What do LDS men think of non-virginal women?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

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?



Yes, I did read it and was not surprised. This may go off topic just a tad, but I guess it's still relevant to the topic since it is much more likely for an adult convert to NOT be a virgin at the altar. (face it, even in religions that teach sexual chastity before marriage, unless they have a potentially "public" way of punishing offenders, people still tend to have sex before marriage - in my opinion - LDS are more successful at keeping their unmarrieds virgins due to the regular "worthiness" interview and the potential for a public exposure via disfellowshipment or excommunication)

Remember Mormonism definitely has a strong strain of "specialness" and "chosenness" underlying its entire theology. In the pre-existence, HF's spirit children were faithful and obedient to varying degrees, and that variation explained some differences in this life. Of course, the old, extreme, and now rejected example is the former teaching that some spirits are born black and hence, not able to have the priesthood because they were "fence sitters" in the pre-existence. But aside from that now rejected teaching, it is still widely believed that people are "chosen" to be LDS due to their valiance in the pre-existence. This was very culturally popular when I was LDS, and I think of it as the "saturday's warrior" effect. I think watching that play (which was filmed at BYU, too, but I'm not sure how you could see it unless you have the BYU channel on TV) would help you understand the LDS culture more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday's_Warrior

Anyway, when I joined the LDS church I felt "special" and "chosen" in that I had received a STRONG testimony of the Book of Mormon during prayer and KNEW the church was true. It seemed to me that many "lifers" took it for granted, often hadn't sought out their own unique testimony, etc. I certainly didn't feel "better" than them, because, after all, HF set THEM aside to be born in the one true church, which was an extra super duper big ole' cherry on top blessing, but I did think I was less prone to take it for granted because I had to FIND the "truth".

I didn't realize till I went to BYU and then, most especially, on my mission when I was more intensively around lifer Mormons, that many Mormons actually do feel that lifers are actually superior, in some ways, to converts - superior in their commitment to the church, superior in that they were chosen to be born under the covenant. Of course they think that brings more responsibility, kind of like a rich person with noblesse oblige. And there is an element of truth and fact in the idea that lifers will tend to stay in the church more than converts, who do tend to "fall away" at a higher rate (less familial pressure to remain, for one reason, and not being fully aware of exactly what being LDS means due to the missionary pressure to baptize fast).

The most shocking exposure I had to the potential lifer prejudice against converts was on my mission. For some reason, we (my district of four elders and two sisters) were discussing having your calling and election made sure. I asserted that if one had their calling and election made sure, then one could commit any sin, with the exception of blaspheming against the HG, and one's exaltation was STILL ensured, although you'd have to pay for the sin yourself. (this is straight from the D&C). The Utah, lifer Mormon elders insisted that I was full of baloney, that wasn't true. I pulled out the D&C to SHOW them, and one elder's response was "what would you know, anyway? You're just a GIRL and a CONVERT." I was stunned.
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 »

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote: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...


Yes, I agree with that. There is definitely a double standard. However, I can't recall anyone of my friends ever referring to another woman in such a manner, nor did I. Unless of course she was moving in on our guy! Of course more likely than not she was just called a "b" word -- not "slut".

But there was NEVER the idea that a woman should not desire sex, that I can recall... Your list talked about "highly sexual" males and females. There is still that sentiment in the populace at large. Yet, I wasn't specifically talking about "highly sexual". Of course that is up for debate what that would be. Apparently 9 mates is considered that now. Slut, in my experience, was saved for women that did not have relationships, rather she just engaged in sex without the emotional aspect at all. That's been my experience.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

Moniker wrote:Yet, I wasn't specifically talking about "highly sexual". Of course that is up for debate what that would be.

Yeah - this is an issue as well.
It's kinda like when I was talking about drinking alcohol on MAD, and I claimed to be a 'moderate' drinker, but then the reply was that I couldn't be if I - at any point - actually drink enough to get 'tipsy'. Ever!

That way of thinking about drinking doesn't make much sense to me. Certainly not as a Brit :) But it's all about perception I guess...

I pulled out the D&C to SHOW them, and one elder's response was "what would you know, anyway? You're just a GIRL and a CONVERT." I was stunned.

...bloody hell :/
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

by the way, the wiki link to saturday's warrior doesn't work for some reason. I tried fixing it but it still doesn't work, so you'll just have to do a wiki search for it to find it.

I'm older than you, moniker, but my experience was exactly like yours. All of my female friends had sex before marriage. And yes, "slut" was used as an insult, but only towards a girl who slept with other girls' boyfriends, OR who had lots of one night stands with no expectation of a relationship.

I knew no one, literally no one, who viewed a girl who had sex with an actual boyfriend as a "slut", no matter how many boyfriends she'd had up to that point.

The LDS culture is quite unusual in its emphasis, and in a way, obsession with controlling sexuality. It's one of the more interesting aspects of it. My personal opinion is that it has to do with the fact that sexuality - ie, polygamy - was in fact one of the most important theological teachings of the early church. Sex and breeding is part of theology in the LDS church in a way it is in no other religion I know of. (maybe muslim with the promise of virgins?? I haven't studied that so don't know)
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
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

ren,

Somehow I'd missed the fact that you're brit. That may also explain some differences. I have found, in my experience as an "east coast" Mormon convert, that "utah Mormons" are a different breed, and tend more to this "chosenness" obnoxiousness. In fact, many "east coast Mormons" cannot STAND Utah Mormons. So some of my comments pertain more specifically to UTAH (or Idaho) Mormons. The elder who dismissed me due to being a girl convert was, of course, a Utah Mormon. Mormons from areas that had a small LDS population usually weren't as obnoxious. (particularly European Mormons)
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
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

beastie wrote:but only towards a girl who slept with other girls' boyfriends, OR who had lots of one night stands with no expectation of a relationship

The first one a guy would get a negative assigned to as well. (Usually I think...)

But the second one? I think usually there wouldn't be a negative connotation... Not around here anyway... A guy can get plenty of 'quick shags' in, and it's not seen as negative in any way. (Assuming he used protection etc.)
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

beastie wrote:ren,

Somehow I'd missed the fact that you're brit. That may also explain some differences. I have found, in my experience as an "east coast" Mormon convert, that "utah Mormons" are a different breed, and tend more to this "chosenness" obnoxiousness. In fact, many "east coast Mormons" cannot STAND Utah Mormons. So some of my comments pertain more specifically to UTAH (or Idaho) Mormons. The elder who dismissed me due to being a girl convert was, of course, a Utah Mormon. Mormons from areas that had a small LDS population usually weren't as obnoxious. (particularly European Mormons)


Yeah - for sure. I think my experience of Mormonism over here seems quite different than how others have described it...
I mean, of course a lot of it is the same. But I think there are definite differences too...
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

The first one a guy would get a negative assigned to as well. (Usually I think...)

But the second one? I think usually there wouldn't be a negative connotation... Not around here anyway... A guy can get plenty of 'quick shags' in, and it's not seen as negative in any way.



Yes, I agree that is still a bias reflected in the overall culture. A guy who has lots of relationship-less one night stands is a "stud", a women who does the same is a "slut".
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
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

beastie's roundup of cultural attitudes conforms to what I observed growing up in Utah, that bastion of Zion--particularly the way that sense of "specialness" plays out in relation to nonmembers and converts alike.

The assumption I always found most repellent was that Mormons were somehow more "intelligent" than nonmembers: thus, if someone hadn't converted it was because they hadn't had the gospel dumbed down enough, or put in short enough words for them to understand yet. They needed in other words to be talked down to in language their minds could comprehend because of course anyone with a brain would believe in Mormonism! Sound familiar? I remember overhearing some ladies at church nattering on about this, about how hard it was to home teach inactives or reach out to nonmembers because essentially you had to "lower yourself" to their level to be able to communicate.

The idea that sethbag related--that converts having once been nonmembers were sexually suspect--was also common. Usuallly, of course, this was expressed in relation to a girl, not a boy, because of the sexual double standards alive and well in Mormon culture. There are no comparable, however "benign," cupcake lessons for the boys...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Post by _The Nehor »

thestyleguy wrote: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.


Really, in my experience it's been the opposite.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Post Reply