On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_beastie]

KA, you must excuse me for being pretty ignorant about women's clothing, but what would a slip have helped? I don't get it.

Some dresses/skirts "cling" and reveal more curves. The slips are supposed to stop this effect.

[_KimberlyAnn]

KA, you must excuse me for being pretty ignorant about women's clothing, but what would a slip have helped? I don't get it.

I'm with you Sethbag, I've no idea why it would have made any difference. The Bishop asked me if I was wearing a slip while kissing and it surprised me. I couldn't see a correlation, either. I think that was his own pet project - forcing girls to wear slips. I wore one when necessary, still do, but that wasn't enough for him. For some reason, my French kissing while not wearing a slip reinforced his idea that non-slip wearers were luring boys into dangerous situations, lol!

Also, that same Bishop told us at a Standards Night that French kissing was having "sex with the mouth" and that it was to be confessed to him. I was overcome with guilt, but my kissing partner wasn't. He never confessed a thing, but I was denied a recommed to do baptisms for the dead because of my wanton ways. Now, I just feel sorry for that Bishop. He must not have been getting any real oral sex if he thought French kissing was sex with the mouth.

KA

[_wenglund]

Excuse me? My perception most certainly is not false. My perception is spot on correct about your false Mormon church and how it treats women.

You just mispercieved what I said. The perceptions I was speaking to were regarding how you and I perceived women, and not to your perception of the Church. So, in addition to my opposing perception of women, do you see from your misperception of what I just said, that you may have a personal challenge in correctly perceiving what others may say--including teachers in the Church? In other words, do you recognize that your previous perception of women may have more to do with the distorted way in which you interpreted various religious instructions, rather than the instructions themselves?

What the hell was the cupcake lesson supposed to teach me, Wade? The message was loud and clear. Used girls are useless. The boys got the point, too - they shouldn't want a disgusting used woman.

In no reasonably way could it be interpreted as a general commentary on the value of women in relation to men, nor can it in any reasonable way be viewed as viable example of the general perception of the Church and its members regarding their view of women in relation to men. Rather, it is an attempt to convey a somewhat sophisticated concept in way that would be understood by the teenage mind--that concept being, that with sexaul behavior, like with many other things, there will be unfavorable consequences for poor choices, and because of the nature of things (women having the only visible symbol of virginity and also the ones who may get pregnant, etc.), women will tend to experience more of those unfavorable consequences than men, and it would behove them to take more care to avoid the unfavorable consequences. The intent behind the cupcake analogy is to help prevent teenager in general, and female teenagers in particular, from making certain poor sexual choices that could adversely affect them throughout their lives. I view that as a loving and admirable intent, particularly in regards to the young women (contrary to your misperceptions).

What can't be controlled for by the Church and its teachers, though, is one of the student later twisting this perfectly reasonable message into feminist hysteria and an irrational call to vacate the restored gospel of Christ.

If you really think carefully about this, you will realize that it isn't the Church that is giving women a bad name, but women such as yourself who spew this kind of nonsense.

Please, for everyone's sake, get a grip on yourself and reality. Set aside your dysfunctional feminist agenda, and begin to adopt healthy and functional strategies that will result in mutual love, respect, and value. Stop looking at the Church as the cause for your problems, and begin to earnestly and honestly introspect. In other words, focus not on what you think the Church is saying about women, but instead focus on being the best woman you can be, and act lovingly and respectful and in ways that are valued, and the same will more likely be returned to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Sethbag]

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.

[_Sethbag]

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.

[_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.

You read both way too much into what I said and way too little--quite a feat I must say. I said nothing about "negative" or "inferior" or "attitude adjustment", nor did I intended to (the thoughts didn't cross my mind). And, in this instance I judged no one as "uncharitable". Furthermore, I did included myself in my GENERIC comments, and simply made the rather benign and useful point that we should be looking at personal perceptions rather than the Church in this instance. Your post merely reinforces my earlier point about perceptions--given the radically different way in which you interpreted what I said from the way I actually said it and meant it. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I'll take your word for it that you weren't making a value judgment about KA's perception. My point wasn't to take you to task. I disagree that we need to look inwardly instead of at the church; a little of both is what is needed, in my opinion. Ideally, we should look at what both we and the church contribute to our perceptions and effect changes in both.

[_Mister Scratch]

Excuse me? My perception most certainly is not false. My perception is spot on correct about your false Mormon church and how it treats women.

You just mispercieved what I said. The perceptions I was speaking to were regarding how you and I perceived women, and not to your perception of the Church. So, in addition to my opposing perception of women, do you see from your misperception of what I just said, that you may have a personal challenge in correctly perceiving what others may say--including teachers in the Church? In other words, do you recognize that your previous perception of women may have more to do with the distorted way in which you interpreted various religious instructions, rather than the instructions themselves?

Wade. Look, my friend, I know you're only trying to help, but the above makes very little sense. You admitted, in your first post to this thread, that you had been misled by the Church's teachings! Your revised, new and enlightened view of women is closer to KA's than the one you apparently gleaned from Church instruction on the matter.

What the hell was the cupcake lesson supposed to teach me, Wade? The message was loud and clear. Used girls are useless. The boys got the point, too - they shouldn't want a disgusting used woman.

In no reasonably way could it be interpreted as a general commentary on the value of women in relation to men, nor can it in any reasonable way be viewed as viable example of the general perception of the Church and its members regarding their view of women in relation to men. Rather, it is an attempt to convey a somewhat sophisticated concept in way that would be understood by the teenage mind--that concept being, that with sexaul behavior, like with many other things, there will be unfavorable consequences for poor choices, and because of the nature of things (women having the only visible symbol of virginity and also the ones who may get pregnant, etc.), women will tend to experience more of those unfavorable consequences than men, and it would behove them to take more care to avoid the unfavorable consequences. The intent behind the cupcake analogy is to help prevent teenager in general, and female teenagers in particular, from making certain poor sexual choices that could adversely affect them throughout their lives. I view that as a loving and admirable intent, particularly in regards to the young women (contrary to your misperceptions).

This is a fundamentally flawed statement. Wade---you cannot separate issues of sex from issues of "women in relation to men," especially if we are dealing in an LDS context. Also, can you not see how you are contradicting yourself here? You say on the one hand that the "cupcake analogy" has nothing to do with "women in relation to men," and then on the other hand you say, "women will tend to experience more....unfavoralbe consequences than men." Obviously, there is a comparison going on in your brain. The sexes, within the LDS Church, are not equal.

What can't be controlled for by the Church and its teachers, though, is one of the student later twisting this perfectly reasonable message into feminist hysteria and an irrational call to vacate the restored gospel of Christ.

One could equally label the "cupcake analogy" as "misogynist hysteria"---or the male fear that a women might actually have sex and enjoy it.

If you really think carefully about this, you will realize that it isn't the Church that is giving women a bad name, but women such as yourself who spew this kind of nonsense.

You are right---the Church is not giving women a bad name. Rather, it is giving itself a bad name.

Please, for everyone's sake, get a grip on yourself and reality. Set aside your dysfunctional feminist agenda, and begin to adopt healthy and functional strategies that will result in mutual love, respect, and value.

Look up again at what you wrote, Wade. You have outlined a scenario which absolutely excludes and denies "mutual value." If one side is going to suffer more "consequences" than the other, then you cannot call them "equal," my friend.

Stop looking at the Church as the cause for your problems, and begin to earnestly and honestly introspect. In other words, focus not on what you think the Church is saying about women, but instead focus on being the best woman you can be, and act lovingly and respectful and in ways that are valued, and the same will more likely be returned to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How do you know what "the best woman [she] can be" entails, Wade? What if being a "hysterical feminist" is what she wants to be? You are telling women how to behave, buddy boy.

[_wenglund]

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.

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.

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-

[_moksha]

Also, that same Bishop told us at a Standards Night that French kissing was having "sex with the mouth" and that it was to be confessed to him. I was overcome with guilt, but my kissing partner wasn't. He never confessed a thing, but I was denied a recommend to do baptisms for the dead because of my wanton ways. Now, I just feel sorry for that Bishop. He must not have been getting any real oral sex if he thought French kissing was sex with the mouth.
KA

There is always a possibility that he was laboring under the misapprehension that the two were actually the same. You must remember that sex eduction if it existed for your Bishop, did not go into detail. If he had heard the distinction along the way, he may have been too preoccupied with a slip fetish to pay much attention. Perhaps his reaction was indeed predicated upon your performing oral sex without a slip.

No, I will resist any mention about a slip of the lip....

[_Runtu]

There is always a possibility that he was laboring under the misapprehension that the two were actually the same. You must remember that sex eduction if it existed for your Bishop, did not go into detail. If he had heard the distinction along the way, he may have been too preoccupied with a slip fetish to pay much attention. Perhaps his reaction was indeed predicated upon your performing oral sex without a slip.

No, I will resist any mention about a slip of the lip....

That was one of the funniest posts I've ever read. Well, done, thou good and faithful humorist.