The sex thread

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

BishopRic wrote:
I actually think this "no masturbation" thing is a key, though possibly unintentional, strategy in molding young Mormons into their guilt/shame/depend on the church for forgiveness mentality. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't presume that Mormonism started this, but they have sure perfected it!

Let me explain: teenage boy hits puberty (I will only speak for the male gender, since I am an expert with this one....), things start feeling kinda tingly down there, but parents are too embarrassed to talk much about it. Interview with the bish reveals that we are not supposed to "play"...at least for now. BUT, it's really a beautiful thing if we "save ourselves" for marriage...and this is how we co-create people with God.

But it REALLY feels good now, and I sometimes slip up and rubby rubby a little too much....

OOOOOh, the guilt that I have sinned a grievous sin! I pray, tell the bish, and commit to never do it again!

But I do.

The cycle continues, and I start to think I will never be strong enough to avoid the tempatation. Maybe a mission will help. The cycle continues...and I DO NOT feel worthy to do the work of the Lord...I must work harder to gain the Lord's blessings to resist temptation and become okay...

The inadequacy I feel creates a feeling of weakness..I will never be good enough! I depend on "God" and "his" institution to help me...
.
.
.
.
Sounds like a great way to emotionally control a lot of people to me!


Wowzers! See, beastie, you're right again (as usual) there are sooooo many reasons I'm drawn to ex-Mos. :) Yep, feeling inadequate and flawed is a great way to make someone dependent and a sense of helplessness. Geez.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

I've always been one to clamor that the church should stay as far away from the marriage bed as possible. The problems seems to be that they want to assert some control in this area so rather than give some beneficial tips (which I assume they feel would be too titillating and chase away the spirit) they hone in on the don't do list. If one is accustomed to looking to church leaders for every little guidance in their life and all they find is a list of don't do's, it creates, in my opinion, an underlying negative image of sex in general.



Even when I was more staunch I said to my wife the the Church ends at our bedroom door. We both agreed that God did not need to join us in our bed nor LDS GAs. As long as we both liked what we were doing, neither felt compelled to do something that was not good for them then we did it. And it has been pretty great.
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Trevor wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:Or in legalize:

Sexual abuse of a minor by a person in a position of trust.

Edited to clarify the last line.


Not that I have any grounds to play the spelling martinet, but I think you are looking for legalese?

And I agree with you about the rest.


Trevor,

You are a shameless spell checker. I stand (sit) corrected!

Jersey Girl

*goes to look up "martinet"* :-)


Yah, uhhh, Trevor always makes me feel like a dummy. :)
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

I get the sense that many church leaders see sex as a necessary evil sort of thing. Not anything to be encouraged, discussed, embraced, enjoyed but a instinct that must be accomodated once in a while.


And you TD, like Harmony and some others here, are full of holy high h****s*** (I do believe that's the first time I've ever used profanity on this board). Stuff it you tendentious little twit. The Church does not teach any such thing about sex and its purpose. In fact, its beauty and fulfilling qualities within the context of marriage between a man and a woman is all I heard growing up. Oh, yes, there is the vary serious counsel against sexual immorality, against the misuse or perversion of sexual desires that is the very spinal fluid of the post sixties cult of eroticism that saturates every nook and cubby hole of our sexually shallow, masturbatory culture, but that's a different matter.

Please, all of you, educate yourselves on LDS culture, philosophy, and teaching or sit down and shut up. There is, apparently, no fool like an anti-Mormon fool.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Coggins7 wrote:
Please, all of you, educate yourselves on LDS culture, philosophy, and teaching or sit down and shut up. There is, apparently, no fool like an anti-Mormon fool.


I'm not anti-LDS. I don't think so? I don't consider myself such. Yet, I am sitting down.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

BishopRic wrote:
Then, the "must wait until marriage" rule. NOT good! Plenty of sayings..."wouldn't buy a car without test-driving it first..." all apply. This sex thing is probably the most critical area of compatibility in a successful marriage, and you're not going to know how you "fit" with each other until it's too late?! And then you're stuck with him/her for all eternity?!

God couldn't be that mean!


Exaclty how many men did you want your wife to "try on" before she found a fit?

And by way, successful sexual relations aren't because of "fit." Think about it. A woman can deliver a baby through the same place. Babies weigh on average about 8 pounds. That ought to make any man feel just a little. . . um. . . small.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Jason Bourne wrote:
Leave it to Jason, to say all those wise and wonderful things.


Are you teasing me?


Not at all. Simply stating a truth.

Why do you suppose LDS women are unwilling to wear something sexy? Think that anything out of the ordinary missionary position is too adventuresome (deviant is such a strong word)? Think that sex is just for making babies? Who told them that? Who told them that over and over and over from the time they reach puberty? Who keeps telling them that, every Sunday for their entire adult life?



Yea, yes I know but us men heard the same things growing up.


Which no doubt explains many things.

PS. Obviously non-LDS women wear sexy lingerie all the time. Victoria's Secret isn't exactly a small business.



Well I am sure happy my wife has visited that store a few times as well as Fredericks. Ooo lalala!
[/quote]

I have a friend who was showing me her new outfit one day several years ago. It was quite a fun piece of frothiness. I asked her where she got it. She blushed and whispered "Fredericks" and showed me where she'd hidden the wrapping paper in the trash so her high councilman husband wouldn't see it. I giggled with her. We were being sooo risque!

I look back on that now, and think how sad we both were. She was just trying to spice up her love life, but she had to hide the source of the spice. Sad indeed.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

And by way, successful sexual relations aren't because of "fit." Think about it. A woman can deliver a baby through the same place. Babies weigh on average about 8 pounds. That ought to make any man feel just a little. . . um. . . small.


Is this a joke, or do you really not understand what ric meant by "fit"?
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
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

beastie wrote:
And by way, successful sexual relations aren't because of "fit." Think about it. A woman can deliver a baby through the same place. Babies weigh on average about 8 pounds. That ought to make any man feel just a little. . . um. . . small.


Is this a joke, or do you really not understand what ric meant by "fit"?


Holy heart failure, Batman!
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

Coggins7 wrote:So, a tiny sample from your own small circle of friends and aquaintences (and might these not share some of your own intellectual and psychological preoccupations?) is bandied about here as representative of-precisely what?


Representative of the women themselves, and their lives, and their men.

Like Jews and Blacks before, there is just something wrong with those Mormons. What will we do about those Mormons? They can't even screw correctly. The men are poor lovers (not to mention being shiftless, lazy, and of low intelligence) and the woman all pop tranquilizers and Prozac (all the better to deal with their lackluster sex lives).


Uhh... Loran? I think you're a bit offbase here. I don't know about Jews, but African American men are generally rumored to be well-endowed with amazing stamina. I'm not sure what your generalizations are supposed to convey, but I think you doth protest too much.

Harmony fits right in with the long line of bigots, provocateurs, and desperate, grasping demagogues that form the nucleus of virtually all North American anti-Mormonism. She's a piece of work. It would be nice if she were actually a Mormon as well, but why split hairs at this point?


It would be nice if you actually were capable of contributing to the conversation, but we've all given up on that, long ago. When you have to stoop to insulting your opposition, instead of engaging their argument, you've already conceded.
Post Reply