar between genders. Now those people were probably outliers by just being in that environment but there was a mix. You had monogamists, monogamists into an occasional threesome, open marriage types, and full-blown polyamorists. You had the whole slew of the spectrum from mostly ‘vanilla’ desires to stuff that is superfreaky, to borrow a term from a song, all the way to downright dangerous.

[BlueDreams]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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. 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 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. 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. (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.
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. 

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. 

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate on these "cultural boundaries" (as you seem to be characterizing them as contributing to sexual dysfunction)?

I assume you have in mind something along the lines of guilt-and-shame-based counsel and instruction.  I quite agree with what others (notably Elizabeth Smart, but also members of this board) have said about descriptions, metaphors, etc. that seek to invoke shame or guilt or disgust as a basis or motivation for keeping the Law of Chastity.  This article is instructive: The Damaging Effects of Shame-Based Sex Education: Lessons From Elizabeth Smart

This is sound counsel, both as to girls and boys, both as to victims of abuse and those who have voluntarily engaged in inappropriate behavior

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. 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. 

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the Strength of Youth seems to set a healthy tone in terms of affirmative and uplifting encouragement to keep the Law of Chastity rather than invoking shame/guilt.  But I wonder if some (many?) YW/WM leaders, bishops, etc., intending to emphasize the importance of the Law of Chastity, embellish to the point of getting into shame-based instruction.

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.

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It sounds like your training and experience helped in significant ways.  Is that a fair characterization?  If so, how could your experience be approximately replicated for those of us who lack your skill sets and background?

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. 
 

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. 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. 

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Yes, we as a society are increasingly resorting to hypberbole, and in so doing we dilute the meaning and significance of words like "trauma," "violence," "hate," etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would probably call it over-defining more than hyperbole. People are seeing a problem and they want a word for it. The problems they’re seeing are legitimate. The word choice maybe notsomuch. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was already talking about outliers. Don Juan, Casanova, and Hugh Hefner are not typical men in regards to sexuality. I am saying there are equivalent women but where would they be lauded?

For example: https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a37401601/letting-go-of-sexual-shame-coming-out-as-polyamorous-bisexual/

I’ve been in environments where both men and women have much fewer inhibitions about sharing what they want and my conclusion would be that it is not dissimilar between genders. Now those people were probably outliers by just being in that environment but there was a mix. You had monogamists, monogamists into an occasional threesome, open marriage types, and full-blown polyamorists. You had the whole slew of the spectrum from mostly ‘vanilla’ desires to stuff that is superfreaky, to borrow a term from a song, all the way to downright dangerous.

I'll admit to being in my own bubble, yes.

[MrShorty]

On 8/24/2022 at 10:58 AM, smac97 said:

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)?

I think @BlueDreams covers a lot of it. I would add that the one thing I would take of of FTSoY is the bit about "arousal." I grew up with this idea that sexual arousal was the dividing line between sin and not sin. I can only speak to the male-bodied experience, but most men recall how hair-triggered their arousal mechanisms were when young. Arousal is a dividing line between sin and not sin and arousal that is too easily crossed. Again, from my own experience, I was always so despondent because I experienced arousal so frequently and sometimes enjoyed it. Then I would read something like Nephi's psalm ("make me to tremble at the appearance of sin.") and would hate myself even more because I kind of enjoyed the sin of arousal.

Even if we avoid receiving the message that arousal itself is a sin, the main message in these two sentences is that arousal is a Very Dangerous Thing. Arousal is so closely adjacent to all of these other sins (sins next to murder in seriousness??), that, even if arousal is technically not a sin in itself, it is still a dangerous thing to be avoided at all costs (that one ought to seek to tremble at the very appearance of sexual desire and arousal???).

As the thread winds down, I will offer the following branch off of the OP -- my sexual regrets. Note that I have no experience with any kind of promiscuous lifestyle, so I cannot empathize at all with the experiences mentioned in the OP. Though I don't regret having only one sexual partner throughout my life, I do regret a couple of things.

1) If it isn't obvious from above, I regret the self-loathing I felt as a youth over masturbation, wanting sex, being curious about sex, etc. I usually don't want to go back and change things I regret because those experiences shaped who I am today, but this is one I think I would go back and somehow change if I could. I wish I could go back and somehow mitigate this self-hatred. Somehow help myself understand sooner that sexual desire was okay, something different about masturbation, maybe a sticky note next to Nephi's psalm saying that sexuality is not one of the things to tremble at or something. So much of my youth and the rest of my life has been negatively affected by those early attitudes towards sexuality that I really wish my experience had been different.

2) I wish that I had better understood the importance of sex as part of a healthy marriage. I might have been quicker to seek help for a sexless marriage before such patterns of behavior had calcified while I struggled to understand why I could not just let sex go as the meaningless, discardable thing I thought it was.

It's possible that some of this is a near universal experience as a (Christian??) man. A recent post by an Evangelical sex and marriage blogger described my experience quite well https://thexycode.com/2022/08/19/turn-his-burden-into-a-blessing/ He suggests that this might be universal for Christian men and maybe even men in general, but I would like to think that some of the sense of being a "monster" because of our male sexuality could be mitigated or reduced so that we come to a healthier relationship with our sexuality earlier and with less baggage.

[DT_]

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

I think the best way to do that is by re-connecting it to marriage.

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

On 8/22/2022 at 10:59 AM, smac97 said:

I have recently come across two articles, both written by women, expressing regrets about buying into the generalized narrative on the Sexual Revolution.  

Do ex-mormon stories prove the church isn't true? 

Edited September 2, 2022 by DT_

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Quote

I think the best way to do that is by re-connecting it {sex} to marriage.

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

A variety of reasons.  Why do you ask?

15 minutes ago, DT_ said:

Quote

I have recently come across two articles, both written by women, expressing regrets about buying into the generalized narrative on the Sexual Revolution.  

Do ex-mormon stories prove the church isn't true? 

No.  I'm not sure what you point is, though.  Could you elaborate?

Thanks,

-Smac

[DT_]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A variety of reasons.  Why do you ask?

 I'm not sure what you are trying to prove in the opening post. Would you agree there are married couples who lose interest in sex? 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  I'm not sure what you point is, though.  Could you elaborate?

Correlation is not causation.  

Edited September 2, 2022 by DT_