The unnatural sex practices of the Mormon people

[_harmony]

....
Perhaps I should insist she wear a potato sack or a bed sheet?

H.

I'm not even going to venture into 'Marilyn in a bed sheet' territory...

Killer shoes, though. Really.

[_Jersey Girl]

why me

Well, this is true. Even Paul warned women about immodest dress. Would you want your daughter looking like a ho? I don't think so. Would you want her to dress like a skank? I don't think so.

Would you want your daughter to wear light cotton?

[_zeezrom]

Would you want your daughter to wear light cotton?

We are all better off not knowing the answer to this, I think. Why Me, I created some nice threads for you to interact with me. Please go there.

[_Tator]

....
Perhaps I should insist she wear a potato sack or a bed sheet?

H.

I mean now you're talkin'.

True porn for ol' Tator...... nice eye candy.

[Guest]

Most men are going to look at beautiful women. My daughter is going to be a beautiful woman. And men will look at her. I won't like it because I am her father. But, to think that she would be considered pornography because she choose to wear something that made her feel beautiful - perhaps a sun dress or a form-fitting top and fashion-jeans - that is a message that no woman should ever tolerate.


Perhaps I should insist she wear a potato sack or a bed sheet?

H.

I think that you misunderstood me. A young woman can be modest in dress and still look beautful. And yes, men will look at a beautiful modestly dressed woman. And they will admire her. However, when a young woman dresses like she is heading for a porn audition, a different sensation will be aroused in the male. And that was my point. The most beautiful women can be wearing something modest and still feel beautiful. One does not need to be immodestly dressed to feel beautiful and looked at.

[_why me]

Would you want your daughter to wear light cotton?

Why not? The point behind my original light cotton statements was to bring home the fact that many Mormon young adults in the 70's had no problem with a Mormon lay and if one was going to have a Mormon lay, what should be worn.

[_why me]

Actually why me no I would not have. I was a fairly merciful bishop because I needed mercy. And I wanted others to avoid some of the unnecessary shame the church heaps on people. Problem with you is you act like an authority on things which you seemed to have lived marginally. And you act like such things were totally acceptable in the eyes of the church which is just not the case. And you are flippant about it which is irritating to no end.

I see no shame. However jason, what should the church's stance be on sex before marriage? I made a point about what was acceptable to some young adults when I was young. They were active young women not marginal members. Here is the point: we get advice from church leaders. We can follow such advice or not. Necking is not an excommunicable offence. Nor can one be disfellowshipped for petting. Now can a problem come from such actions? Yes. And this is where the warning comes. But if two people know the limits, no problem.

[_Yoda]

Actually why me no I would not have. I was a fairly merciful bishop because I needed mercy. And I wanted others to avoid some of the unnecessary shame the church heaps on people. Problem with you is you act like an authority on things which you seemed to have lived marginally. And you act like such things were totally acceptable in the eyes of the church which is just not the case. And you are flippant about it which is irritating to no end.

I see no shame. However jason, what should the church's stance be on sex before marriage? I made a point about what was acceptable to some young adults when I was young. They were active young women not marginal members. Here is the point: we get advice from church leaders. We can follow such advice or not. Necking is not an excommunicable offence. Nor can one be disfellowshipped for petting. Now can a problem come from such actions? Yes. And this is where the warning comes. But if two people know the limits, no problem.

Hold on. Please clarify what you mean here. Are you saying that if a young woman or young man comes to the bishop for council. He councils them not to pet, and they do it anyway, that is "acceptable" because they would not be excommunicated?

Wow. You have really been out of the Church a long time.

You do realize that the bishop has a lot of leeway with that situation, don't you? More than likely, no, the bishop would not excommunicate the individual, but, he could put them on Probation. Probation is a state where they are not allowed to take the Sacrament...they may or may not hold a calling, depending on the bishop's discretion, and they have to meet with the bishop on a regular basis to discuss their progress in repentance.

So, yes, there is shame associated with petting, when it is done outside the bonds of marriage.

[_why me]

Hold on. Please clarify what you mean here. Are you saying that if a young woman or young man comes to the bishop for council. He councils them not to pet, and they do it anyway, that is "acceptable" because they would not be excommunicated?

Wow. You have really been out of the Church a long time.

You do realize that the bishop has a lot of leeway with that situation, don't you? More than likely, no, the bishop would not excommunicate the individual, but, he could put them on Probation. Probation is a state where they are not allowed to take the Sacrament...they may or may not hold a calling, depending on the bishop's discretion, and they have to meet with the bishop on a regular basis to discuss their progress in repentance.

So, yes, there is shame associated with petting, when it is done outside the bonds of marriage.

Sure there is leeway. I can understand that. But in general no bishop is going to put a young couple on probation for kissing and petting, especially if the couple are serious about each other. Can you see any bishop putting a couple on probation who are 50 and 45 years old for kissing and necking? I don't see it happening. And can you imagine this couple meeting with the bishop to discuss their progress in not kissing each other or in sharing a tender moment during a sunset?

[_keithb]

I think that you misunderstood me. A young woman can be modest in dress and still look beautful. And yes, men will look at a beautiful modestly dressed woman. And they will admire her. However, when a young woman dresses like she is heading for a porn audition, a different sensation will be aroused in the male. And that was my point. The most beautiful women can be wearing something modest and still feel beautiful. One does not need to be immodestly dressed to feel beautiful and looked at.

So, explain this to me, why me? How does any young woman ANYWHERE have control over what another person thinks?

See, to me one of the main problems with this line of thinking (along with a lot of other problems) is that it displaces responsibility for being horny from the observer to the observed. Instead of blaming the guy in this case for taking a beautiful woman and sexually objectifying her to the point where he gets "turned on" by seeing her in a short skirt, the woman gets the blame.

In my professional life, I do research on breast cancer. During the course of this research, I have seen images of naked breasts in scientific presentations. Strangely, however, I am not turned on by these images, even though I might be turned on by something similar if I was sitting at home in my living room watching porn. Why? Because I have made the decision NOT to be turned on by the images I am seeing in the scientific presentation.

Similarly, I think that guys walking on the streets could make a mental decision to NOT be sexually aroused by a woman in a short skirt. I know that's hard in the Mormon culture -- asking guys to take responsibility for their own sexual arousal. But, I assure you that it's possible for a man to control this.