On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_Runtu]

There is a very wide spectrum in sexual activity that seems to be ignored in these comments. Certainly people who engage in very promiscuous behavior are probably more likely to return to promiscuous behavior in the future. But it's not just promiscuous sexuality that is condemned in Mormonism and by others. It's just premarital sex in general. I've been in a monogamous, faithful and sexually active relationship with my significant other for ten years. That's hardly promiscuous behavior that would mark either of us "at risk" for future fidelity. Most people in the world fall in between the seeming dichotomy presented on this thread - they're not virgins when they get married, but nor were they sexually promiscuous. They were sexually active when in serious, long-term relationships.

For me, it is more important that my children delay marriage until their late twenties or preferably early thirties than it is that they be virgins. I think it is unrealistic to expect human beings with normal sexual drives and desires for close human contact (not just sexual) to be completely chaste that long. In fact, I think expecting such complete chastity sets people up to make some really bad decisions as far as marrying is concerned. Why do you think LDS marry at a younger age than the rest of society? It's not because they are in a hurry to have kids. They're in a hurry to have sex. Marriage is such an important decision it ought not to be rushed for any reason.

I married my exhusband within three months of meeting him. My significant other married his exwife within two and half months of meeting her. We were not unusual at BYU. Frankly, the rest of the world would be shocked by people getting married so fast. Why is it so common in Mormonism? It's the desire to have sex that is clouding the decision making facilities.

Again, I'm not sharing this in the expectation that people with religious reasons for banning premarital sex are going to change their minds. I'm sharing my views on this matter, and why I do not expect my children to be virgins when they marry, and actually hope they are not.

I guess for me the chastity thing is blown way out of proportion in Mormonism. Second only to murder? So, rape is no worse than one instance of premarital sex? Sorry, but that is just wrong.

I have sometimes wondered if I would have been better off with some sexual experience before marriage, but then I realize that I didn't, and there's no point in speculating. I lived what I believed, and things turned out OK. It did take us a very long time to get to where we were both comfortable with our sexuality as a couple, but it's impossible to say how things would have been different otherwise.

[_moksha]

This thread has blossomed so much that I hope you will forgive me if this point has been inquired about or explored, but I am wondering about the message in the Cupcake lesson also being construed by the boys to indicate that it is quite permissible to be judgmental of the girls and not grant forgiveness. I hope that does not tie-in to assuming the judgmental nature of a God who does not grant mercy and forgiveness. To me, it seems important for the Church to try to instill these Christ-like virtues of love, mercy and forgiveness in its youth. Breaking one's chastity is something that happens. How one chooses to react to it seems of vital importance.

[_Runtu]

This thread has blossomed so much that I hope you will forgive me if this point has been inquired about or explored, but I am wondering about the message in the Cupcake lesson also being construed by the boys to indicate that it is quite permissible to be judgmental of the girls and not grant forgiveness. I hope that does not tie-in to assuming the judgmental nature of a God who does not grant mercy and forgiveness. To me, it seems important for the Church to try to instill these Christ-like virtues of love, mercy and forgiveness in its youth. Breaking one's chastity is something that happens. How one chooses to react to it seems of vital importance.

That's why I think the cupcake lesson is antithetical to the principle of the atonement. No amount of frosting will ever make that cupcake good enough to eat. It's a bad analogy, plain and simple.

[_Jason Bourne]

This thread has blossomed so much that I hope you will forgive me if this point has been inquired about or explored, but I am wondering about the message in the Cupcake lesson also being construed by the boys to indicate that it is quite permissible to be judgmental of the girls and not grant forgiveness. I hope that does not tie-in to assuming the judgmental nature of a God who does not grant mercy and forgiveness. To me, it seems important for the Church to try to instill these Christ-like virtues of love, mercy and forgiveness in its youth. Breaking one's chastity is something that happens. How one chooses to react to it seems of vital importance.

Well said oh wise little penguine. Well said.

[_Seven]

There is a very wide spectrum in sexual activity that seems to be ignored in these comments. Certainly people who engage in very promiscuous behavior are probably more likely to return to promiscuous behavior in the future. But it's not just promiscuous sexuality that is condemned in Mormonism and by others. It's just premarital sex in general. I've been in a monogamous, faithful and sexually active relationship with my significant other for ten years. That's hardly promiscuous behavior that would mark either of us "at risk" for future fidelity. Most people in the world fall in between the seeming dichotomy presented on this thread - they're not virgins when they get married, but nor were they sexually promiscuous. They were sexually active when in serious, long-term relationships.

For me, it is more important that my children delay marriage until their late twenties or preferably early thirties than it is that they be virgins. I think it is unrealistic to expect human beings with normal sexual drives and desires for close human contact (not just sexual) to be completely chaste that long. In fact, I think expecting such complete chastity sets people up to make some really bad decisions as far as marrying is concerned. Why do you think LDS marry at a younger age than the rest of society? It's not because they are in a hurry to have kids. They're in a hurry to have sex. Marriage is such an important decision it ought not to be rushed for any reason.

I married my exhusband within three months of meeting him. My significant other married his exwife within two and half months of meeting her. We were not unusual at BYU. Frankly, the rest of the world would be shocked by people getting married so fast. Why is it so common in Mormonism? It's the desire to have sex that is clouding the decision making facilities.

Again, I'm not sharing this in the expectation that people with religious reasons for banning premarital sex are going to change their minds. I'm sharing my views on this matter, and why I do not expect my children to be virgins when they marry, and actually hope they are not.

I guess for me the chastity thing is blown way out of proportion in Mormonism. Second only to murder? So, rape is no worse than one instance of premarital sex? Sorry, but that is just wrong.

I have sometimes wondered if I would have been better off with some sexual experience before marriage, but then I realize that I didn't, and there's no point in speculating. I lived what I believed, and things turned out OK. It did take us a very long time to get to where we were both comfortable with our sexuality as a couple, but it's impossible to say how things would have been different otherwise.

Beastie, you make some great points. I believe loyalty and absolute faithful behavior on the part of both partners is honorable married or not. (So I guess I have changed my thoughts and beliefs in a few areas as a result of this discussion :)

I believe the sin that is second to murder (adultery) is a person who breaks the sacred covenant of chastity in marriage. I know that LDS teachings suggest it's pre marital sex, but I don't believe that is how God would judge us.

Runtu, you bring up a point that is a problem in LDS marriages. As youth and in college, the topic of sex in church teachings always focuses on the sin, the negative, Satan, etc. so many couples really struggle to get past this once they are married. That honeymoon night can be bitter sweet when you finally do something you were told was wrong for so long. I still don't believe sexual experience benefits couples before marriage because I think it's great to learn and experiment together. That brings couples closer.

I do feel that the church should focus less on the negative parts of sex and be more upfront with kids, the way my teacher was in Young Womens. There was nothing negative I can recall in the lessons I had in YW as a youth, but I missed the cupcake one. The negativity I experienced came from chastity talks in Sacrament Meeting focused on the Youth, Firesides, interviews with Bishops (horrific!) and parents.

[_Mister Scratch]

Hi Wade! :)

I have a problem with this statement:

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 behoove them to take more care to avoid the unfavorable consequences.

Yes, women become pregnant, but don't the men who impregnante them also become fathers? Wouldn't it "behoove" us, as leaders, to teach young men that simply because they aren't carrying a child in their body for nine months, they are still responsible for the fatherhood of that child?

This is why I think that a trip to a shelter for abandoned children would hold a much stronger impact for both sexes than a cupcake object lesson.

I think that the frank discussion that could occur after such an experience would do much more to enlighten the youth of today, and bring the message of chastity and making proper choices home.

Brilliantly said, Liz. It really should come as no surprise that a hardcore TBM male like Wade would find the "cupcake analogy" to be hunky-dorey. It does not and cannot ever affect him in the way it would affect a girl. In fact, the analogy really can do nothing but benefit TBM males! They "win" no matter what: if the cupcake gets "licked," the girl gets weeded out; if the girl stays chaste, then the horny TBM male gets his unsullied virgin bride. There is no consequence for the males at all. It is a win-win situation for them.

[_KimberlyAnn]

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).

So you think such object lessons, this one, the crushe rose, the nail in the board and hole analogy (Which ELder Holland teaches is a false doctrine) are all quite fine ways to teach young impressionable minds?

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.

No Wade. I know you cannot see the Church doing any wrong at all and it seems it is eitther the hearer's fault and their twisted minds twisting something further, or it is a renegade teacher. But you are wrong. First if the Church denounced such hideous lessons they would not be used. Second, if the Church did not teach about sexual sin in such a heavy handed way these object lessons would be less used.

Further shame on you man for blaming the person who was taught such nonesense at a young age as hysterically and irrationally misunderstanding it. Wade, ,the Church can do better and has done bad things that have been hurtful. I am sprry that you cannot be reasonable about 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.

No Wade. The nonesense on this one is coming from you my friend.

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.

Let me ask you this. In your apologetic little mind is there ever any cistumstance where the Church has done things that are hurtful and perhaps can improve?

Thank you, Jason. And you, too, Runtu, for coming to my defense. I realised when I posted this essay there would be Mormons who wouldn't agree with my assessment of the treatement of females in Mormonism or my interpretation of the Licked Cupcake lesson. I was surprised that someone would say I give women a bad name. Or that I don't have a grip on myself or reality and that I do not behave in ways that are loving or respectful. I am far from perfect, but I can say with assurity that even the Mormons who know me in real life do not believe I'm an embarrassement to women or give women a bad name. Wade must be psychic to make such judgements of someone via an internet message board - especially with only one post as evidence! I say he's wasting his time kayaking around when he could be raking in the big bucks as the next Mr. Cleo.

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

Wade, I must have missed this the first time I saw your post, but this was totally uncalled for. If I recall correctly, you say you're all about refusing to engage in a cycle of anger and recrimination and instead focusing on the internal. So, you should be asking yourself, "What can I do to improve the relationship between myself and KimberlyAnn? How have my cognitive distortions contributed to any animosity and hard feelings?" Instead, your post is all about externalizing the offense you feel and attacking KA merely for expressing an opinion you disagree with.

I'm with Jason: shame on you for treating someone like this.

Clever, Runtu. You really are a genius, even if Bond doesn't think so. I wonder if he'll mock me again for saying that on this thread? :)

KA

[_Runtu]

Thank you, Jason. And you, too, Runtu, for coming to my defense. I realised when I posted this essay there would be Mormons who wouldn't agree with my assessment of the treatement of females in Mormonism or my interpretation of the Licked Cupcake lesson. I was surprised that someone would say I give women a bad name. Or that I don't have a grip on myself or reality and that I do not behave in ways that are loving or respectful. I am far from perfect, but I can say with assurity that even the Mormons who know me in real life do not believe I'm an embarrassement to women or give women a bad name. Wade must be psychic to make such judgements of someone via an internet message board - especially with only one post as evidence! I say he's wasting his time kayaking around when he could be raking in the big bucks as the next Mr. Cleo.

KA

You're a lovely soul, KA, and nothing Wade ever says will change that.

[_beastie]

KA,

You just haven't been around Wade long enough to know how it works. Nothing is ever wrong with the church - it's always something wrong with your PERCEPTION of the church. We critics are all psychologically damaged. The sooner we accept that and gratefully accept wade's therapy, the better off we will all be. Accept your fate in life as a cupcake, dear. :O