On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_It occurs to me . . .]

My experience in the Church as a male, has given me a diametrically opposite view of women in relation to men than the OP. Rather than viewing women as inferior, I grew up putting them on a pedestal. To me, they seemed near angelic even as humans, and something that was to be treasured and held in respectful awe. In my mind their beauty and grace warmed and brightened whatever rooms ni which they were present, and the tenderness of their hearts dried many a tear and was like a comforting blanket wrapped around those in need. I envied their seemingly innate aptitude for spirituality and faith, and their admirable work ethic, which made them natural leaders without need of calling or priesthood powers.

What made things difficult for me, though, after leaving home and going out into the world, so to speak, was in learning that not all women lived up to the ideal I had been raised with in the Church, and some even fell well short of those expectations. It then became a matter of me adjusting down my perception of women to a more reasonable and less lofty level. In other words, I started to see women as not unlike me and other men in terms of human weaknesses and frailties.

Anyway, I find it fascinating that two people can be raised in the same Church, yet derive entirely opposing's perceptions of woman and men. To me, this suggests less about what the Church has presented, and more about how we each diversely interpret (or misinterpret) what the Church has presented.

So, rather than making a general call to abandon the Church, I think it may be more apt to advise reconsideration of certain personal perceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Isn't that kind of the point? Whether we dehumanize someone in a positive or negative way, it still serves to make the point that they are different from us. I've heard the explanation that this is why we don't discuss our Mother in Heaven, that she is too sacred to talk about. The result is still the same.

It's also interesting that either way you choose to describe what you were taught in the church, the reality was different, you admit that the teachings gave you false expectations of women that didn't mesh with reality. I think that is kind of the point of the OP. Thanks for your addition.

[_Gazelam]

From Jeffrey R Holland "Souls, Symbols, Sacraments":

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution
to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to
assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man
cannot. What an unacceptable response to such a serious issue! What kind of man is he, what
priesthood or power or strength or self-control does this man have that lets him develop in
society, grow to the age of mature accountability, perhaps even pursue a university education and
prepare to affect the future of colleagues and kingdoms and the course of the world, but yet does
not have the mental capacity or the moral will to say, "I will not do that thing"? No, this sorry
drugstore psychology would have us say: "He just can't help himself. His glands have complete
control over his life-his mind, his will, his entire future."


To say that a young woman in such a relationship has to bear her responsibility and that of
the young man's too is the least fair assertion I can imagine. In most instances if there is sexual
transgression, I lay the burden squarely on the shoulders of the young man-for our purposes
probably a priesthood bearer-and that's where I believe God intended responsibility to be. In
saying that I do not excuse young women who exercise no restraint and have not the character or
conviction to demand intimacy only in its rightful role. I have had enough experience in Church
callings to know that women as well as men can be predatory. But I refuse to buy some young
man's feigned innocence who wants to sin and call it psychology.


Indeed, most tragically, it is the young woman who is most often the victim, it is the young
woman who most often suffers the greater pain, it is the young woman who most often feels used
and abused and terribly unclean. And for that imposed uncleanliness a man will pay, as surely as
the sun sets and rivers run to the sea.


Note the prophet Jacob's straightforward language on this account in the Book of Mormon.
After a bold confrontation on the subject of sexual transgression among the Nephites, he quotes
Jehovah: "For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters
of my people in the land .... And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair
daughters of this people... shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of
Hosts. For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their
tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction? (Jacob 2:31-33,
italics added.)


Don't be deceived and don't be destroyed. Unless such fire is controlled, your clothes and
your future will be burned. And your world, short of painful and perfect repentance, will go up in
flames. I give that to you on good word-I give it to you on God’s word.

[_Trinity]

Wade,

Your romantic post towards the subject reminds me of John Taylor's writings in Origin and Destiny of Women in 1857: http://magazine.mormonfundamentalism.org/origin.htm

[_Fortigurn]

From Jeffrey R Holland "Souls, Symbols, Sacraments":

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution
to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to
assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man
cannot.

These are worthy words, but it's a shame that Mr Holland apparently heard 'all his life' that 'it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot'. Was he raised a Mormon?

[_maklelan]

Has it occurred to you that KA's perception might be more accurate than yours? Might it behoove you to reconsider your perceptions? I'm willing to reconsider mine.

And what of Beastie's? Why is hers inferior?

[_Runtu]

Has it occurred to you that KA's perception might be more accurate than yours? Might it behoove you to reconsider your perceptions? I'm willing to reconsider mine.

And what of Beastie's? Why is hers inferior?

Uh, Mak, that was my point. Wade seemed to be suggesting that KA's "negative" perception was inferior and required an attitude adjustment. I would argue that KA's perception is no more or less valid than Wade's or beastie's, and it is better to try and understand why we see things differently than it is to judge that someone is "uncharitable" or negative for simply perceiving things differently.

[_Jason Bourne]

I didn't grow up in the church so can't really speak to this firsthand (although I do remember some cupcakie lesson from when I taught YW), but my boyfriend, who did grow up LDS, assures me that the males were also made to feel responsible for keeping themselves pure. The girls may get more cupcake lessons, but the boys probably get more Little Factory lessons, so there is plenty of guilt and future sexual dysfunction to go around.

I have to say that, when a believer, I didn't view the LDS teachings as sexist, and still quibble about a bit of that. Men can't get into the CK without a wife, either, can they? So it seems a bit misleading to use that as an example of sexism. I think a better example is found in the various justifications for denying women the priesthood, and in the attempts to persuade women to be stay-at-home mothers (although I'm not sure if that pressure still exists to the extent it did when I joined in the seventies).

It seems to me that a good part of the sexism found in the LDS church is simply a product of the same sexism that will be found in literally any fundamentalist, patriarchal church.

I agree with this. I grew up LDS and the stay pure and being tainted issue was just as heavy for boys. Maybe the approach was different but it was there.

Will I abhore the licked cupcake, crushed rose, already shewed gum analogies I believe they are mostly a thing of the past. Some goofy teacher might use it again here and there but largely I believe it to be a relic.

But yea beastie you are right on in your comments.

[_Jason Bourne]

My experience in the Church as a male, has given me a diametrically opposite view of women in relation to men than the OP. Rather than viewing women as inferior, I grew up putting them on a pedestal. To me, they seemed near angelic even as humans, and something that was to be treasured and held in respectful awe. In my mind their beauty and grace warmed and brightened whatever rooms ni which they were present, and the tenderness of their hearts dried many a tear and was like a comforting blanket wrapped around those in need. I envied their seemingly innate aptitude for spirituality and faith, and their admirable work ethic, which made them natural leaders without need of calling or priesthood powers.

What made things difficult for me, though, after leaving home and going out into the world, so to speak, was in learning that not all women lived up to the ideal I had been raised with in the Church, and some even fell well short of those expectations. It then became a matter of me adjusting down my perception of women to a more reasonable and less lofty level. In other words, I started to see women as not unlike me and other men in terms of human weaknesses and frailties.



So, rather than making a general call to abandon the Church, I think it may be more apt to advise reconsideration of certain personal perceptions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Do you think that the ideal you set up for women created a flase expectation in what a woman might really be? They are to be put on a pedestal, more caring, more tender, more spiritual, more nurturing.... But guess what? Women are just human. Some may posess the quallities you list better them some other. But how did your view casue you to feel towards teh women you say did not live up to what I will propose, was a false ideal? Women are sinners, make errors, some are rotten mothers and better at doing a career, some do both well, some excel at being a stay at home mom and so forth. The same is true of men.

I agree that this ideal you had was promoted. For me, I think it set up an unrealistic expectation for any woman I ended up marrying. I can tell you that in some of those areas my wife did not fit the ideal and I thinkk I had to realize she is quite wonderful anyway.

I think this unrealistic view of women was more hurtful to you then good.

[_Jason Bourne]

From Jeffrey R Holland "Souls, Symbols, Sacraments":

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution
to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to
assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man
cannot.

These are worthy words, but it's a shame that Mr Holland apparently heard 'all his life' that 'it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot'. Was he raised a Mormon?

I am glad Elder Holland corrects this silly notion but yes, he was raised Mormon and he did here this especially in the 50'
s when he was a teen. I recall a BYU talk I read once form SWK telling the girls that if they are unchaste no boy will want them becasue they are "damaged goods." What an awful way to teach, even in the 50's.

[_Fortigurn]

From Jeffrey R Holland "Souls, Symbols, Sacraments":

In this matter of counterfeit intimacy and deceptive gratification, I express particular caution
to the men who hear this message. I have heard all my life that it is the young woman who has to
assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man
cannot.

These are worthy words, but it's a shame that Mr Holland apparently heard 'all his life' that 'it is the young woman who has to assume the responsibility for controlling the limits of intimacy in courtship because a young man cannot'. Was he raised a Mormon?

I am glad Elder Holland corrects this silly notion but yes, he was raised Mormon and he did here this especially in the 50's when he was a teen.

So LDS teachers were in fact teaching this for years.

I recall a BYU talk I read once form SWK telling the girls that if they are unchaste no boy will want them becasue they are "damaged goods." What an awful way to teach, even in the 50's.

Well to put it frankly, in former days that was probably very true. These days guys are far less discerning and will generally leap at anything which stands still long enough.