On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_Runtu]

How about it Runtu, Liz, Seven, and Harmony, do you think it best for your kids to become sexually experienced prior to marriage? Would you want them to go about sexually sampling in order to make sure there is a good sexual fit?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No...I think it is best for both the man and the woman to be virgins when they marry. However, I don't think that they should be completely sheltered and ignorant about sex, either. I certainly don't want them thinking that sex is dirty. It is a beautiful act of love which can bring a couple closer together emotionally and physically.

I am going against the grain of popular culture, but I don't think that keeping one's virginity necessarily means you won't have any clue as to whether you're sexually compatible after marriage. To a certain extent, good communication skills and compassion in marriage can overcome a lot of that (with obvious exceptions). What I find more problematic is the lack of discussion at all about sex before marriage. The trend these days in many Christian churches is for premarital counseling, including discussion about sexuality. In my experience, most LDS folks are taught never to discuss sex before marriage (except in the negative, licked-cupcake sense) and thus are ill-prepared to develop the kind of communication needed to overcome possible incompatibilities.

When I was elders quorum president years ago, my bishop told me he was tired of having the same talk with all the young married couples (most of the ward consisted of married BYU students) about perceived sexual incompatibility, so he asked me to talk to our quorum over several weeks about resolving differences in marriage, including sexual issues. It was striking to me just how reluctant most of these guys were to even discuss sex with their wives. The perceived "incompatibility" was that they wanted something, and they asked for it, and the wife said "no." They hadn't learned to talk about their interests in the bedroom and were genuinely surprised that the bishop and I suggested they needed to have regular communication about these issues. The bishop told me later that our lessons did a world of good.

In my opinion, frank discussion beats icky analogies any day.

[_Yoda]

by the way....Thanks, Kimberly Anne, for posting your essay, and starting this topic.

Welcome to the board!

:)

Liz

[_Yoda]

I am going against the grain of popular culture, but I don't think that keeping one's virginity necessarily means you won't have any clue as to whether you're sexually compatible after marriage. To a certain extent, good communication skills and compassion in marriage can overcome a lot of that (with obvious exceptions). What I find more problematic is the lack of discussion at all about sex before marriage. The trend these days in many Christian churches is for premarital counseling, including discussion about sexuality. In my experience, most LDS folks are taught never to discuss sex before marriage (except in the negative, licked-cupcake sense) and thus are ill-prepared to develop the kind of communication needed to overcome possible incompatibilities.

When I was elders quorum president years ago, my bishop told me he was tired of having the same talk with all the young married couples (most of the ward consisted of married BYU students) about perceived sexual incompatibility, so he asked me to talk to our quorum over several weeks about resolving differences in marriage, including sexual issues. It was striking to me just how reluctant most of these guys were to even discuss sex with their wives. The perceived "incompatibility" was that they wanted something, and they asked for it, and the wife said "no." They hadn't learned to talk about their interests in the bedroom and were genuinely surprised that the bishop and I suggested they needed to have regular communication about these issues. The bishop told me later that our lessons did a world of good.

In my opinion, frank discussion beats icky analogies any day.

I agree with this 1000%.

OK...It's official...Runtu and I were separated at birth. GIMR, Runtu, Harmony, and I must have been quadruplets. LOL

What's interesting to me is that as verbal as women are, many of them who have been brought up strict LDS also have a similar problem. They have the "Harlequine romance" view that the man should instinctively "know" how to pleasure her.

Hey...if he's a virgin too, he's going to need to be "taught", too!

It can be fun "learning" together, though! ;)

[_Fortigurn]

I am going against the grain of popular culture, but I don't think that keeping one's virginity necessarily means you won't have any clue as to whether you're sexually compatible after marriage. To a certain extent, good communication skills and compassion in marriage can overcome a lot of that (with obvious exceptions). What I find more problematic is the lack of discussion at all about sex before marriage. The trend these days in many Christian churches is for premarital counseling, including discussion about sexuality.

You're not going against my grain, that's for sure. Great post.

[_Trinity]

What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that Mormonism is, in my opinion, the most sexual church around. Not only is it your incentive and eternal goal to get to the CK for eternal lovemaking, but the focus on procreation (once married) is so ingrained you will find it in all of the LDS scriptural canon, the lesson manuals, the Proclamation, the temple.

You would think the leadership would see fit to be more open and easygoing about the whole thing.

[_Fortigurn]

What I find fascinating about this whole thing is that Mormonism is, in my opinion, the most sexual church around. Not only is it your incentive and eternal goal to get to the CK for eternal lovemaking, but the focus on procreation (once married) is so ingrained you will find it in all of the LDS scriptural canon, the lesson manuals, the Proclamation, the temple.

You would think the leadership would see fit to be more open and easygoing about the whole thing.

I believe there's a serious dichotomy there which leads to psychological turmoil and mental stress for some.

[_Jason Bourne]

In no reasonably way could it be interpreted as a general commentary on the value of women in relation to men, nor can it in any reasonable way be viewed as viable example of the general perception of the Church and its members regarding their view of women in relation to men. Rather, it is an attempt to convey a somewhat sophisticated concept in way that would be understood by the teenage mind--that concept being, that with sexaul behavior, like with many other things, there will be unfavorable consequences for poor choices, and because of the nature of things (women having the only visible symbol of virginity and also the ones who may get pregnant, etc.), women will tend to experience more of those unfavorable consequences than men, and it would behove them to take more care to avoid the unfavorable consequences. The intent behind the cupcake analogy is to help prevent teenager in general, and female teenagers in particular, from making certain poor sexual choices that could adversely affect them throughout their lives. I view that as a loving and admirable intent, particularly in regards to the young women (contrary to your misperceptions).

So you think such object lessons, this one, the crushe rose, the nail in the board and hole analogy (Which ELder Holland teaches is a false doctrine) are all quite fine ways to teach young impressionable minds?

What can't be controlled for by the Church and its teachers, though, is one of the student later twisting this perfectly reasonable message into feminist hysteria and an irrational call to vacate the restored gospel of Christ.

No Wade. I know you cannot see the Church doing any wrong at all and it seems it is eitther the hearer's fault and their twisted minds twisting something further, or it is a renegade teacher. But you are wrong. First if the Church denounced such hideous lessons they would not be used. Second, if the Church did not teach about sexual sin in such a heavy handed way these object lessons would be less used.

Further shame on you man for blaming the person who was taught such nonesense at a young age as hysterically and irrationally misunderstanding it. Wade, ,the Church can do better and has done bad things that have been hurtful. I am sprry that you cannot be reasonable about it.

If you really think carefully about this, you will realize that it isn't the Church that is giving women a bad name, but women such as yourself who spew this kind of nonsense.

No Wade. The nonesense on this one is coming from you my friend.

Please, for everyone's sake, get a grip on yourself and reality. Set aside your dysfunctional feminist agenda, and begin to adopt healthy and functional strategies that will result in mutual love, respect, and value. Stop looking at the Church as the cause for your problems, and begin to earnestly and honestly introspect. In other words, focus not on what you think the Church is saying about women, but instead focus on being the best woman you can be, and act lovingly and respectful and in ways that are valued, and the same will more likely be returned to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

[_Jason Bourne]

In no reasonably way could it be interpreted as a general commentary on the value of women in relation to men, nor can it in any reasonable way be viewed as viable example of the general perception of the Church and its members regarding their view of women in relation to men. Rather, it is an attempt to convey a somewhat sophisticated concept in way that would be understood by the teenage mind--that concept being, that with sexaul behavior, like with many other things, there will be unfavorable consequences for poor choices, and because of the nature of things (women having the only visible symbol of virginity and also the ones who may get pregnant, etc.), women will tend to experience more of those unfavorable consequences than men, and it would behove them to take more care to avoid the unfavorable consequences. The intent behind the cupcake analogy is to help prevent teenager in general, and female teenagers in particular, from making certain poor sexual choices that could adversely affect them throughout their lives. I view that as a loving and admirable intent, particularly in regards to the young women (contrary to your misperceptions).

So you think such object lessons, this one, the crushe rose, the nail in the board and hole analogy (Which ELder Holland teaches is a false doctrine) are all quite fine ways to teach young impressionable minds?

What can't be controlled for by the Church and its teachers, though, is one of the student later twisting this perfectly reasonable message into feminist hysteria and an irrational call to vacate the restored gospel of Christ.

No Wade. I know you cannot see the Church doing any wrong at all and it seems it is eitther the hearer's fault and their twisted minds twisting something further, or it is a renegade teacher. But you are wrong. First if the Church denounced such hideous lessons they would not be used. Second, if the Church did not teach about sexual sin in such a heavy handed way these object lessons would be less used.

Further shame on you man for blaming the person who was taught such nonesense at a young age as hysterically and irrationally misunderstanding it. Wade, ,the Church can do better and has done bad things that have been hurtful. I am sprry that you cannot be reasonable about it.

If you really think carefully about this, you will realize that it isn't the Church that is giving women a bad name, but women such as yourself who spew this kind of nonsense.

No Wade. The nonesense on this one is coming from you my friend.

Please, for everyone's sake, get a grip on yourself and reality. Set aside your dysfunctional feminist agenda, and begin to adopt healthy and functional strategies that will result in mutual love, respect, and value. Stop looking at the Church as the cause for your problems, and begin to earnestly and honestly introspect. In other words, focus not on what you think the Church is saying about women, but instead focus on being the best woman you can be, and act lovingly and respectful and in ways that are valued, and the same will more likely be returned to you.

Let me ask you this. In your apologetic little mind is there ever any cistumstance where the Church has done things that are hurtful and perhaps can improve?

[_Runtu]

If you really think carefully about this, you will realize that it isn't the Church that is giving women a bad name, but women such as yourself who spew this kind of nonsense.

Wade, I must have missed this the first time I saw your post, but this was totally uncalled for. If I recall correctly, you say you're all about refusing to engage in a cycle of anger and recrimination and instead focusing on the internal. So, you should be asking yourself, "What can I do to improve the relationship between myself and KimberlyAnn? How have my cognitive distortions contributed to any animosity and hard feelings?" Instead, your post is all about externalizing the offense you feel and attacking KA merely for expressing an opinion you disagree with.

I'm with Jason: shame on you for treating someone like this.

[_Jason Bourne]

Now, I understand your compassionately wanting to minimize the stigma and the suffering of those who have made poor sexual choices, and were they the only parties to compassionately consider, then I would be right there with you. However, there are also those on the cusp of making sexual choices, and I think it compassion to them to use a measure of stigmatization and so forth as a means of discouraging poor choices.

The stigma and teaching that comes from such lessons is simply this. If you have lost your virginity nobody will want you. If you haven't nobody will want you so you better not lose it. God help the poor soul sitting in on the lesson for whom it is too late. Nobody wants her/him and by the way, those of you who have not sinned will never want one who has. Quote simple.

Is it not sad that shame and stigmatization are the best method the True Church can use to teach about this difficult subject.

In other words, it is a delicate balance that must be struct between the two, and not one that is easily struct--even given the best of intentions. As such, I believe latitude should be given those attempting to strike that balance. More to the point, I don't think the intent (love and respect for the children and a desire to keep them from unnecessary harm) should be over-shadowed by disputes about whether the delicate balance was struck in a certain instance or not. Certainly such disputes are no reasonable cause to call for the abondonment of the restored gospel of Christ (as the OP mentioned).

Problem is there is no delicate balance with these types of lessons. They are simply so out of balance on the shame and self loathing side that yes Mr. want to be therapist, they do cause emotional and unheelthy problems for people.