Narratives Re: Regrets on Promiscuity

[Chum]

Missionaries: So Brother Chum, how did you come to join the Church?

Me: [nods toward in-laws across the table] I knocked up their daughter.

Kids: Wow dad.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Missionaries: So Brother Chum, how did you come to join the Church?

Me: [nods toward in-laws across the table] I knocked up their daughter.

Kids: Wow dad.

This is why premarital gay sex is better.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.     

I would say that co-habitating, premarital sex, etc ... is more than about what you want* per se as in it is also about communal grounding, too. (*People want communal grounding, too--so compatibility can indeed still be part of "purchasing" the communal acceptance a person wants.) Online comments can be shallow and not truly reflect the depth that's there.

Furthermore, communities are changing. Mating and commitment is changing. I would hold off on taking too much from cohabitation studies. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.  

Of course chastity can have value--sex is risky on plenty of levels--what I am saying is that there can be a circumspect, moral paradigm including premarital sex that is more cautionary in the long-term, when you assume the eventuality of marriage/long term commitment. 

Iow, learning a healthy management of sex before commitment is better than figuring it out after you've already committed to your sexual partner for life.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I would say that co-habitating, premarital sex, etc ... is more than about what you want* per se as in it is also about communal grounding, too. (*People want communal grounding, too--so compatibility can indeed still be part of "purchasing" the communal acceptance a person wants.) Online comments can be shallow and not truly reflect the depth that's there.

Online can be. I tend not to interact with said sites/discussions. This one is not particularly shallow and the reasons for were one’s I’ve commonly heard. They weren’t abnormally bad or extreme. Nor were they my first experience with people who’ve cohabitated. I meet them plenty via therapy and there’s not something extra they have compared to the couple that haven’t. Note: I’m not writing off cohabitation entirely as inherently bad. Nor am I doing that with pre-marital sex. I know couples who did both and have great relationships. It’s just not necessary for a relationship to flourish or start out strong. Focusing it as a solution to poor relationship development isn’t really that helpful. It’s a cultural myth that’s grown as our culture has. It’s not actually borne out in the numbers and figures we have. When I’ve met with people who are trying to avoid or get out of bad relationships, there’s usually more obvious tells and personal approaches that are creating cycles. These are NOT based on cohabitating or if they had sex before marriage. They’re based usually on personality, family baggage they haven’t addressed, and an unawareness of or tendency to excuse red flags. There’s ways to bolster the chances of a good marriage and I strongly recommend people take those up. Cohabitation and pre-marital sex just isn’t some of them. If they do it, I’m not going to insist they not. But I’m not going to pretend it’s a panacea of relational health. 

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, communities are changing. Mating and commitment is changing. I would hold off on taking too much from cohabitation studies. 
 

Cohabitation studies have been happening for a few decades now. They’re large and small, from different data sets, use different checks and extraneous variables. They ask and seek out different factors and methods to cohabitation. As well as long term shifts in reasons couples cohabitate. It still shows the same overall basic results (neutral to marriage outcomes or more likely to end in divorce/lower relational satisfaction). I have no reason to ignore them except that they can be inconvenient to current cultural trends. The common adage about it, just isn’t empirically true…it’s bolstered by anecdotes of individual success and satisfaction. Social research will to some degree always be a snapshot of the cultural moment. That is not a great reason to write it off.

 

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course chastity can have value--sex is risky on plenty of levels--what I am saying is that there can be a circumspect, moral paradigm including premarital sex that is more cautionary in the long-term, when you assume the eventuality of marriage/long term commitment. 

Okay, I read this a few time to make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying premarital sex can including a moral stance that leads to more caution in forming longer-term commitments? In which case, what do you see some of those moral stances being? I would prefer to make sure I’m following you before I respond to this part.

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Iow, learning a healthy management of sex before commitment is better than figuring it out after you've already committed to your sexual partner for life.

I’ll wait for the response on the first have before responds to the second  

with luv, 

BD 

Edited September 8, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Chum]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:20 PM, The Nehor said:

This is why premarital gay sex is better.

If God wanted me to have gay sex, He'd of made me female.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

If God wanted me to have gay sex, He'd of made me female.

I go the other way. If God didn’t want me to have gay sex he wouldn’t have made so many hot guys.

[Chum]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I go the other way. If God didn’t want me to have gay sex he wouldn’t have made so many hot guys.

pfffft. Myth. I've yet to see a hot one. Although there some actor my ex was hot for. Don't remember who just that he had black hair and green eyes. I was like oh yeah. Okay. That kind of transcends sex.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Chum said:

pfffft. Myth. I've yet to see a hot one. Although there some actor my ex was hot for. Don't remember who just that he had black hair and green eyes. I was like oh yeah. Okay. That kind of transcends sex.

Bi panic is usually triggered by crushing on both halves of a couple and not knowing how to process it.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Bi panic is usually triggered by crushing on both halves of a couple and not knowing how to process it.

I think we all have a little "Bi" in us, because it's funny how guys probably prefer to be with guys vs wives, my husband seems to tolerate my company because he has to, but would most definitely want to be golfing with his buddies. And isn't it funny how women like to dress for other women, like we want to impress other women more than our husbands, lol. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002391/Sorry-chaps-women-dress-impress-other.html

Edited September 9, 2022 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And isn't it funny how women like to dress for other women, like we want to impress other women more than our husbands, lol. 

It's a social dominance thing. 

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It's a social dominance thing. 

Not me by a long shot, I just want to be accepted. But I'm really quite insecure.

Edited September 9, 2022 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not me by a long shot, I just want to be accepted. But I'm really quite insecure.

We all are. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not me by a long shot, I just want to be accepted. But I'm really quite insecure.

Same kind of thing.  You/we dress to fit in with everyone else and not stand out and be risk rejection.

Every social group, though, has a pecking order.  Dressing the best is one way the dominant persons in that pecking order use to let the others in the group know they're #1.  The older we get the less we care about being dominant or for some even fitting in.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think we all have a little "Bi" in us, because it's funny how guys probably prefer to be with guys vs wives, my husband seems to tolerate my company because he has to, but would most definitely want to be golfing with his buddies. And isn't it funny how women like to dress for other women, like we want to impress other women more than our husbands, lol. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002391/Sorry-chaps-women-dress-impress-other.html

That is really not bisexuality. Wanting to be liked or win social game and the like is not attraction. Your husband (probably) does not like to go golfing to make his golf buddies go mad with desire for him and most women don’t dress to impress women because they want those women to kiss them.

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is really not bisexuality. Wanting to be liked or win social game and the like is not attraction. Your husband (probably) does not like to go golfing to make his golf buddies go mad with desire for him and most women don’t dress to impress women because they want those women to kiss them.

I know, was saying it lightheartedly.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know, was saying it lightheartedly.

I thought you might be. The irony is that it is usually bisexual people who push the “everyone is a bit bi” thing while the monosexuals (straight and gay) think bisexual people will eventually pick a gender eventually. It is almost as if it is difficult to imagine a sexuality that is alien to your own in quantity. It might even be easier to understand a sexuality that is completely opposite (straight vs. gay) than one that is just all over the place. I still find straight and gay people strange.

[MrShorty]

On 9/8/2022 at 1:35 AM, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, communities are changing. Mating and commitment is changing.

I realize it's not exactly a foundational principle of sexuality, nor would we ever claim it as a foundational principle of our religion and theology, but it seems to me that "change" in general is difficult for us. We tend to believe that everything we believe and do is inspired by God, so there should never be a reason to make any changes (except when God inspires those changes). Coupled with a strong "us against the world" mentality, and whenever the world changes -- even in positive or more "true" ways -- we tend to resist those changes until hindsight shows them to be obviously true or improved. In hindsight, I look back at some of the teachings on sexuality and chastity from the '70s and '80s, and I see more of a knee-jerk reaction to the sexual revolution than anything "true." We are definitely a small "c" conservative church, in that we stick with tradition and the status quo until something compels us to change.

[Meadowchik]

On 9/8/2022 at 3:20 PM, BlueDreams said:

Online can be. I tend not to interact with said sites/discussions. This one is not particularly shallow and the reasons for were one’s I’ve commonly heard. They weren’t abnormally bad or extreme. Nor were they my first experience with people who’ve cohabitated. I meet them plenty via therapy and there’s not something extra they have compared to the couple that haven’t. Note: I’m not writing off cohabitation entirely as inherently bad. Nor am I doing that with pre-marital sex. I know couples who did both and have great relationships. It’s just not necessary for a relationship to flourish or start out strong. Focusing it as a solution to poor relationship development isn’t really that helpful. It's a cultural myth that’s grown as our culture has. It’s not actually borne out in the numbers and figures we have. When I’ve met with people who are trying to avoid or get out of bad relationships, there’s usually more obvious tells and personal approaches that are creating cycles. These are NOT based on cohabitating or if they had sex before marriage. They’re based usually on personality, family baggage they haven’t addressed, and an unawareness of or tendency to excuse red flags. There’s ways to bolster the chances of a good marriage and I strongly recommend people take those up. Cohabitation and pre-marital sex just isn’t some of them. If they do it, I’m not going to insist they not. But I’m not going to pretend it’s a panacea of relational health. 

 

I don't think I've argued for cohabitation or pre-marital sex as panaceas, I've been saying they can be a part of a moral and circumspect approach to relationships. And I've argued that--rather than claiming that they're bad or evil--that people are losing out on an important element to personal and relational development by abstaining from sex before long-term commitment. That's not saying sex the main element.

On 9/8/2022 at 3:20 PM, BlueDreams said:

Cohabitation studies have been happening for a few decades now. They’re large and small, from different data sets, use different checks and extraneous variables. They ask and seek out different factors and methods to cohabitation. As well as long term shifts in reasons couples cohabitate. It still shows the same overall basic results (neutral to marriage outcomes or more likely to end in divorce/lower relational satisfaction). I have no reason to ignore them except that they can be inconvenient to current cultural trends. The common adage about it, just isn’t empirically true…it’s bolstered by anecdotes of individual success and satisfaction. Social research will to some degree always be a snapshot of the cultural moment. That is not a great reason to write it off.

I think there's just too much other major changes going on for us to draw major conclusions about cohabitation's inherent effects. It is happening in a world that on multiple levels has not been set up for it, so I'm not going to be surprised if it is correlated to unwanted outcomes.

On 9/8/2022 at 3:20 PM, BlueDreams said:

 

Okay, I read this a few time to make sure I’m understanding you. Are you saying premarital sex can including a moral stance that leads to more caution in forming longer-term commitments? In which case, what do you see some of those moral stances being? I would prefer to make sure I’m following you before I respond to this part.

Premarital sex can be included in a moral and circumspect approach to personal development and relationships. In other words, premarital sex can be moral. (There's so much more to morality in sex that marriage does not necessarily address. I like it when people focus more on the the more personalized moral issues around sex--like consent, caution about pregnancy, protection from disease, consideration of the other in the short and long term...marriage isn't a panacea for that and I'm happy when those promoting chastity also promote those other moral considerations.)

On 9/8/2022 at 3:20 PM, BlueDreams said:

I’ll wait for the response on the first have before responds to the second  

with luv, 

BD 

 

[BlueDreams]

On 9/11/2022 at 6:44 AM, Meadowchik said:

 

I don't think I've argued for cohabitation or pre-marital sex as panaceas, I've been saying they can be a part of a moral and circumspect approach to relationships. And I've argued that--rather than claiming that they're bad or evil--that people are losing out on an important element to personal and relational development by abstaining from sex before long-term commitment. That's not saying sex the main element.

They can be. Where I strongly disagree is this second part. Panacea may be too strong of a word, but this description and the first one that I commented on still sets a hierarchy of value to premarital sex. It may not be a main element, but it was still seen as so important that you stated you couldn't rightly suggest making a lifelong commitment where it's included in the commitment. That's what I fundamentally disagree with. Think of it this way...children are important and are known for fundamentally shifting a relationship. One doesn't suggest that a couple try out a baby say via fostering or by having one as a necessity before deciding to enter a solid commitment that includes becoming parents. One also wouldn't suggest watching someone else's kid is similar enough to having your own. Minus the questionable ethics of having a tester-child, it's just not an accurate gage for anything. Pre-marital sex isn't a great gage for post-nuptial, long-term sexual relationships that tend to change and shift as the partners experiences and bodies shift. Pre-marital sex may give people experience with sex. But that experience is by no means equal or uniform and it can range from absolutely meaningless and caustic to deeply valuable and even healing, from my experience with those who've had sex outside of marriage. Pre-marital sex doesn't really correlate with the results. Which is why I've seen some amazingly solid marriages and some pretty disastrous ones with or without pre-marital sex. What does make it is the context the sex happens in. And that can easily be replicated in marriages without sex pre-marriage. These values and ability to communicate, share, honor where another partner is at, have patience, avoid overly-assertive and unrealistic expectations, etc aren't found by just having sex. Sex does not imbue knowledge. It's just a physical act. What we do and value around sex defines what it can or can't mean for us. 

Can a moral system be built around it that includes pre-marital sex? Sure. Is it inherently better or that another is "losing out" if they haven't done so? No. I have seen no such correlation in my work as a sex therapist. And personally I certainly don't feel I "lost out" from not taking the opportunities where I could have had sex pre-marriage. Frankly, I'm overtly grateful I didn't, for varying reasons.  

On 9/11/2022 at 6:44 AM, Meadowchik said:

I think there's just too much other major changes going on for us to draw major conclusions about cohabitation's inherent effects. It is happening in a world that on multiple levels has not been set up for it, so I'm not going to be surprised if it is correlated to unwanted outcomes.

This got me curious and I was searching for world comparisons in the research. The rate, safety networks, and assumptions around cohabitation vastly differ from country to country, by age, by pattern of choosing cohabitation etc. There isn't a single pattern. In some places, long-term cohabitation has pretty solid protections and is converging on marriage in terms of how it's viewed in these societies (again, not necessarily in results, though these also vary based on several factors of general advantage/disadvantage and reasons for starting cohabitation). I was particularly looking over this overview of it that worked to collect data from a wide range of factors (time, country, socio economic status, age, and diversity). I think there's shifts but I still think there's enough to say cohabitation is not necessarily better than marriage. At it's best it strong varies on how one cohabitated and how one treats the cohabitating relationship. Which can be somewhat similar to marriage, except that marriage is usually more culturally proscribed for why and when one enters it (this doesn't mean there aren't seriously problematic marriages structurally, including issues with power dynamics, divisions of labor in some, and chaotic/forced entrances to marriage). My only point is that I still wouldn't describe the concept of cohabitation inherently better to marriage. I have no good evidence of that. One may prefer it, or believe it has potential to be a social boon...but that's still more a belief than strongly supported.    

On 9/11/2022 at 6:44 AM, Meadowchik said:

Premarital sex can be included in a moral and circumspect approach to personal development and relationships. In other words, premarital sex can be moral. (There's so much more to morality in sex that marriage does not necessarily address. I like it when people focus more on the the more personalized moral issues around sex--like consent, caution about pregnancy, protection from disease, consideration of the other in the short and long term...marriage isn't a panacea for that and I'm happy when those promoting chastity also promote those other moral considerations.)

It can be. Again, I'm not denying this. But that is by no means all that is premarital sex, which tends to vary as much as who is doing the deed. There is no inherent morality in any sexual act. That is defined by cultural and personal beliefs, experiences, and expectations. (Marriage can also have variation...though because marriage often comes with more cultural parameters and personal contracts, there's a little less variance than premarital sex that doesn't naturally have either restraint). I do think there are overarching values that increase the benefit and value of sexual expression that are fairly universal. The ones you mention in parentheses is what I'd describe as the bare minimum of universals that I want a person to hit in their sexual relationships with whoever.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited September 12, 2022 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:30 AM, Meadowchik said:

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. 

Also my eyes skipped over this the first time I read this. 

Couples who believe in holding off on sex till marriage can indeed end up in this category. I've certainly seen couples - particularly ones who married super young (18-20) - show signs of this or state a much when their marriage was dissolving (it shows in some of their more childish approaches to their marriage). But It's by no means super common or predominate. Most who hold off on sex also hold other values that place marriage as extremely desirable and valued for other reasons than sex. These reasons usually change the calculus in deciding when it's right to marry and how long courtship needs to be. Because LDS hold similar values and beliefs around what marriage is for, this is usually fairly balanced out and the intentions around dating often speed up the process in finding a good partner. 

At least from what I've seen.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 12, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Stargazer]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:52 PM, 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 still have feelings of love for my first wife, for all that it was a miserable relationship. I wished nothing but the best for her after she demanded a divorce, and it did tear me up inside for some time after we parted -- even if it was a relief. She was an emotional mess that I thought I could fix. More fool I. I've only met her a few times since then, the last time at our son's wedding around 15 years ago, and she's still the same. Well, anyway, if she dies before me, I will see that she and I are sealed in the temple. Given her disadvantaged upbringing and her definite mental deficiencies, I am sure there's a chance for eternal life for her. I was her only husband, so...

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I still have feelings of love for my first wife, for all that it was a miserable relationship. I wished nothing but the best for her after she demanded a divorce, and it did tear me up inside for some time after we parted -- even if it was a relief. She was an emotional mess that I thought I could fix. More fool I. I've only met her a few times since then, the last time at our son's wedding around 15 years ago, and she's still the same. Well, anyway, if she dies before me, I will see that she and I are sealed in the temple. Given her disadvantaged upbringing and her definite mental deficiencies, I am sure there's a chance for eternal life for her. I was her only husband, so...

Why would you do that?  Would she want that?  Can you do that?

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why would you do that? 

Because I care about her. I didn't stop loving her because she wanted a divorce. Later she wanted to get back together, but there was no way I would do that in life. As I said, it was an emotionally draining experience. I imagine that the resurrection would deal with all that.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Would she want that? 

As I said, later she wanted to get back together. And besides, yes I know you don't believe in the LDS afterlife, she doesn't have to accept it. As for the immediate present, I'm not going to talk to her about it. As stated earlier, we haven't communicated in over 15 years and I'm not going to start now.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you do that?

Yep.

From the handbook of instructions (only relevant text included):

28.2.3 - Sealing to Spouse and Sealing Children to Parents - In the temple, deceased persons may be sealed to spouses to whom they were married in life...

38.4.1.3 - Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death - A living man may be sealed to a deceased wife. If the marriage ended in divorce, see 38.4.1.2. Before being sealed to a deceased wife, a man must receive written consent from his current wife if he is married. ** my current wife is okay with it.

38.4.1.2 - Sealing of Living Members after Divorce - A living man may be sealed to a deceased wife from whom he was divorced in life. He must first receive signed consent from his former wife’s widower (if there is one). **Note: there isn't one now, and probably there won't be one later

Besides, even if I didn't do this (or if I predeceased her), in current proxy temple work all husbands are sealed to all their wives, and all wives are sealed all to their husbands. So it would happen anyway, eventually. All this gets sorted out by the Holy Spirit of Promise when the time comes for it.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

Why would you do that?  Would she want that?  Can you do that?

I am curious too, if the surviving ex spouse can arrange a sealing. There is no legal relationship left or a blood relationship. It isn’t much different than arranging to be sealed to a neighbour or even a stranger.

It kind of creeps me out thinking of an abusive spouse who outlives their ex and goes for a temple sealing as a final act of control. 

If it was something an ex spouse wanted, perhaps for the sake of shared children or a child asked of their surviving parent, I think it could be a lovely thing, but seems weird to do it on just your own initiative to be honest. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Calm