Rolling Stone Article Re: Armpit Crabs at BYU

[Tacenda]

 

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks for once again making me grateful to be single! 

I think sexual relations not coordinating can be a problem in marriage. But it shouldn't be front and center of the relationship. I wish the world didn't place so much emphasis on it.

I'm so curious to know when was the other time/times I made you not want to get married, lol.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, the message was that it was the wife’s duty to meet the husband’s needs. When I told my wife about the meeting she said it was a good thing that she was the one who bought the lingerie. To this day, I can’t imagine what business it is of a bishop to determine what people wear in the bedroom. So bizarre. 

I agree with your wife, I'd like to be the one who buys it, but have only bought one and it's tame as all get out, just something with spaghetti straps, lol. 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree with your wife, I'd like to be the one who buys it, but have only bought one and it's tame as all get out, just something with spaghetti straps, lol. 

People do what works for them. There’s not really a wrong answer as long as both spouses agree. Either way, it’s not the bishops business. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I wasn’t patronizing you at all. You said you were grateful to be single, which I think is wrongheaded. Sorry if I offended. 😔

Nope, that is patronizing. And this attitude is why so many singles don’t feel comfortable being around married ones.
 

Why is there any need to make value judgments on which life, single or married is better, especially when it isn’t one size fits all?  Hamba may have been doing that as well as not sure how to read his post and if so, this is to him as well. If he was just expressing that his life works well for him right now and he is grateful not to have other complications in his life that married individuals complain about, no big deal in my view and not deserving of a ‘you are so blind, you don’t know what you are missing’ patronizing remark.  
 

I think it highly unfortunate that anyone waves a ‘your life could be so much better if only you had the chance….’ (especially when there is a “to have what I have” tacked on) when it’s a situation where it isn’t totally under their control to change it.  It doesn’t help someone feel better about their situation or help them change and can lead to dissatisfaction and giving up or just avoidance of the one who for some reason feels the need to point out how their life lacks (in that person’s view, not reality). Promoting the idea that true happiness isn’t something you can have in the here and now even if your situation isn’t perfect or what you dreamed or even if it sucks in a lot of ways too easily poisons someone’s feelings about their life rather than giving them something to think about or look forward to. It is not about what you have or don’t have, it is about what you make with what you have. For once I think this cliche is true for most people (definitely not all though to be clear).  And for most people, since they can find value even in small things in their lives if they think to look and nurture when they find what makes them feel more whole, more at peace, happier, this is going to be enough to be a good life.
 

I am specifically referring to stuff one doesn’t have a major ability to control, such as getting married since that requires another’s commitment as well, getting into a particular school or getting a particular job at a particular company as there can be factors one cannot control because someone else chooses. Stuff under one’s control, like working on one’s physical fitness/health and education (even just a choice to use more of one’s limited spare time reading informative articles rather than playing games or watching entertainment) is in a different category, imo and sharing what we have personally worked on that has improved our lives can be motivating if done in a way that isn’t rigid, that allows for someone to adapt it to their lives and still feel they are accomplishing something.

It is just not healthy or helpful to keep dwelling on what one doesn’t have and others making a big deal of it is not kind or compassionate. 
 

Lecture ended. 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wish the world didn't place so much emphasis on it.

Same! Growing up in a context that was not super-saturated in sexuality has made my life as a single man under covenant to live the Law of Chastity so much easier. And after many experiences with membership councils, I have come to realise that, in many cases, people who struggle to be chaste outside of marriage will continue to struggle to be chaste within marriage.

Quote

I'm so curious to know when was the other time/times I made you not want to get married, lol.

Oh, loaded question!

Edited November 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope, that is patronizing. And this attitude is why so many singles don’t feel comfortable being around married ones.
 

Why is there any need to make value judgments on which life, single or married is better, especially when it isn’t one size fits all?  Hamba may have been doing that as well as not sure how to read his post and if so, this is to him as well. If he was just expressing that his life works well for him right now and he is grateful not to have other complications in his life that married individuals complain about, no big deal in my view and not deserving of a ‘you are so blind, you don’t know what you are missing’ patronizing remark.  
 

I think it highly unfortunate that anyone waves a ‘your life could be so much better if only you had the chance….’ (especially when there is a “to have what I have” tacked on) when it’s a situation where it isn’t totally under their control to change it.  It doesn’t help someone feel better about their situation or help them change and can lead to dissatisfaction and giving up or just avoidance of the one who for some reason feels the need to point out how their life lacks (in that person’s view, not reality). Promoting the idea that true happiness isn’t something you can have in the here and now even if your situation isn’t perfect or what you dreamed or even if it sucks in a lot of ways too easily poisons someone’s feelings about their life rather than giving them something to think about or look forward to. It is not about what you have or don’t have, it is about what you make with what you have. For once I think this cliche is true for most people (definitely not all though to be clear).  And for most people, since they can find value even in small things in their lives if they think to look and nurture when they find what makes them feel more whole, more at peace, happier, this is going to be enough to be a good life.
 

I am specifically referring to stuff one doesn’t have a major ability to control, such as getting married since that requires another’s commitment as well, getting into a particular school or getting a particular job at a particular company as there can be factors one cannot control because someone else chooses. Stuff under one’s control, like working on one’s physical fitness/health and education (even just a choice to use more of one’s limited spare time reading informative articles rather than playing games or watching entertainment) is in a different category, imo and sharing what we have personally worked on that has improved our lives can be motivating if done in a way that isn’t rigid, that allows for someone to adapt it to their lives and still feel they are accomplishing something.

It is just not healthy or helpful to keep dwelling on what one doesn’t have and others making a big deal of it is not kind or compassionate. 
 

Lecture ended. 

Again, I’m sorry. I thought saying you’re grateful to be single is an awful thing to say. But I recognize I responded inappropriately. 

[MustardSeed]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

people who struggle to be chaste outside of marriage will continue to struggle to be chaste within marriage.

This must be anecdotal- 

I disagree strongly. 

Also fwiw, I have known many unhappy married people,  and many happy married folks, and many happy single for lifers, and many miserable single for lifers.  No one has the corner on joy.  Thank goodness!  Hope for all. ❤️

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 11/6/2022 at 9:03 AM, bluebell said:

I've attended student wards in a couple different states and was pretty well in the know, and if the kind of stuff that BYU is always getting called out for happened in any of those single wards it was a one-off situation that the couple took to their graves.

This.

I attended two public universities in America. At one, I belonged to a singles ward and served in various callings, including elders quorum president. I never heard of anything like this stuff.

At the second university, I belonged to a regular ward, but most students lived in its boundaries, and I served both years on the Institute Council, including as president (as well as LDSSA president on campus). Again, people were pretty normal. I did have a flatmate my second year who seduced one of our recent converts, but he was a BYU graduate and had family members who worked there, so ...

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

This must be anecdotal- 

100 per cent anecdotal. As I clearly wrote, it is based on my personal experiences (across three bishoprics, three stake presidencies, and about 2.5 years as a member of a high council).

Quote

I disagree strongly.

And I disagree strongly back. In every instance where I have been involved in a membership council convened because of infidelity within marriage, there has been a history of unchastity before marriage.

Quote

I have known many unhappy married people, and many happy married folks, and many happy single for lifers, and many miserable single for lifers.

Same!

Edited November 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that is important.  Not sure this matters as much to casual readers, though.  They'll take the rumor/innuendo as established fact because they "read it online" somewhere.

I don't know if it makes much a different. The only one who would believe the RS article is if they already have a solid confirmation bias. The "article" starts like this:

Quote

A RUMOR BEGAN circulating over the weekend that there’d been an outbreak of crabs at Brigham Young University, but not quite the way you might think. Though completely unverified, the claim — some version of which circulates every few years — was that undergrads were catching the STI not in their nether-regions, where pubic lice typically hang out, but in their armpits.[...]It sounds a little too spot-on to be true, but ex-Mormons and an STI expert who spoke with Rolling Stone say it isn’t impossible. (BYU did not respond to requests for them to confirm or deny the occurrence of an armpit crabs outbreak on campus, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not reply to a request for comment on such intercourse alternatives.)

All of these words/phrases in bold indicate serious pause because they indicate really shaky claims at best. The article doesn't get better. At one point I thought they at least had a firsthand account of "soaking." But it turns out it just had called the act "mormon soaking" that was performed with a presbyterian. And the rest is just an expanded version of the first paragraph saying it's basically not impossible even if unlikely.  Again you're not going to get there without a bias that would already lead you to assume it "must be true" to some degree or another. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

When I was in the Army I met more than one person who was curious about my life as a Latter-day Saint.  I remember one fellow being flummoxed at the idea that Latter-day Saints voluntarily abstain from sex outside of marriage.  He seemed to think that the only options were A) acting on sexual urges, or B) not having sexual urges.

It's a little weird, honestly. But not fully surprising. Even within LDS circles I'm having to work down this assumption I see that basically means one HAS to have sex if they feel the urge (namely for men). It's a rampant cultural lie that keeps men assuming they can't control and guide their urges and really messes with the quality of people's sex lives. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I guess my thinking on this point is influenced by how the law treats sexual assault as compared to other "species" of assault.  It is bad for a man to physically assault a woman (a punch to the gut, for examples), but considerably worse to sexually assault a woman.  Many forms of sexual assault do not even involve the use or threat of force, and yet they are still typically construed as being worse than assault that does.

I actually believe that it is worse. Sexual assault is inherently a form of exploiting another for one's own pleasure or desires. It doesn't always overtly harm the body but it always disregards/minimizes human autonomy. That may happen with physical assualt, but it isn't inherent to a "punch to the gut." Which may be why this shows in a far higher prevalence of PTSD among those who've suffered sexual assault than other forms of assault. PTSD is more likely to come from experiences that one feels powerless. And it may have other physical consequences that are not lacerations, such as STI's and unwanted pregnancy.  

I'm also confused by the idea that sexual assault can somehow be done without the use of force. By at least 2 definitions of force, sexual assualt by nature is a form force. You're doing something against another person's will.

 

With luv,

BD

[jkwilliams]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I actually believe that it is worse. Sexual assault is inherently a form of exploiting another for one's own pleasure or desires. It doesn't always overtly harm the body but it always disregards/minimizes human autonomy. That may happen with physical assualt, but it isn't inherent to a "punch to the gut." Which may be why this shows in a far higher prevalence of PTSD among those who've suffered sexual assault than other forms of assault. PTSD is more likely to come from experiences that one feels powerless. And it may have other physical consequences that are not lacerations, such as STI's and unwanted pregnancy.  

I'm also confused by the idea that sexual assault can somehow be done without the use of force. By at least 2 definitions of force, sexual assualt by nature is a form force. You're doing something against another person's will.

Completely agree. Nonsexual assault motivated by pleasure (I guess you'd call that sadism) seems relatively rare, but that's generally the motivation for sexual assault. I've known people who have been badly injured in physical assaults, but the emotional trauma is almost always much worse in cases of sexual assault.

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same! Growing up in a context that was not super-saturated in sexuality has made my life as a single man under covenant to live the Law of Chastity so much easier. And after many experiences with membership councils, I have come to realise that, in many cases, people who struggle to be chaste outside of marriage will continue to struggle to be chaste within marriage.

ehhh...depends what you mean by "being chaste." If you struggle with porn use pre-marriage you probably struggle with porn after. If you struggle with being fidelous to your girl/boyfriend or fiance it may follow you into marriage. But if its a pair that happened to struggle to keep a certain line pre-marriage with each other, I haven't seen much of a correlation there at all. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

Yes, that is important.  Not sure this matters as much to casual readers, though.  They'll take the rumor/innuendo as established fact because they "read it online" somewhere.

I don't know if it makes much a different. The only one who would believe the RS article is if they already have a solid confirmation bias.

I think there is an unfortunately not-statistically-significant number of people who A) have such a confirmation bias as to the Latter-day Saints and their beliefs/behaviors, and/or B) are credulous and/or apathetic enough to conflate rumors and stereotypes about us with facts.  

By way of example, consider the tweet JK Rowling sent out a few weeks ago.  She apparently saw The Book of Mormon Musical and took one of its comedic tropes (specifically, that Joseph Smith never showed the plates to anyone) as established fact.  And then there are the number of people who think we still practice polygamy, or that we all live in Utah, etc.  When I was in the Army I met a girl who genuinely thought Mormons had horns on their heads.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The "article" starts like this:

All of these words/phrases in bold indicate serious pause because they indicate really shaky claims at best. The article doesn't get better. At one point I thought they at least had a firsthand account of "soaking." But it turns out it just had called the act "mormon soaking" that was performed with a presbyterian. And the rest is just an expanded version of the first paragraph saying it's basically not impossible even if unlikely.  Again you're not going to get there without a bias that would already lead you to assume it "must be true" to some degree or another. 

Again, JK Rowling took a caricature of us as established fact.  If a person of her intellect can jump to unwarranted conclusions, I wonder how many other people can take a similar "I read/heard it somewhere" approach.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

When I was in the Army I met more than one person who was curious about my life as a Latter-day Saint.  I remember one fellow being flummoxed at the idea that Latter-day Saints voluntarily abstain from sex outside of marriage.  He seemed to think that the only options were A) acting on sexual urges, or B) not having sexual urges.

It's a little weird, honestly. But not fully surprising. Even within LDS circles I'm having to work down this assumption I see that basically means one HAS to have sex if they feel the urge (namely for men). It's a rampant cultural lie that keeps men assuming they can't control and guide their urges and really messes with the quality of people's sex lives. 

Basic Training was the first time I ran into this "cultural lie."  That was in 1991.  I would have hoped that we had progressed a bit by then.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

I guess my thinking on this point is influenced by how the law treats sexual assault as compared to other "species" of assault.  It is bad for a man to physically assault a woman (a punch to the gut, for examples), but considerably worse to sexually assault a woman.  Many forms of sexual assault do not even involve the use or threat of force, and yet they are still typically construed as being worse than assault that does.

I actually believe that it is worse. Sexual assault is inherently a form of exploiting another for one's own pleasure or desires.

Bullies can get a rush via physical violence.  Fraudsters can get a rush by conning someone.  Satiating "one's own pleasure or desires" is often in play in other instances of physical contact.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

It doesn't always overtly harm the body but it always disregards/minimizes human autonomy.

I agree.  Abuse often seems to be about the improper exercise of power over others ("unrighteous dominion").  The overriding of another's autonomy.

There are other substantive factors which can be in play, such as acting impaired judgment, poor impulse control, etc.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

That may happen with physical assualt, but it isn't inherent to a "punch to the gut."

It's a pretty common contributing factor, though.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Which may be why this shows in a far higher prevalence of PTSD among those who've suffered sexual assault than other forms of assault. PTSD is more likely to come from experiences that one feels powerless. And it may have other physical consequences that are not lacerations, such as STI's and unwanted pregnancy.

I think society is entirely justified in treating sexual assault/abuse as being particularly harmful in ways that other forms of physical contact may not be.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm also confused by the idea that sexual assault can somehow be done without the use of force.

The FBI's definition of rape, in place since 2013, omits "force" as an element (though it was there previously) :

Quote

In 2013, the FBI UCR {Uniform Crime Report} Program initiated collection of rape data under a revised definition within the Summary Reporting System. Previously, offense data for forcible rape was collected under the legacy UCR definition:  the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Beginning with the 2013 data year, the term “forcible” was removed from the offense title, and the definition was changed. The revised UCR definition of rape is:  Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Attempts or assaults to commit rape are also included; however, statutory rape and incest are excluded.  See Rape Addendum for details.

The previous hallmarks (force, against a woman, penetrative contract (I believe that is what was meant by "carnal knowledge") have been replaced with A) lack of consent, B) omission of gender (so men can be raped as well), and C) expanding the meaning of "penetration."

See also Utah Code section 76-5-402(2) :

Quote

(a) An actor commits rape if the actor has sexual intercourse with another individual without the individual's consent. (b) Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of a violation of Subsection (2)(a). (c) This section applies whether or not the actor is married to the individual.

Utah Code section 76-5-402.2 ("Object rape"), also does not include force as an element.  Utah Code section76-5-406 addresses sexual offenses by persons acting in breach of trust (a health professional or religious counselor, and also does not include force as an element.

This 1998 law journal article lays out a variety of circumstances which may constitute rape without force:

• Fraudulent medical/therapeutic treatment
• Sexual contact as part of "religious guidance"
• Sexual contact as part of "musical education"
• Sex by fraud (impersonation of husband, boyfriend, famous person, law enforcement, etc.)
• Sex by scam (talent agents, acting coaches, psychics)
• Sex by extortion
• Sex by abuse of authority (teacher, guardian, police officer, employer, etc.)

Coercion is per se the overriding of a person's will/consent, but it may or may not be accompanied by force.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

By at least 2 definitions of force, sexual assualt by nature is a form force.

But it is not necessarily procured through force.  It is force as a predicate, as the means to commit, that is no longer an essential component of the definition.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

You're doing something against another person's will.

"{D}oing something against another person's will" may or may not involve force.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 7, 2022 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And I disagree strongly back. In every instance where I have been involved in a membership council convened because of infidelity within marriage, there has been a history of unchastity before marriage.

I believe your experience.  I don’t believe  in your originally stated theory.  The reason is, you don’t have a good enough sample to indicate how many LDS couples  are knockin the boot before marriage and still remaining faithful in the marriage.  I have reason to believe that people can and do cross those very difficult lines to hold pre marriage, and then in marriage keep the law as it applies to marriage.  

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I believe your experience.  I don’t believe  in your originally stated theory.  The reason is, you don’t have a good enough sample to indicate how many LDS couples  are knockin the boot before marriage and still remaining faithful in the marriage.  I have reason to believe that people can and do cross those very difficult lines to hold pre marriage, and then in marriage keep the law as it applies to marriage.  

I think your reasoning is sound.

It seems like fornication and adultery are different enough that it doesn’t work to say that once one has had sex before marriage it’s more likely they will cheat on their spouse. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But if its a pair that happened to struggle to keep a certain line pre-marriage with each other, I haven't seen much of a correlation there at all.

I have. One of the last membership councils I was involved in was precisely this. Non-member joined the Church with encouragement from member girlfriend, and he then served a mission. Post-mission, they almost immediately started up a sexual relationship. Recommended solution: get married, which they did. Less than a year into their marriage, they had both engaged in adulterous behaviour, resulting in membership restrictions.

Mercifully, the Atonement is real, and the outcome of the council I was involved in was the restoration of those blessings. Weeks later, they were sealed in the temple. I hadn't seen them for a while, but I bumped into them at our most recent stake conference, and they (and their growing family) appear to be doing great!

Edited November 7, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I have reason to believe that people can and do cross those very difficult lines to hold pre marriage, and then in marriage keep the law as it applies to marriage.  

I believe that too, and I never stated otherwise.

What I have never seen -- not even once -- is infidelity in marriage by a spouse for whom this is her/his first serious violation of the Law of Chastity.

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I believe that too, and I never stated otherwise.

What I have never seen -- not even once -- is infidelity in marriage by a spouse for whom this is her/his first serious violation of the Law of Chastity.

I've seen it. More than a few times. One guy I know was very sexually active after his mission at BYU-Idaho. His girlfriend broke things off because she was feeling guilty and he wasn't ready for marriage. He took it hard and started drinking heavily. Eventually he pulled himself together and finished his degree at BYU. He got sealed to a woman who was, well, mean and abusive, but he never cheated on her. They got divorced a few years ago, and about a year later, he reconnected with his old girlfriend from BYU-Idaho. They got married in the temple and are quite happy. He works for the church, and unless he's been lying to me for 30-something years, he's never broken the law of chastity since before he was married the first time.

Another guy I know was quite innocent and was a virgin when he got married in the temple. 15 years or so later, he started going into chat rooms online, and that led to adultery. It was his first serious violation of the law of chastity, and he repented. He and his wife worked things out. A girl I knew in high school joined the church her junior year and then was my sister's roommate at BYU. While her husband was in medical school, he started going to strip bars with his fellow students. He ended leaving her for a stripper he had impregnated. I'm pretty sure he didn't sleep around before marriage, but I could be wrong.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I believe that too, and I never stated otherwise.

What I have never seen -- not even once -- is infidelity in marriage by a spouse for whom this is her/his first serious violation of the Law of Chastity.

I have seen it. 

[BlueDreams]

48 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have. One of the last membership councils I was involved in was precisely this. Non-member joined the Church with encouragement from member girlfriend, and he then served a mission. Post-mission, they almost immediately started up a sexual relationship. Recommended solution: get married, which they did. Less than a year into their marriage, they had both engaged in adulterous behaviour, resulting in membership restrictions.

Mercifully, the Atonement is real, and the outcome of the council I was involved in was the restoration of those blessings. Weeks later, they were sealed in the temple. I hadn't seen them for a while, but I bumped into them at our most recent stake conference, and they (and their growing family) appear to be doing great!

That problem to me isn’t breaking chastity, it was getting married to “make it right.” Marriage is a crap solution to most problems IMHO. I did hesitate with what I wrote because I pictured this sort of scenario. But I decided against it, because this isn’t the sole problem or concern going on. I have an acquaintance who fits something similar. Two puppies (I think they were both 19 or 20 at best) get together, start up a sexual relationship, and soon get preggo. Instead of a shot gun wedding, they took their time to figure out if their relationship was what they wanted long term while co-parenting and accepting the fall out that came from their choices. 
 

a while later, they married. And little after they they got sealed and had 2 more kids in a healthy partnership without cheating. 

Pushing marriage exacerbates problems for marriage because when things get even mildly hard there’s a persistent doubt about whether they married who they were  supposed to. That doubt alone increases chances of divorce, more difficult fights, and affairs. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

He ended leaving her for a stripper he had impregnated. I'm pretty sure he didn't sleep around before marriage, but I could be wrong.

Quite often, within the sacred confidentiality of a membership council, people will take the opportunity to unburden themselves in ways that might surprise those who know them.

Again, just speaking from my own experiences in such councils. I'm willing to acknowledge that others' experiences may differ.

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quite often, within the sacred confidentiality of a membership council, people will take the opportunity to unburden themselves in ways that might surprise those who know them.

Again, just speaking from my own experiences in such councils. I'm willing to acknowledge that others' experiences may differ.

OK I just need to clarify this. Are you saying that based on your experiences, you believe that when people Break the law of chastity before marriage, be that fooling around or Intercourse or pornography or masturbation or what have you, that they are more likely to have affairs after they are married?  Additionally, Might you believe that People who have affairs are only people who are historically been law of chastity breakers? 
 

So if I’m 18 , And I marry a 21 year old who has never had sexual relations with that woman or any woman, I am pretty guaranteed that my husband will not cheat on me according to you is that correct? Please trust I’m not trying to catch you in anything here I am trying to understand your belief. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by MustardSeed

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

OK I just need to clarify this.

Here's my original statement: 'In many cases, people who struggle to be chaste outside of marriage will continue to struggle to be chaste within marriage'.

Quote

I am pretty guaranteed that my husband will not cheat on me according to you is that correct?

I don't think anyone could give you that guarantee. I certainly wouldn't.

But it has been my personal experience within the context of double-digit membership councils that infidelity within marriage has in those cases always been preceded by serious violations of the Law of Chastity (is 'fornication' a better term?) outside of marriage. I'm not sure what conclusions one should reach from this, but I have repeatedly heard the people involved draw a clear line between patterns of behaviour established before marriage and struggles later in life. One example: a career diplomat attended a council after having confessed to serial adultery for the second time in his short-ish marriage (two different women, two different postings). Through tears of anguish, he said (paraphrased from memory), 'I had no idea when I was young that developing a habit of fooling around was going to make it so difficult for me to be loyal to my eventual wife. I wish I could go back and start over!'

Maybe they're wrong to understand their own life histories in this way? As I wrote above, 'I'm willing to acknowledge that others' experiences may differ'.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[MorningStar]

On 11/5/2022 at 7:52 AM, jkwilliams said:

No, you did not. 

There were no hints about what it had to do with. Filled with regret except for the fact that I told my husband and he laughed hysterically. Now I told him about the armpit crabs. We weren't sure what that meant. Armpits rubbing against armpits? That sounds horrible and pointless and I doubt our middle-aged bodies could even accomplish such a thing. He joked later, "So... you wanna?" "No, my armpits are still sore from last time." 

I don't believe this armpit thing is happening. It's not the least bit believable. Especially since most women shave their armpits. Assuming crabs is transmitted through hair? Feeling pretty proud that I don't know much about crabs. *weird flex* 

[Calm]

I remember (so take it with a bit of salt, but I feel pretty secure I didn’t just create this memory as I tend to forget much more often than create memories) a number of years ago reading a serious article/essay by a former? Saint who talked about her sexual life as a member and how dating nonmembers worked out for her, etc. Iirc, she wasn’t exactly letter of the law of chastity.  I remember there being a little bit of a stir about it, but nothing major. She described one of the men she dated (not American iirc) as telling her an alternative to intercourse that would keep her a virgin would be growing her armpit hair and…I just edited out additional memory as perhaps unappealing to readers here, so I will just say it wasn’t armpit to armpit as she described it.  That would be more fun, imo.  You can start off armpit to armpit as a dance and devolve into wrestling. I have no clue if anything she said was reality.

Hadn’t heard about anything like it since though. I wonder if others picked up the idea from that, at least as a rumor. I really don’t want to try and track down the article. I think I read it iirc as part of my weekly collecting of all News Mormon that I and a few others did for FAIR for a year or so (just to keep members up to date who wanted to be aware of what was happening in the media, helped save time and fewer needed to suffer, lol).  But I have gone down some weird rabbit trails in doing research and some titles are so bad I can’t resist clicking on them even when I know I am going to regret it, lol.  I doubt anyone else would remember.