On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_wenglund]

I fell in love with a sister missionary toward the end of my mission, and as soon as I went home I immediately wrote to her confessing my feelings and whatnot and hoping that things might develop from there. Well, they didn't, but that's not the point of this anecdote. The point is that when I was telling my mom about her, I told my mom that this girl had been a convert to the church at the age of 18 or 19 or something like that. My mom got this very grave look on her face, and in a low voice confided her worry that "she might not be a virgin".

I have to tell you, I had fallen in love with this girl for who she was, and I didn't exactly give a rat's freaking ass what she wasn't. I have to tell you, I was repelled at that time by my mom's attitude, and I'm still repelled even more now thinking about it, now that I'm no longer shackled to this false belief system.

Why in the hell should I have considered a girl who, for many reasons, had attracted me spiritually and with my heart to such a strong degree, something to be avoided rather than attracted to, on the merest possibility that she might not be a , gasp, virgin?

I don't know whether she was a virgin or not when I knew her. I honestly couldn't care less. Her virginity or lack thereof had absolutely nothing to do with the reasons why I was attracted to her and fell in love with her. She was a great person, and I to this very day have a soft spot in my heart for her - things didn't progress the way I'd hoped because it turns out she had a guy she'd known from before her mission waiting for her, and not because of any lack of desire or feeling for her on my part.

The very attitude toward sexuality that supports teaching teenage girls that they will be disgusting if they ever have sex with a guy out of wedlock, is itself a disgusting teaching. Sure, I'm all in favor of teaching kids restraint, and I have no problem with the idea of people waiting till they are married, but if they don't, they don't become disgusting, and they shouldn't be taught that they do.

This stikes me as incredibly judgmental, self-righteous, and lacking in understanding and intollerant of your mother's differing point of view.

And, in this day and age of rampant STD's, I find your relatively cavalier attitude about promiscuity somewhat astonishing--though not suprising since it reflects much the same attitude of many in our STD-ridden world.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Part of the problem here, Wade, is that you don't see that a girl who has had sex is not disgusting, like a cupcake that's had its frosting licked off by someone else.

This is the issue here, not even whether girls are better than boys, or worse than boys, or whatever. I don't know what KA and others feel about this, but I feel that the prime lesson here is that a girl who has had sex is not "damaged goods" that should be shunned by everyone. A girl should not be made to feel like if she has "messed up" and had sex with someone, she's now disgusting, revolting, and will never be desirable to anyone. That is a sick and twisted belief and mindset to be teaching a girl, or a boy, or anyone.

The problem as I see it, sethbag, is not only did I read the OP to mean something far differently form what you now suggest, and not only do I think the cupcake analogy is being blown way out of proportion, but I think that you are confusing attempts to prevent teens from making poor sexual choices, with perceptions and treatment of teens who have made poor choices. These I view as two different things. Understandably, parents and church leaders alike will approach each side of the choice differently. For example, they will talk to a child one way about not running mindlessly into the street, and respond in a different way if the child does run mindlessly into the street--particularly if the running results in an accident.

I also see you as dismissing or ignoring the disfavorable consequences of poor sexual choices. That, I believe, comes from looking jaundicely at things solely from the perspective of those who have made poor sexual choices.

Wade---I am beginning to seriously question whether or not you actually understand the "cupcake lesson." Where in the lesson do we hear anything about "the disfavorable [sic] consequences of poor sexual choices"? The only "disfavorable" consequence mentioned is rejection by TBM males....The lesson says nothing about pregnancy, or STDs, or any other of the "consequences" you seem to be alluding to.

What, exactly, my dear Wade, do you consider to be a "poor sexual choice"? I am extremely interested in hearing your take on this.

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.

This sounds needlessly cruel, Wade.

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).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Can you please show me where in the "restored gospel of Christ" it discusses vilifying and stigmatizing women who have had sex outside of marriage?

[_Runtu]

Wade---I am beginning to seriously question whether or not you actually understand the "cupcake lesson." Where in the lesson do we hear anything about "the disfavorable [sic] consequences of poor sexual choices"? The only "disfavorable" consequence mentioned is rejection by TBM males....The lesson says nothing about pregnancy, or STDs, or any other of the "consequences" you seem to be alluding to.

The lesson was pretty clear: it was about how having sex once made you undesirable. I believe people can be taught to make good decisions (with Scratch, I wonder what you consider a good sexual choice) without stigmatization, rejection, and shunning.

[_Trinity]

While I have never sat through a cupcake lesson, I know for a fact that the church teaches from a very idealistic, black/white frame of mind when it comes to virtue. It is Satan who is luring people away with carnal approaches towards this sacred act of procreation. The current YW manuals still very much reinforce this idea:


“Lesson 36: The Importance of Truth in Living a Virtuous Life,” Young Women Manual 1, (2002), 158





And the scope of what the church feels is the divine role of a woman is very wide:

Point out that we can have positive or negative attitudes about our divine roles wife and mother. Some look at these roles as being demeaning and full of drudgery, but our roles are actually a part of a solemn promise that we made before we came to earth. They are part of the blessings that come to us as daughters of God.

Quotation and discussion
President Spencer W. Kimball explained that “we made vows, solemn vows, in the heavens before we came to this mortal life.

“We have made covenants. We made them before we accepted our position here on the earth. …
“We committed ourselves to our Heavenly Father, that if He would send us to the earth and give us bodies and give to us the priceless opportunities that earth life afforded, we would keep our lives clean and would marry in the holy temple and would rear a family and teach them righteousness. This was a solemn oath, a solemn promise” (“Be Ye Therefore Perfect,” address given at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion, 10 Jan. 1975, p. 2).

• What roles did we promise to Heavenly Father that we would accept before we came to earth? (We would marry and have a family.)

President Kimball cautioned, “Do not … make the mistake of being drawn off into secondary tasks which will cause the neglect of your eternal assignments such as giving birth to and rearing the spirit children of our Father in Heaven” (Ensign, Nov. 1979, pp. 102–3). (“Lesson 8: Attitudes about Our Divine Roles,” Young Women Manual 1, (2002), 28

Sheri Dew apparently did not write the YW curriculum. Nor did Wendy Watson, Elder Nelson's new wife.

[_Sethbag]

Not even sure where to begin. For starters, Wade think it's fine that we tell girls they'll be disgusting if they have sex out of wedlock, as long as, once they've actually had that sex, we don't follow up with the threat and actually treat them as if they really are disgusting.

Secondly, I had known this sister missionary for a good year by the end of my mission, and had had enough experiences with her in a variety of settings (all kosher, by the way) that I felt I really knew her pretty well, and had fallen in love with what I had gotten to know. And here my mom had no clue who she was at all, not the slightest clue, except that there was the possibility she might not be a virgin. Wow. And you think I'm unfairly judging my mom for rejecting her attitude towards the girl I was telling my mom I was in love with. Whatever.

I also see you as dismissing or ignoring the disfavorable consequences of poor sexual choices. That, I believe, comes from looking jaundicely at things solely from the perspective of those who have made poor sexual choices.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you really implying that I am looking at the disfavorable consequences of poor sexual choices differently than you because I myself made poor sexual choices? Are we back to that whole meme of apostates necessarily being sinners? Are we back to the idea that the only reason one could possibly stop believing in the church is because one's committed adultery, or fornication, or what have you, and thus "lost the Spirit"? It's none of your business, but for the record I was a virgin when I married, and I've been faithful to my wife ever since.

[_Trinity]

Wow. All of that for a box of chocolate cupcakes.

I'd like to know from KA if she ever taught or was in a leadership position in YW. If you were, KA, how did you approach these lessons?

I'd also like to offer up my daughter as an interesting case study about how the black/white approach on female roles is going to have to be modified if they want to keep YW active and believing in the church.

My oldest daughter turned 24 in December of last year. She is a very bright believer. She got her associates degree one week before graduating high school. She married a returned missionary at the age of 19, and right now she is finishing up her masters in geological engineering. She is active in the church.

She has zero, and I mean zero interest in having children. It has a lot to do with her personality but she has very little patience for young ones. Her five younger siblings probably contributed to that. She used to get so disgusted with her YW lessons when it came to all things having to do with gender, roles, purities, chastities, etc. (She was a virgin on her wedding day- sidenote to Wade). She thinks the church has been a wonderful guide and anchor for her in having a faith in God, but she feels her goodness and her aspirations in life should not be dependent on her sex as a woman. So I asked her about how she felt she would fit in in the hereafters as she didn't like the business of children. I was speaking specifically to the Proclamation of the Family. She said "I want to MAKE worlds, not populate them. I feel God put me on this earth to fill my potential as a person, and that has nothing to do with making babies." Not only that, but she doesn't want children on her worlds because they are "noisy and make a mess." LOL.

She seems to have no problem whatsoever answering to God about the decisions she is making, and says she will die childless with a clear conscience. She disagrees that the church leadership should be in the business of telling her what her role should be and that as long as she is making good decisions that allow her to grow as a person, she should be left alone. It doesn't stop her from being irritated by her ward members who continue to bug her about when she is going to have a baby (she is going on five years of marriage now)

She keeps her liberal opinions about this topic to herself and will only tell people to back off if they become too invasive. Her bishop recently asked her about her family plans and she told him she was happy, she was making goals, she was in a happy marriage, and she feels God has blessed her. And that was that.

I don't think she is an isolated case. I think the more educated the females are becoming, the less likely they are going to be content with traditional matriarchal roles, especially long-term eternal ones. The family sizes have been lowering for some time now. I think the church realizes this and this is why they are expressing concern about the women becoming more educated than the men. I get the impression they long for the good old days of the 30's and 40's or whatever generation the current leadership was raised in where social gender roles were very well defined and both male and female kept well within their accepted roles...and the woman was content staying at home because she had limited opportunity to do little else. That is no longer the case. The gap between the church's stilted gender expectations and the changing and female-empowering society (at least here in the US) continues to grow. And the church is really too large now to isolate and insist on adherence to those roles while demonizing the society around them. Sooner or later something will give. Females cannot continue to be pulled by such strong, polarizing directions.

[_Sethbag]

Someone ought to gently break it to your daughter that in the Celestial Kingdom it's only the Penisholders, I mean Priesthood holders, who get to make worlds. If she won't make babies to populate the worlds her husband makes, she'll just sit back and watch his other several dozen wives do it without her, and it'll be awfully lonely up there with nothing to do.

[_wenglund]

Not even sure where to begin. For starters, Wade think it's fine that we tell girls they'll be disgusting if they have sex out of wedlock, as long as, once they've actually had that sex, we don't follow up with the threat and actually treat them as if they really are disgusting.

Actually, I made no mention of the word "disgusting". That was your word, sethbag, not mine. Rather, I spoke of disfavorable consequences. Unlike you, I am less concerned with exaggerated disputes over well intended analogies and more concerned with helping young people avoid making poor sexual choices.

Secondly, I had known this sister missionary for a good year by the end of my mission, and had had enough experiences with her in a variety of settings (all kosher, by the way) that I felt I really knew her pretty well, and had fallen in love with what I had gotten to know. And here my mom had no clue who she was at all, not the slightest clue, except that there was the possibility she might not be a virgin. Wow. And you think I'm unfairly judging my mom for rejecting her attitude towards the girl I was telling my mom I was in love with. Whatever.

It doesn't help your case to follow your self-righteous judgementalism with self-serving and patronizing characterizations. Look very carefully through what you said and see if there is the least hint of you trying to understand your mothers presumably loving jesture on your behalf. Try for a moment and stop thinking just about yourself and your past love, and give some respectful thought in regards to your mother.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that you should agree with your mother's off-hand remark, but rather that it would be more fair and reasonable to put the event into proper perspective and least grant some measure of rational and good intents on your mothers behalf.

I also see you as dismissing or ignoring the disfavorable consequences of poor sexual choices. That, I believe, comes from looking jaundicely at things solely from the perspective of those who have made poor sexual choices.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you really implying that I am looking at the disfavorable consequences of poor sexual choices differently than you because I myself made poor sexual choices?

No. One cannot reasonably derive that from what I said.

Are we back to that whole meme of apostates necessarily being sinners?

No. Again, one cannot reasonably derive that from what I said.

[qoute]Are we back to the idea that the only reason one could possibly stop believing in the church is because one's committed adultery, or fornication, or what have you, and thus "lost the Spirit"?[/quote]

No. For the third time, one cannot reasonably derive that from what I said.

It's none of your business, but for the record I was a virgin when I married, and I've been faithful to my wife ever since.

For the record, I could care less, and I can see no rational reason why you would even mention this to me. It is completely irrelevant to what I said and had in mind. My comments were confined solely to what you have communicated on this thread.

Please, take a few deep breaths, and calm down. You are blowing what I said way out of proportion, just as you apparently have done with the cupcake analogy and your mom's relatively benign off-hand comment. You are only serving to reinforce my points, rather than counter them, though I doubt you intended to do so.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_KimberlyAnn]

OK, people, I'm just going to say it because someone has to. Wade makes no sense. He's condescending, rude and and impervious to reason. He argues in circles and I think I'd do best to completely ignore him after this last comment.

I didn't leave the Mormon cult over a lesson on licked cupcakes. YES people should abandon the false church of Mormonism, Wade, and not because of anything to do with how it treats women. They should leave it because of the simple fact that Joesph Smith was a liar. And a cheat. And an adulterer. And a criminal. And he never saw God or Jesus or found any gold plates or got a single revelation that came from God in his entire life. I'm not sure there's a hell, but if there is one I'm sure Smith is frying in it for what he did to the fourteen year old little girl, Helen Mar, among many other things.

There may be some good in the Mormon church, but none that can't be done better by less harmful organizations. All of Mormon doctrine, what can actually be pinned down, is rotten.

I know the Young Women's leaders had good intentions when giving the cupcake lesson. But that doesn't make it any less damaging. I know for a fact that a few of the girls in my class were already licked cupcakes. I wonder how they felt about themselves after that lesson? I wonder if Wade would have them all paraded about as a bad example of how to live so that the rest of us unlicked cupcakes would have even more incentive to remain chaste. After all, they probably had STD's. Ugh.

Trinity, I did once teach in Young Women's. I didn't give the cupcake lesson. I wouldn't have given it if they'd asked me to. There was a girl in my class who was a licked cupcake and there was no way I'd have subjected her to that despicable lesson. I guess because I was married and had figured out that although sex is great fun, it's just not that big of a deal, I didn't feel it was the end of the world that she wasn't a virgin. Who cares? I didn't while I was teaching her. She was my favorite girl anyway.

And for the record, I no longer see premarital sex as evil. I think as long as a male or female is emotionally capable of dealing with the implications of sex and use protection that it's perfectly acceptable and have told my daughters as much. I hope they wait until college, but I'd much rather them have sex before they're married than marry too young. That's my opinion.

KA

[_beastie]

Wade makes perfect sense as long as you remember his goal is always to try to demonstrate that the real problem doesn't have anything to do with the LDS church, but rather has everything to do with the psychological dysfunction of apostates.