On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

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".


It is catastrophic because it encourages the idea that engaging in sexual sin destroys one’s life. No one wants to eat a licked cupcake.

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.


Please demonstrate where I “lecture you about the basic tenets of your faith” and what “pejorative caricatures I have constructed.

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).


It’s not a catastrophic approach, eh?

I already clearly stated that I believe the consequences and responsibilities of sexual behavior must be clearly taught to children. You are conflating issues. The cupcake lesson is about morality, and what God expects and wants from us, and how God views us. While other human beings are clearly judgmental and tend to categorize people based on their past rather than their current choices, I thought God was supposed to be different.
by the way, do you ride in automobiles? Do you realize what a risk you are taking by so doing? Do you know how many people are crippled or disfigured from car accidents? I bet their chances of finding a mate are reduced as well. And what about obesity? How many LDS singles drastically reduce their chances of finding a mate by being obese? If the big stick is justified to scare kids out of having sex, perhaps the big stick would be justified in scaring kids out of cars and away from McDonald’s as well.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

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.


I've heard too many stories about basically sexless LDS marriages to agree with you. It is difficult to differentiate between someone who is simply restraining one's passion and someone who has no passion when dating under these circumstances.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:
Wade wrote: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.


Well, Wade has no kids. It's not a deal-breaker, but it helps if one has experience in the practicalities of life, when one enters into a discussion like this. And Wade has none.

And I agree with Liz and Runtu and Trixie: being straight-up is the best approach. And loving them just as much after they stub their toe is also important.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

harmony wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Wade wrote: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.


Well, Wade has no kids. It's not a deal-breaker, but it helps if one has experience in the practicalities of life, when one enters into a discussion like this. And Wade has none.

And I agree with Liz and Runtu and Trixie: being straight-up is the best approach. And loving them just as much after they stub their toe is also important.


I realize that some may wish to easily dismiss my comments because I don't have kids, while ignoring my training as Special Educator at the primary level.[/quote]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am speaking here about gerneral prionciples of pedagogy. The fact that someone isn't a parent, though they have had post-graduate trianing and experience in primary education, is not a valid reason to dismiss what they say--particularly if what is said is backed up by a wealth of parental and educational experience of others.

If people think their own kids can get the message when taught by parents in their own home without the use of analogies, then I am fine with that. I am just not sure that is a strategy that should be applied across the board and regardless of the teens involced and regardless of the instructional situation (parents, public educators, or young LDS women teacher, etc.).

But, reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Then, too, unreasonable people can be dismissive of reasonable people. To each their own. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

I realize that some may wish to easily dismiss my comments because I don't have kids, while ignoring my training as Special Educator at the primary level.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am speaking here about gerneral prionciples of pedagogy. The fact that someone isn't a parent, though they have had post-graduate trianing and experience in primary education, is not a valid reason to dismiss what they say--particularly if what is said is backed up by a wealth of parental and educational experience of others.


As a special educator, you know, of course, that primary age children are not old enough to have passed through puberty, and therefore have little in common with teenagers. And unless you've completely lost track of the conversation, we're talking about teenagers. So your 'expertise' is not quite up to par.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

beastie wrote:
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.


I've heard too many stories about basically sexless LDS marriages to agree with you. It is difficult to differentiate between someone who is simply restraining one's passion and someone who has no passion when dating under these circumstances.


Does anyone else agree with Beastie that one should avoid the risk of sexual incompatibility by getting sexual experienced prior to marriage and by sexaully trying out pontentional spouses prior to marriage?

Is that risk higher than other risks that may come from becoming sexually experienced prior to marriage?

I am familiar with some sociological studies which suggest otherwise (Dr. Laura's web site has links to several good books on the issue), but I am interested to hear what others may have to say.

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-
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Post by _wenglund »

harmony wrote:
I realize that some may wish to easily dismiss my comments because I don't have kids, while ignoring my training as Special Educator at the primary level.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am speaking here about gerneral prionciples of pedagogy. The fact that someone isn't a parent, though they have had post-graduate trianing and experience in primary education, is not a valid reason to dismiss what they say--particularly if what is said is backed up by a wealth of parental and educational experience of others.


As a special educator, you know, of course, that primary age children are not old enough to have passed through puberty, and therefore have little in common with teenagers. And unless you've completely lost track of the conversation, we're talking about teenagers. So your 'expertise' is not quite up to par.


Those who are informed on the subject will no doubt understand that pedagogy is not confined to primary education, but is also pertinent to secondary and even high-school education (which, if you were not already aware, includes the full range of teens and even pre-teens who may be on the cusp of making poor sexual choices). The principles of effective instruction that I learned as a Special Educator are taught to teachers of all grade levels up to, and including, those teaching at high schools. While the content may be different, the basic principles are the same. So, your continued attempt to irrationally dismiss what I have said is, to use your own words, "not quite up to par".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

wenglund wrote:
beastie wrote:
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.


I've heard too many stories about basically sexless LDS marriages to agree with you. It is difficult to differentiate between someone who is simply restraining one's passion and someone who has no passion when dating under these circumstances.


Does anyone else agree with Beastie that one should avoid the risk of sexual incompatibility by getting sexual experienced prior to marriage and by sexaully trying out pontentional spouses prior to marriage?


No.

Is that risk higher than other risks that may come from becoming sexually experienced prior to marriage?


I don't believe so. Society has placed unrealistic expectations of sex on people, which is why this entire 'sexual incompatibility' thing has come up. Most people just need to get over themselves and act like grownups.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Seven
_Emeritus
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:52 pm

Post by _Seven »

wenglund wrote:
beastie wrote:
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.


I've heard too many stories about basically sexless LDS marriages to agree with you. It is difficult to differentiate between someone who is simply restraining one's passion and someone who has no passion when dating under these circumstances.


Does anyone else agree with Beastie that one should avoid the risk of sexual incompatibility by getting sexual experienced prior to marriage and by sexaully trying out pontentional spouses prior to marriage?

Is that risk higher than other risks that may come from becoming sexually experienced prior to marriage?

I am familiar with some sociological studies which suggest otherwise (Dr. Laura's web site has links to several good books on the issue), but I am interested to hear what others may have to say.

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-


I do not want any of my children to sexually experience anything before marriage and that includes oral sex. I want my daugther to find a spouse that respects the law of chastity and honors her by saving himself for that special commitment of marriage. I hope my daughters also value their virtue for their future spouse. If they make mistakes, I think they will regret it, but that doesn't mean they are damaged goods. That's why repentance is so important. I would hope if they fall in love with a person who had made mistakes in the past, that this person did repent and forsaked those sins.

I don't believe sexual compatability is an issue if the marriage is based on love, trust, and commitment. Sexual comptability will be natural if the marriage is good. Now there are always exceptions, and most can be overcome with communication, commitment, and or therapy.

I believe some people who are unable to control their passions before marriage are more of a risk for breaking the sacred vows of marriage. Not all people fall into this category. Some are very loyal partners even if they practice serial monogamy, but the truth is, I would want my own children to marry spouses who were virgins.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence...
That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I have known several exmormon women who inadvertently married gay men. I know a still active Mormon man who inadvertently married a lesbian. These marriages ended in divorce, after children had already been brought into a hopeless marriage. But far overwhelming those numbers are LDS who are in practically sexless marriages, due to the fact that one of the partners (usually the female) actually has zero sexual desire. None of these people had a clue beforehand what they were getting into, because of the fact that the LDS church normalizes complete lack of sexual contact of any kind prior to marriage. There was no way to differentiate between lack of desire and the determination to control desire. Sexual compatibility, while not the sole factor in a successful relationship, is an extremely important factor. And no, it's not possible for sexual compatibility to be forced, no matter how sincere and determined the individuals are. This is one of the myths perpetuated within Mormonism, in my opinion. "Any two people who love the Lord...etc" It's just not true. Not any two people can make a good, truly fulfilling marriage. Sure, they may be able to make a social contract and raise children, but that is not the same thing as a fulfilling, truly happy marriage.

But maybe that is not the point.

I'm spoiled. I view this from the perspective of someone who has found someone with whom I am completely compatible and have found a level of fulfillment and joy I ended up believing never existed when I was still LDS, struggling to keep together a marriage that should never have been. I'm not going to reveal personal details other than to say that if my exhusband and I had slept together, we would never have gotten married - for very good reasons. And the loving intimacy and trust I experience with my significant other/boyfriend/fiance/soulmate/(whatever you call someone you have shared your life with for ten years and loved deeply) has brought beauty and fulfillment to my life, but according to many religious systems, it's a "sin". Perhaps even next to murder. :O

Perhaps that kind of God really exists - the kind who wants young people to be told they are damaged goods if they have premarital sex, the kind who thinks sexual relationships between consenting, loving adults is a horrific sin. I have no idea if that kind of God exists. But I do know that even if he/she/it does exist, I could never worship he/she/it.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply