What do LDS men think of non-virginal women?

[_Ren]

I'm sure LDS men like ren do exist, but I frankly believe they are the minority.

Entirely possible... Not sure really...

[_beastie]

Ren,

You added an important clarification while I was posting.

You clarified:

...maybe your question is: "Given the choice between two women - one that is living by gospel principles, and one who is not, all things being equal which one would I choose?' - then as an active LDS, I would certainly have been more likely to chose the one that was living gospel principles. Which would mean that currently, they wouldn't consider sex outside of marriage 'OK', and of course (unless their happy to say one thing, but do another - which I wouldn't find attractive) they would avoid doing it.

But it wouldn't matter to me if - say - someone had converted to the church later in life and had sex outside of marriage before that, when they thought differently about it all. That wouldn't have made any difference to me...

I think this is potentially more common. It is more likely to be overlooked if the female was not a member of the church when she was "deflowered", because she didn't know better.

Having said that, there is some bias in some LDS against marrying converts in general, something I wasn't aware of when I joined the church. I learned about it later.

[_Moniker]

I totally agree with Jason.

My exmo boyfriend and I have discussed this in the past. I am very curious about the effect of LDS teachings on children, since I didn't grow up LDS. His view was that remaining sexually chaste in all ways, which included trying his best to abstain from masturbation (which you can imagine is very difficult for a teenage boy), was really difficult, but that since he did it, he deserved someone else who had maintained that chastity, too.


I'm sure LDS men like ren do exist, but I frankly believe they are the minority.

I also agree that LDS women want a virgin husband, too - but suspect that there may be a hair more flexibility on this issue simply due to the overall double standard seen in larger society as well.

I don't totally agree that chastity is the sole responsibility of the female, but I do think that most LDS do think that since men have far stronger sex drives, they are more apt to go out of bounds, and a "good girl" will reign that in. It's my impression - not my experience, since I didn't grow up LDS - that the anti-masturbation teaching is stressed more to the young men than to the young women, since the assumption is that it's the young men who will be tempted. In a way, it almost strikes me that LDS view females as potentially sexless in general. If LDS girls lose their virginity, they "gave in" to a persistent boy, and that's why she failed to "reign him in", so to speak

Beastie, that is what I've sensed from things I've seen on this board as well. That men are just assumed to be very sexual creatures and the female was responsible for his actions. It was shocking for me the first few times I witnessed these thoughts as it did seem to suggest that women are not capable of desiring sexual intimacy in a relationship -- or even just for sexual pleasure.

I never considered the relationship between the masturbation taboo and a male desiring a chaste female. Hmm... it really makes sex almost in every way a struggle to deny oneself pleasure at any cost. I would imagine this could carry over to the marriage as well. If a woman believes that men's sexual drive is her responsibility to deny and temper (and she's not suppose to be sexual) that could certainly have an impact, I would think, in the marital bed, also. Then added on to that the idea that woman, perhaps, should not be sexual/temptress (from a male perspective) that this could just amplify any issues he had.

Haha! I don't know, of course, just guessing!

Thanks, beastie!

[_Ren]

I think this is potentially more common. It is more likely to be overlooked if the female was not a member of the church when she was "deflowered", because she didn't know better.

Yeah. Maybe it's harder (in a statistical sense) if the person was raised Mormon and yet still 'fell'?
But I'm sure I personally wouldn't have made a distinction there. I'd get that some people are raised Mormon, but don't really 'believe' it or live it. I still wouldn't hold their 'past' against then in that sense...

Having said that, there is some bias in some LDS against marrying converts in general, something I wasn't aware of when I joined the church. I learned about it later.

Hmmm - that's interesting. It's been a while - it's kinda hard to think back now and try and remember if there were specific examples of this in people around me...

[_Moniker]

Ren,

You added an important clarification while I was posting.

You clarified:

...maybe your question is: "Given the choice between two women - one that is living by gospel principles, and one who is not, all things being equal which one would I choose?' - then as an active LDS, I would certainly have been more likely to chose the one that was living gospel principles. Which would mean that currently, they wouldn't consider sex outside of marriage 'OK', and of course (unless their happy to say one thing, but do another - which I wouldn't find attractive) they would avoid doing it.

But it wouldn't matter to me if - say - someone had converted to the church later in life and had sex outside of marriage before that, when they thought differently about it all. That wouldn't have made any difference to me...

I think this is potentially more common. It is more likely to be overlooked if the female was not a member of the church when she was "deflowered", because she didn't know better.

Having said that, there is some bias in some LDS against marrying converts in general, something I wasn't aware of when I joined the church. I learned about it later.

Thanks so much to Ren and Beastie for the honest replies! Ren, hypocricy is not attractive in a mate! I agree.

Beastie, did you see Sethbag's reply to this thread? His mother warned him about the convert? She may not be a virgin? Is this just an ingrained suspicion?

[_karl61]

I don't like the way the church treats young women who are single and pregnant. More than one time I have seen the girl excommunicated and the guy is disfellowshiped. This seems so unfair. The church leadership must believe she seduced him. It's sick.

[Guest]

Beastie, that is what I've sensed from things I've seen on this board as well. That men are just assumed to be very sexual creatures and the female was responsible for his actions. It was shocking for me the first few times I witnessed these thoughts as it did seem to suggest that women are not capable of desiring sexual intimacy in a relationship -- or even just for sexual pleasure.

I don't think this is necessarily an LDS thing. Or a religious thing. (Not saying you do either - but just to make the point)

I think I may have mentioned this before to you, but as an exercise at school, everybody was asked to make two lists. One for 'highly sexually active' males, and another for females.

The male list were mostly considered 'positive' terms. (Stud etc.)
The female list were mostly considered 'negative' terms (Slut etc.)

This was the same for both boys and girls. They all came up with the same types of lists.


I'm not sure if even 5% of that class would have ever set foot in a church...

[_Moniker]

I don't like the way the church treats young women who are single and pregnant. More than one time I have seen the girl excommunicated and the guy is disfellowshiped. This seems so unfair. The church leadership must believe she seduced him. It's sick.

That's very sad.

[_Moniker]

Beastie, that is what I've sensed from things I've seen on this board as well. That men are just assumed to be very sexual creatures and the female was responsible for his actions. It was shocking for me the first few times I witnessed these thoughts as it did seem to suggest that women are not capable of desiring sexual intimacy in a relationship -- or even just for sexual pleasure.

I don't think this is an LDS thing. Or even a religious thing. (Not saying you do either - but just to make the point)

It's not been my experience, in general, that woman are viewed as incapable of desiring sex and are always seen as "sluts" or seductresses when they do engage with a partner. I've witnessed severe scorn for women that engage in sexual relations over the last year. More so than just the scorn is the often stated comments that she somehow seduced the male. I think if you teach men and women that a relationship is not equal and the female is supposed to deny man's sexual desires that this puts a female in the position of having to deny him -- or else she is seen as desiring sex -- and of course what sort of woman desires sex?

I think I may have mentioned this before to you, but as an exercise at school, everybody was asked to make two lists. One for 'highly sexually active' males, and another for females.

The male list were mostly considered 'positive' terms. (Stud etc.)
The female list were mostly considered 'negative' terms (Slut etc.)

This was the same for both boys and girls. They all came up with the same types of lists.

Women are very harsh on each other. Yet, it's not been my experience that most women that have sex before marriage, in the secular society, is considered a slut. I didn't have one female friend that was a virgin when I was in highschool. I lived in an affluent neighborhood (the most affluent in the area), there were few broken homes and all of my friends were sexually active with their boyfriends. Slut was a term reserved for those that would attempt to seduce or sleep with your boyfriend. ;)

[_Ren]

Moniker,

Yeah, good points. I don't think it's routinely made a 'big deal' of in a more secular society. But I'd still say the attitude is 'there', but it's a bit subtle.

..for example, if someone wanted to insult a girl (for any reason), they might call them a 'slut' - you've slept with X, Y and Z.
...but if you wanted to insult a guy, that insult wouldn't work. You say 'You slept with X, Y and Z', the guy replies 'Why thank you! Yeah, I know I'm a stud. Thanks...'

I mean, I still think that kind of 'inbalance' is present today. It's subtle, but it's still there I think. At least over here in the UK - donno about the USA...


I think all religion possibly does is take that already existing attitude and 'solidify', or 'concentrate' it a bit perhaps in certain ways. Maybe... Donno...