On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_Mister Scratch]

Wade, I hope you'll take this in the kind and sincere spirit it's offered. Have you introspectively considered why it is that so many people here misinterpret you? Is there anything you can point to that would suggest why things are taken as rude and condescending or "blown out of proportion"? Is it all cognitive distortion or intentional misreading?

In short, to what do you attribute the hostility?

I do not know about the hostility, but I would like to come to Wade's side in this a bit. If more young people would follow Wade's example and remain chaste, many social ills could be reduced and the over-burgeoning population tide would eventually abate. After a long enough period of absence and population reduction through attrition, I imagine inviolate cupcake sales would skyrocket.

I am not taking a side against Wade, moksha. I'm just wondering why he thinks his posts are met with such opposition. I think it's a failure of communication, but I'm interested in Wade's thoughts.

I can think of at least three factors that contribute to that perception:

1) Cyberboard communication is remote and text-only, which means it isn't tempored with body language and facial expressions. So, often, whatever is said on either side may be interpreted as more hostile than intended--even with the use of emoticons.

2) The people I intend to respond to seem to me to be already in a state of hostility. On this thread, we have a women's opening remarks harshly condemning an entire religious faith over the sparadic and well intended use of a rather benign cupcake analogy. A person in that kind of hysterical state of mind is likely to take most any opposing statements in a hostile way. Others here come to the table with axes to grind and carrying chips on their shoulder, which predispose them to viewing opposing remarks in a hostile way,

3) At times I react to the perceived hostility (admittedly, I may be mistaken at times) with a bit of hostility of my own. And, since some of those to whom I am reacting can't for the life of them recognize or acknowledge their own hostility, I comes across to them as though I am the only one being hostile.

I understand, though, that the hostility, regardless of where it is coming from (myself included), is counterproductive to reasonable and efficacious dialogue. I also understand that if one wishes to improve things, one need look inwardly, rather than at the other parties, for change. For some time now, I personally have been striving to do just that, though admittedly not always successfully or perfectly (I am human after all). And, while my personal efforts won't eliminate all the perception of me as being hostile (that will take others eliminating the hostility within themselves), there has been at least some welcomed improvement.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hey, Wade: what do you suppose are the chances that your "perception" of this "hostility" is a cognitive distortion?

[_wenglund]

There is an old saying that goes something like: "It is far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness".

With that in mind, were I to consider a particular analogy potentially and unduly injurious (via stigmitization) to certain parties in a given class, then rather than hypocritically injuring a whole group of people (through sweepingly stimitized condemnations), or in other words rather than cursing what I percieve to be darkness, I would think it far better to light a candle, so to speak, by way of offer a more preferred alternative.

Well...since I don't object to the sporadic use of the cupcake analogy, I would invite those who do to offer a more preferred alternative.

Here is the objective: to persuade young LDS women not to engage in sexual relations prior to marriage (which one would hope wouldn't occur until during or after the early twenties).

Here is a challenge to overcome in meeting that objective: too much talk, or too indepth talk, about sex in a group setting, may be discomforting to some, and may tend to fomment curiousity and excite desires in others such that it may eventually prove counterproductive to your meeting the objective. So, it may be advised to use non-sexual analogies at certain points in the lesson.

In short, what analogies would you prefer be taught to LDS young women that you believe would meet the stated objective? What candle do you wish to light on this subject?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why not just be straight with our young men and young women? Why not just explain to them that the church (and God, by extension) values chastity before marriage and explain the reasons why?

Can you give an example of how this may be done in a way that is not only comprehensible but also pursuasive to a teen who may be bombarded externally by an over-sexualized society?

Why do we have use these demeaning analogies at all?

I don't happen to consider the cupcake analogy to be "demeaning" (I believe it is being blown way out of proportion), but to answer your question, the reason that analogies are often used in effective instruction, is to convey a somewhat nebulous concept in a way the students will have a better chance of fully comprehending them.

Perhaps the analogy was well-intentioned, but it was hardly benign.

I suppose benignity is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I think folks are blowing this single analogy about cupcakes way out of proportion. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I really don't have a problem with the cupcake lesson, so long as the men have the same lesson for their own virginity.
The OP said the YM lesson focused on women's virginity and not their own. (did I misread?) That is a real problem for me and is very sexist.

I believe lessons on chastity are very important but there may be pyschological harm when you tell a girl she is damaged goods without her virginity. I had some very well planned lessons on chastity as a young woman where they brought in a jewel and compared our virginity to a treasure only to share with our future eternal companion. I liked that method and it left us with a positive message. There was also a woman who happened to be a nurse who discussed the possible things a male could say in convincing us to give up our treasure. She went through the physiological desires that men have and women, but warned us against falling prey to pressures they can put on girls. She also discussed the affect girls can have on men by dressing immodestly, being a tease, etc. I doubt most of that came from the lesson manual and it was a much more balanced approach to both sexes. I also had a lot of respect for my teacher because she actually talked about sex and things my parents would have never told me.

But what was still missing from this lesson was telling us that we should marry a man who has saved his treasure for us.

There is such a great childrens picture book called "Princess and the Kiss" A Story of God's Gift of Purity. From Amazon.com:

Long ago, in a wonderful castle on a mountain of splendor, a beautiful princess was born. Her parents were the king and queen of the mountain and all the green valley below.
The king and queen loved the little princess even before she was born. On the day she came into the world, the royal couple gave their daughter a very special gift from God - her first kiss. While the princess was growing up, the king and queen kept this precious gift safe in their care.
When the princess was finally grown, the king and queen called her to their side.
"We have something very special to give you," said the queen.
Up, up, up the royal family went to a secret room in a tower of the castle. On an elegant table in the center of the room was the same gift given to the princess long ago ... the kiss.

So what happens is the Princess was looking for her true love and many came to her door offering their hand in marriage but it wasn't until she found a servant to her father that also had "the kiss" that she fell in love. He had saved this special gift for her. It's a great book for teaching this principle for both sexes.

For a variety of reasons, I very much like the idea of stressing the positives of various points of instruction, including young women remaining pure. And, the anlogies you proposed above may work well in that regard.

However, not everyone is sufficiently motivated by the positive, nor will the analogies you presented resinate with everyone (I can't see teenage boys tuning in very strongly to fairy-tale like talk of princesses and jewels and kisses--speaking ironically of sexist). At times, the mention of the negative may also be necessary.

I view God as the perfect parent and teacher, and while he, through his prophets, speaks often of the blessings that may be derived through obedience, he also mentions negative consequences for disobedience. I believe he does so because he understands the varied motivational needs of his children. And, from what I have gathered, some of the ways God conveys the negative consequences and the state of those who disobey, would make the cupcake analogy seem like....well a cupcake walk. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Can you give an example of how this may be done in a way that is not only comprehensible but also pursuasive to a teen who may be bombarded externally by an over-sexualized society?

I don't happen to consider the cupcake analogy to be "demeaning" (I believe it is being blown way out of proportion), but to answer your question, the reason that analogies are often used in effective instruction, is to convey a somewhat nebulous concept in a way the students will have a better chance of fully comprehending them.

I suppose benignity is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I think folks are blowing this single analogy about cupcakes way out of proportion. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have had an ongoing conversation with each of my children over several years, and each one is different. I don't see the need for analogies at all, but particularly not for one that seems at odds with the principle of the Atonement. I've simply told them that our Father in Heaven gave us a sacred power to bring children into the world. I've explained that sex is beautiful, pleasurable, and fun and contributes to a wonderful relationship with your spouse. So far, no "licked cupcakes" in our family.

[_wenglund]

Can you give an example of how this may be done in a way that is not only comprehensible but also pursuasive to a teen who may be bombarded externally by an over-sexualized society?

I don't happen to consider the cupcake analogy to be "demeaning" (I believe it is being blown way out of proportion), but to answer your question, the reason that analogies are often used in effective instruction, is to convey a somewhat nebulous concept in a way the students will have a better chance of fully comprehending them.

I suppose benignity is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I think folks are blowing this single analogy about cupcakes way out of proportion. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have had an ongoing conversation with each of my children over several years, and each one is different. I don't see the need for analogies at all, but particularly not for one that seems at odds with the principle of the Atonement. I've simply told them that our Father in Heaven gave us a sacred power to bring children into the world. I've explained that sex is beautiful, pleasurable, and fun and contributes to a wonderful relationship with your spouse. So far, no "licked cupcakes" in our family.

While I don't view the cupcake analogy as at odds with the principles of the atonement (repentence and forgiveness doesn't somehow erase things like teen pregnancies--which I view as implied in the cupcake analogy), I am pleased that you have been successful without the use of analogies. That your "cupcakes" have made wise sexual choices, and haven't been "licked", will be to their advantage in a number of ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

Of course the cupcake analogy, and all the other catastrophic language used by church leaders, is at odds with the idea of repentance and forgiveness, and being "new" again. So if a pregnancy or STD was the result of sex, does that mean that the person cannot still obtain that degree of forgiveness and "newness"?

The LDS church uses a big stick to scare kids from having sex, and going by statistics, it works to a certain degree. That's the only way to keep hormonal teenagers from experimenting - scare them with a really big stick. (and having bishop confessionals are part of the stick, the humiliation of telling an adult what you did is scary) Sexual feelings and experimentation are such a normal part of the teenage years that a stick that is big and scary enough to even stop them from engaging in such completely normal activities as masturbating is also going to be big and scary enough to do potential permanent damage to them as adults attempting to have fulfilling sexual relationships with spouses.

This is the cost of the big stick. Is it really worth it? I know some people raised with the big stick manage to find ways to have good sex lives with their spouses as adults, but I know from many conversations with other women in the church that many LDS women have difficulty with sex. That causes a great deal of friction in marriages, and some compensatory behavior like perhaps overeating.

Children can be taught about sexual responsibility without a big stick. I have done it with my own children, and so far as I know, like runtu, so far none of my children have chosen to have a sexual relationship. (two sons - one 21, one 19, one daughter 16). I have been open and honest with them from the time they were young enough to have questions. Whenever the topic came up, I would always talk about sexual responsibility and possible consequences, and how important it is to everyone involved to be old and mature enough to be prepared to deal with those possible consequences. And I always, always, always, ended my talk with "but remember, no matter how old you are when you choose to engage in sexual activities, and I hope it's at least in your twenties, you must protect yourself and your partner from pregnancy and STDs with a condom."

I haven't had to scare my kids with talk about a Big Daddy in the Sky who will view you as a licked cupcake if you have premarital sex, and to tell the truth, I hope my kids do have premarital sex. I think getting married without having first made sure you are sexually compatible is very risky. I have heard too many horror stories and have my own in that regard.

[_wenglund]

Of course the cupcake analogy, and all the other catastrophic language used by church leaders, is at odds with the idea of repentance and forgiveness, and being "new" again. So if a pregnancy or STD was the result of sex, does that mean that the person cannot still obtain that degree of forgiveness and "newness"?

The LDS church uses a big stick to scare kids from having sex, and going by statistics, it works to a certain degree. That's the only way to keep hormonal teenagers from experimenting - scare them with a really big stick. (and having bishop confessionals are part of the stick, the humiliation of telling an adult what you did is scary) Sexual feelings and experimentation are such a normal part of the teenage years that a stick that is big and scary enough to even stop them from engaging in such completely normal activities as masturbating is also going to be big and scary enough to do potential permanent damage to them as adults attempting to have fulfilling sexual relationships with spouses.

This is the cost of the big stick. Is it really worth it? I know some people raised with the big stick manage to find ways to have good sex lives with their spouses as adults, but I know from many conversations with other women in the church that many LDS women have difficulty with sex. That causes a great deal of friction in marriages, and some compensatory behavior like perhaps overeating.

Children can be taught about sexual responsibility without a big stick. I have done it with my own children, and so far as I know, like runtu, so far none of my children have chosen to have a sexual relationship. (two sons - one 21, one 19, one daughter 16). I have been open and honest with them from the time they were young enough to have questions. Whenever the topic came up, I would always talk about sexual responsibility and possible consequences, and how important it is to everyone involved to be old and mature enough to be prepared to deal with those possible consequences. And I always, always, always, ended my talk with "but remember, no matter how old you are when you choose to engage in sexual activities, and I hope it's at least in your twenties, you must protect yourself and your partner from pregnancy and STDs with a condom."

I haven't had to scare my kids with talk about a Big Daddy in the Sky who will view you as a licked cupcake if you have premarital sex, and to tell the truth, I hope my kids do have premarital sex. I think getting married without having first made sure you are sexually compatible is very risky. I have heard too many horror stories and have my own in that regard.

Through considerable experience, I have found that there is little chance of having a reasoned discussion with someone who absurdly and emotively considers "cupcake analogies" as "catastrophic".

I have also fount there to be even less chance when that same person is an atheist or agnostic, and presumes to lecture religionist on basic tenents of their faith.

The chances approach, or reaches, zero when the same person resorts to pejoritive caracitures of the religionist's faith.

So, attempting to explain the obvious distinction (in the mind of this religionist) between atonement from spiritual sin (which can occur in this life) and atonement for natural consequences resulting from spiritual sins (which may or may not happen in the afterlife), would likely be wasted.

But, for those with their minds still somewhat open, let me just relate a personal experience which I believe bears my point out. When I first attended college, I became acquainted with a fellow who had several years earlier made a poor sexual choice, and unfortunately ended up contracting a case of syphillus that was so profound that it left him crippled and bound for life to his wheel chair. And, while he had fervently repented for his sins, and had, I believe received full forgivensss, that forgiveness did not enable him to walk, nor did it make him as attractive to the opposite sex as before his poor sexual choice. In fact, I don't know of a single woman on campus who was interested in dating him, let alone marry him.

About the same time, I knew a teenage girl who got pregnant after making a poor sexual choice. She also fervently repented, and I believe received full forgiveness. But, that forgiveness didn't change the fact that she was pregnant. It didn't change the fact that the pregnancy drastically complicated her personal life, including her ability to attract a mate willing to shoulder the responisibility growing out of the pregnancy, regardless of how she chose to deal with the pregnancy (whether to abort, or adopt out, or keep the baby).

I could go on, but I think that should suffice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

Can you give an example of how this may be done in a way that is not only comprehensible but also pursuasive to a teen who may be bombarded externally by an over-sexualized society?

Kids are smarter than you give them credit for. I agree with Runtu. Being straight-up is the best approach. It's worked well with my kids.

[_Seven]

For a variety of reasons, I very much like the idea of stressing the positives of various points of instruction, including young women remaining pure. And, the anlogies you proposed above may work well in that regard.

However, not everyone is sufficiently motivated by the positive, nor will the analogies you presented resinate with everyone (I can't see teenage boys tuning in very strongly to fairy-tale like talk of princesses and jewels and kisses--speaking ironically of sexist). At times, the mention of the negative may also be necessary.

I view God as the perfect parent and teacher, and while he, through his prophets, speaks often of the blessings that may be derived through obedience, he also mentions negative consequences for disobedience. I believe he does so because he understands the varied motivational needs of his children. And, from what I have gathered, some of the ways God conveys the negative consequences and the state of those who disobey, would make the cupcake analogy seem like....well a cupcake walk. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is the first time I agree with you. I should have mentioned that the book I quoted was meant for children and I read it to my 6 year old. I wouldn't dare read it to a teenager, but it's a good book for teaching your children while they are young about the principle of chastity and I liked it because the male was also expected to save his treasure for his true love.

I believe there are people who abstain from sex simply because of the dangers associated with it, and it may have nothing to do with God, but with birth control it's much easier to push that aside. I would prefer my daughter marry a man who had saved his virtue because of his obedience to the commandments and for his future wife. It's a beautiful thing to attend a marriage or sealing when both partners have saved themselves for each other or have abstained from sex with eachother before marriage. There are very negative consequences that are not just physical for disobedience to this law and the Prophets have it right on this one.

[_Seven]

We could do a whole thread on the consequences of breaking the law of chastity.

I know a couple (the guy was a virgin, the girl was not) who gave into temptation, cancelled their temple wedding and eloped. They not only embarrassed the whole family but will forever regret that decision because they missed out on the wedding they had dreamed of. The consequences were long lasting for short pleasure. One day they will have to explain to their children why there were no wedding pictures and they will not be the example to their children of obedience. I know this example has a lot to do with religion, and the requirement to be worthy, but even had they been allowed to enter the temple, I think they would have still regretted the sin and felt disapppointed that they didn't control themselves.

There are blessings for obedience to moral laws that can't be described but are felt by the peace of living them.

I also know a couple (non Mormon) who had lived together before marriage. They had both had multiple partners. The wedding did not carry with it the same spirit as the ones I attend (Mormon and non Mormon) of those who have saved themselves for eachother. If you know your partner can control his or her passions and wait until marriage, it's a good sign they will be able to remain faithful to you and the covenants made to God during the marriage as well. Sadly, too many of the couples I know that engaged in pre marital sex or lived together ended up divorced from adultery or lack of commitment.

I also know a man who had engaged in pre marital sex and married a virgin. It became a burden for him because he felt so unworthy of her. She didn't feel that way about him and never had an issue with it. She loved the man he had become, but he was always haunted by the sin.

These are all stories where there was no STD, no pregnancy, yet still consequences. Some I know are religious in nature but I believe God gives us the feeling of right and wrong when we break the law of chastity.

I don't believe pre marital sex is necessary to see if you are sexually compatible. It's just my opinion, but if the marriage is good and there is love, commitment, and trust, sex will naturally be enjoyable. I am sure there may be exceptions, but many sexual problems can be overcome with time, communication, and or therapy.