I don't honestly have any stories like these. I don't think. I mean, I wasn't in YW of course :D, but I'd never head of this cupcake thing until reading it here on the forums. But I don't know if that's because:
a. Just wasn't in the position to get comments like that. Both of the girls I 'kind of' went out with back then were non-convert girls. (It had nothing to do with my choice - they just happened to be that...)
b. I just happen to have been around more 'liberal' Mormons - generally...
OR
c. If it ever did happen, I would have attributed it to the person, and thought less of them specifically, rather than reading more into it (Justifiably or not).
Again, it may be a function of geography. If you live in an area where there are hardly any LDS to begin with, your dating pool is vastly reduced. In that case, members may feel relieved their young people are dating/marrying other Mormons, even if converts. But when you live in an area with lots of Mormons, and you have a choice, there does seem to be a prejudice against converts.
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.
beastie wrote:Again, it may be a function of geography. If you live in an area where there are hardly any LDS to begin with, your dating pool is vastly reduced. In that case, members may feel relieved their young people are dating/marrying other Mormons, even if converts. But when you live in an area with lots of Mormons, and you have a choice, there does seem to be a prejudice against converts.
Ahh yes. Actually, that's a very good point...
Yeah - you've probably nailed it there...
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.
What a woman has done before she meets me is her business, not mine. I don't talk about past relationships when I'm dating a girl, and I prefer women who pay me the same courtesy. When you are with someone, you are with them, not their past.
(And lest there be confusion, I have no qualms about “non-Virginal” women. The above applies to much more than simply the "sex" question, in my opinion).
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Doctor Steuss wrote:What a woman has done before she meets me is her business, not mine. I don't talk about past relationships when I'm dating a girl, and I prefer women who pay me the same courtesy. When you are with someone, you are with them, not their past.
What's amazing is that the above even has to be said...?!
I'd bet you'd judge a girl for not being 'groovy' enough though. Bastard.
Doctor Steuss wrote:What a woman has done before she meets me is her business, not mine. I don't talk about past relationships when I'm dating a girl, and I prefer women who pay me the same courtesy. When you are with someone, you are with them, not their past.
(And lest there be confusion, I have no qualms about “non-Virginal” women. The above applies to much more than simply the "sex" question, in my opinion).
Hi Steuss! I think that may be healthy as long as there isn't the sentiment that the past is somehow making one partner flawed. I think often times there can be sentiments that a past should not be discussed because the person hearing about it would harshly judge the person or would somehow think less of the person. I have never minded men sharing their past heartaches, regrets, loves with me -- it actually brings me a closer sort of intimacy with them. Yet, I think if one partner is uncomfortable with it then sure, out of respect the subject need not be broached.
I've seen the idea that past relationships should never be talked about often on these boards. Jason mentioned that he actually counsels this. I've never had a healthy intimate relationship with a man where I didn't know about his past or where he didn't desire to know about mine. It was actually a bonding experience. Of course details may not be important. :) But, I think understanding past relationships (not just the sexual part of it) helps round out understanding of a person.
I think there are healthy, and unhealthy ways to approach this. Thanks for your reply. :)
Doctor Steuss wrote:What a woman has done before she meets me is her business, not mine. I don't talk about past relationships when I'm dating a girl, and I prefer women who pay me the same courtesy. When you are with someone, you are with them, not their past.
What's amazing is that the above even has to be said...?!
I'd bet you'd judge a girl for not being 'groovy' enough though. Bastard.
Well, let me say this.... I think when you're "dating" it might be a bit different than being incredibly bonded to someone and wanting to understand them -- whatever it may be. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
For instance: A man may know that I had sexual relations outside of marriage. He may make certain judgments about what sort of woman I am. Now, would it be important for him to know that I was suffering from PTSD? I would say yes. Knowing just one aspect can give a very flawed perception of a person. If a man did think I was a "certain type of woman" -- just knowing I wasn't a virgin and yet cared not for any of the emotional aspects of the relationship then he likewise would have a flawed perception of who I actually "am". Does that make sense?
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:What's amazing is that the above even has to be said...?!
Unfortunately (and embarrassingly) there was a time when I didn't have even a close semblance of that attitude in regards to dating. I’m glad I’ve grown up some.
I'd bet you'd judge a girl for not being 'groovy' enough though. Bastard.
LOL!
It's true. With the last gal I was dating, I was able to overlook the tattoo on her face, her weird laugh, and even her atheism (*gasp*), but after I discovered she was groovy-deficient, I had to draw the line.
<-- Anti-non-groovite.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Blixa wrote: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...
Huh. I had no idea that there was a superior intelligence mentality.
I think this stems from Church Teachings (early Apostolic ruminations actually) that the Holy Ghost makes you smarter. I think this is true but if with the Holy Ghost and them without you match A's intelligence....that means you're inferior all things being equal.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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
Moniker wrote:Well, let me say this.... I think when you're "dating" it might be a bit different than being incredibly bonded to someone and wanting to understand them -- whatever it may be. The good, the bad, and the ugly
Oh actually, I totally agree. I think I was concentrating more on the last bit of Doc's statement: 'You are going out with their present, not their past'.
I agree - I think if both of you want to talk about it, it can be totally positive.
..it's when it gets to: 'Well, I like everything about you, but hey - X years ago you did Y, so sorry - no can do...' - that's when it's messed up...
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.