The first thing I want to say is that I regret I was not more careful in my OP. (no, wade, I don’t think using “horn-dog” and WTF was the problem, but feel free to continue fussing about it) I over-generalized, and did not take the time to initially specify that it is likely a very small group creating this impression. The fact that several men have expressed concern over their own behavior when, in my opinion at least, there’s been nothing wrong with their behavior to begin with, is a good sign that I was careless in my OP. I apologize for that.
I actually did not realize what a firestorm this thread would cause. That wasn’t my intent or hope. But maybe the ensuing firestorm signals that it’s a topic that needs to be discussed.
I think part of what has been confusing about this thread is that there are a couple of issues being discussed that probably need to be separated. It is another sign of my personal carelessness that I did not take the time to differentiate between these issues enough.
Trinity, I appreciate your comments and perspective, and do agree that valuable, meaningful conversation can happen between male and female posters in regards to issues that involve sex or sexuality. But it doesn’t take many “bad apples” to bring a negative or lewd tone into the conversation.
I actually hunted down the oral sex thread from Z that I think really demonstrates the problem. It’s not as clear anymore, since the names have been replaced (unless people re-registered with the site, their comments show simply as “unregistered”) and a moderator has cleaned it up. There were quite a few vulgar things said on the thread and I only specifically remember one. But because I’d like to clear up some of the confusion over exactly what the problem is, I’m going to use it to demonstrate. I’m bolding the comments I find demonstrative of the point I’m trying to make.
http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/63 ... nsive.html
This original post was by a female LDS, new to the board (and I believe she left the board after this thread, for good reason)
OP, female, referred to later as LeT
I'm new here and have a nagging question. I have found a couple of references to the notion that oral sex is indeed prohibited even within marriage.
I find this shocking and offensive and want to know what others think. I mean to ask my bishop about this as well. During my marriage interview the Stake pres. told us that if doesn't feel right, don't do it. Sounds logical to me.
I want the references, who said it when, and why in the world I should adhere to such an outlandish rule.
My comments:
There is nothing lewd at all in this post, and certainly nothing that suggests the poster would welcome sexualized talk. But see how the thread evolved:
The first few posts were appropriate, sharing links, information, and personal responses to the question. Things started to deteriorate when one poster in particular, referred to as Pent, showed up.
Pent, who had recently complained of vulgarity on the board (assuming the poster is male):
LeT: I find this shocking and offensive and want to know what others think.
Pent: Edited for vulgarity. Possible moderator action being discussed
LeT: I want the references, who said it when, and why in the world I should adhere to such an outlandish rule.
Pent: Why is that when some new shows up on this list they start demanding that we do their homework for them?
Just curious.
Now, what was the “edited for vulgarity”? I don’t remember the exact words he used, but you can guess based on my (as seven of nine) response to him:
7o9
Good job distorting LeT's statement in a slightly offensive manner.
Perhaps what he found offensive was the intrusion into the marital bed, eh? You're bright enough that you probably already realized that was the likely explanation. But it was just less fun than the Edited for quoted vulgarityline.
Moreover, oral sex goes both ways, and many women enjoy being the recipient of oral sex quite a bit, and it's often more successful than intercourse at helping women achieve release. Maybe depriving his wife of that pleasure was part of LeT's objection, as well as the general objection to intrusion into the marital bed.
But, again, why go with those fairly obvious possibilities when one can paint an unflattering, selfish picture instead? Poor LeT's wife, forced into sexual submission, his insistence that a Edited for quoted vulgarity is his "right", despite her obvious distaste for the task. He's probably just an antimormon in disguise, anyway.
Pent’s response to a Mormon who also protested his vulgarity:
Seven,
I probably did read more into his post that is there. However, I must admit that I find it fascinating that it always seems to be men who argue in favor of such things. I've never seen a woman (except in the case of occassional porn star) worries about such things.
Nevo,
Actually, I used that term as a euphamism, it wasn't meant to vulgar. I apologize if you were offended. Please assume I was talking about a large, boxy SUV.
Pent
Note how the Madonna/Whore complex rears it head. It’s only the occasional “porn star” who would worry about oral sex.
My response as 7o9
So only women porn stars "worry" about receiving oral pleasure?
I'm stunned into silence. Almost.
Pent, you don't even have to have intimate relationships with women to know that women enjoy receiving oral sex, and, for many women, it is far more "effective" than intercourse. You only have to read a book or two on the subject (ie, sexuality) to figure that out. And believe it or not, there are men and women who enjoy giving pleasure in this way as much as receiving it.
But back to the subject - why in the world would God be offended by a married couple lovingly touching, kissing, etc, one another's bodies? Aren't bodies beautiful, the "temple of God"? Are some parts dirty, too dirty for other parts? What could possibly be the problem?
It was well known in my former stake that our stake president had a "thing" about oral sex, and would ask couples questions about it. I don't know of anyone being excommunicated for giving the wrong answer. Many of us also knew he only believed in sex for procreation, although I don't think he asked those sort of questions. I did not experience this sort of interview with him, as by the time I was married he was released, but the young couples in my ward still whispered about it. He was replaced by a stake president who was totally hands-off on the subject. He just let it up to the couple to decide what they had to confess or discuss. My old bishop was quite adamant that what went on in the marital bedroom was not his business, as long as it wasn't abusive or coercive. Thank goodness. I'm not sure how I would have reacted if I had been asked details about my sexual relationship with my then husband.
Later discussion revolved around pent’s reference to “porn actresses”, and he said he meant that as satirical, not serious, so it became a bit of a joke.
The original poster, LeT, returned:
Pent! I'll have you know I AM a porn actress and it bothers me to no limit that oral sex would not be condoned within the bonds of marriage!
j/k
I am, however a woman who does indeed enjoy performing fellatio on my husband. One, because I'm really good at it. The idea that cunnilingus does not meet with the Lord's approval also bothers me. It's not filthy or demeaning in any way. I'll have you know that the clitoris, being a mere fraction of the size, has just as many, if not more nerve endings that the glans of the penis. And while the penis serves more than one purpose, the clitoris does not. It's very existence is FOR those nerve endings. In other words, it was created TO receive pleasure, and that's it. Now, I don't know about you, but not everyone is as adroit at using their hands to stimulate such a sensitive area. The tongue, frankly works much better.
Pent, if you'll just open wide I can help get that foot of yours into your mouth.
Thank you all for your insight. Cinepro, yours especially was enlightening.
Now, if you don't mind: I DID do my homework on the subject. Lack of information brought me here to a pool where I knew someone WOULD know what I failed to find.
I have decided that it's my responsibility to take the counsel of the general authorities and QUESTION EVERYTHING. Because, they ARE fallible and they ARE human. But mostly, because the scriptures and the GA themselves tell us to question it. Take what you've 'known' your whole life and take it to the Lord. Counsel with Him in all your dealings.
Don't let any one person tell you how you can and cannot express your affection for your spouse.
~LeTAD
I do not mean any part of this post to appear vulgar. I assume the words I use aren't since they aren't slang or derogatory to any one person. If they are found offensive, I'm sorry. Know it was not intended. only my second post, dude.
Pent’s response:
LT: Pent! I'll have you know I AM a porn actress and it bothers me to no limit that oral sex would not be condoned within the bonds of marriage!
Pent: Is this a typo? It makes no sense.
LT: I am, however a woman who does indeed enjoy performing fellatio on my husband. One, because I'm really good at it. The idea that cunnilingus does not meet with the Lord's approval also bothers me. It's not filthy or demeaning in any way. I'll have you know that the clitoris, being a mere fraction of the size, has just as many, if not more nerve endings that the glans of the penis. And while the penis serves more than one purpose, the clitoris does not. It's very existence is FOR those nerve endings. In other words, it was created TO receive pleasure, and that's it. Now, I don't know about you, but not everyone is as adroit at using their hands to stimulate such a sensitive area. The tongue, frankly works much better.
Pent: Well thank you for this gratuitous biology lesson (explaining things I already knew anyway).
LT: Pent, if you'll just open wide I can help get that foot of yours into your mouth.
Pent: It sounds to me as if you need to remove something from your first.
LT: Besides, I'm good at it.....
Pent: LOLOL OH, this is great! I'm sure this is just what the Lord had in mind when gave the parable of the "talents".......
Let your light so shine indeed....LOLOLOL
PS to mod: Why do I get the feeling that LeTad likes to go fishing....?
LeT responds:
Pent: It sounds to me as if you need to remove something from your first.
Oh, you mean the line of garbage the you try to feed everyone? Trust me, it's not taking.
Pent: Is this a typo? It makes no sense
This is what they call SARCASM. You ought to have no problem distinguishing it from what isn't, as the entire message board is dripping with it.
Pent: LOLOL OH, this is great! I'm sure this is just what the Lord had in mind when gave the parable of the "talents".......
...jealous! *grin*
Pent:likes to go fishing?
Yeah, and I'm the one reacting to an innocent question by calling people porn stars.
Pent responds:
LT: Oh, you mean the line of garbage the you try to feed everyone? Trust me, it's not taking.
Pent: I see, sarcasm is good when you get to dish it but receiving it is a different matter? That sounds a little like some people's views on oral sex!
LT: This is what they call SARCASM. You ought to have no problem distinguishing it from what isn't, as the entire message board is dripping with it.
Pent: Oh, you noticed. That's good. Funny that you use the descriptor "dripping" considering your self-proclaimed talent.
LT: Yeah, and I'm the one reacting to an innocent question by calling people porn stars.
Pent: Trust me, the question may have been sincere (of which I have my doubts) but there was nothing "innocent" about it!
As for the fishing....do you prefer dry-fly or trolling...?
LeT:
Indeed, I am no troll. They live under bridges, whereas I do not.
Pent: I see, sarcasm is good when you get to dish it but receiving it is a different matter? That sounds a little like some people's views on oral sex!
Wow. That DOES sound like some people's views. Not mine, though. Dear, I never stated whether I considered sarcasm good or bad in any case. YOU assumed that. I merely stated that posters use it often on this board. Which they do.
Using the term "dripping" was not intended to have any sexual connotation. You assumed that as well, though I'm not surprised. It's quite a common cliché used often to describe one's words. ex:"Their response was dripping with sarcasm."
Innocence is relative. And hardly the issue put forth.
Pent:
LT: Funny, I wish I had my word print program up and running. You post so very much like someone I know. She once came into this forum under a false name and false pretenses and has sufferered never ending chastisement for it.
At any rate, it appears that this topic has about run its course. Did it leave a bad taste in your mouth?
There were plenty of posters on this thread who handled the topic very well. But it only took one loud-mouth to pull it into the toilet. I think there were a couple of reasons for that. Obviously, Pent believed the OP was a troll, despite the assurance of another poster who knew this new poster personally. But I believe that Pent also demonstrated the Madonna/Whore complex by assuming that any woman who was interested in oral sex was akin to a “porn star” and hence, deserved disrespectful, demeaning talk.
Some posters may be the polar opposite of Pent in fundamental ways, but will still seem to decide that some women deserve disrespect, and talk to them the way they would want NO ONE to talk to their daughter or wife.
I will use one example from this board, and it has already been linked earlier, since Will was one of the people who wanted concrete examples.
http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... fat#136267The conversation was whether or not Native Americans were “Lamanites”. Will began going off track in his response to whoknows:
I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.
I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.
My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.
Liz protested:
And this has to do with WK's argument, how?
Quit being such an ass.
Will to liz:
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.
KA responding to this comment:
What an unwarranted display of hubris! Will Schryver, I doubt anything you could come up with is over Liz's head, and I can assure you it wouldn't be over mine.
I'm going on a fifteen year old memory, but I believe you're still off by sixty or so years with Charlemagne. He may be called by some the "Father of Europe", but his progeny numbered around twenty, if I remember correctly (and I usually do), so I doubt that should be taken literally.
Also, thank you for exemplifying the sexist attributes of Mormon Priesthood holders. I enjoy pointing out the sexism inherent in Mormonism, and your above post does nothing but prove me right.
Will’s subsequent response to liz:
By the way, I know you’re sticking around simply because I told you the conversation was over “your pretty little head.”
In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right? ;-)
Will’s response:
Oh, let's not allow the fact that Will is a TBM get him off the hook that easily.
Somehow, I get the impression that Will would be a sexist, arrogant asshole in any given situation, Mormon or not.
I have little respect for someone who follows around Runtu's posts like a puppy dog, sends barely veiled threats his way, and then is in genuine wonderment when Runtu turns down his creepy invitation to lunch.
Will’s response:
I'm quite well known for my "unwarranted display of hubris."
But it's nothing my 15-year-old daughter's sharp tongue can't rip to shreds.
Charlemagne (Charles I) lived in the second half of the 8th century A.D. And I think you're right that he had about 20 children. And I'll bet we're distant cousins because we both descend from him and several of his posterity. He's back about 50 generations for me. I can go back another 25 or so from him to a Roman ruler of Gaul who died in 6 A.D.
Oh, and by the way, my "sexist attributes" are not the exclusive province of the "Mormon Priesthood holder." I'm just a normal man. Well, probably a whole lot more manly than many of the "men" I see posting on this board. Most of them have been so utterly emasculated by our oppressive modern feminazi culture that they are only a couple of testosterone molecules shy of being eunuchs.
Now get your fat ass back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.
<grin>
I like you KA. I'll bet you'd look good in a tanktop, too. ;-)
Liz’s response:
I would tell you to kiss my ass, but you would enjoy it too much.
Will’s response:
No. I am quite certain I would not. Even if you shaved first.
By the way, nice photo.
I'm sure you're a great wife and mother, and that you'll make a fine grandmother (if you aren't already). And I forget what you teach (you could remind me if you'd like) but I'll bet you're also a fine teacher.
Ten Bear commented:
Do you ever wonder if this site is some kind of "play ground" for the likes of Will and gang. They know good and well what they are saying is silliness. They still have faith in the church, but sometimes they just want to act out some dark fantasies where there are no rules and they can just throw mindless thoughts and ideas and "spar with the enemy" with no accountability. You know, while no one's looking.
"Here, watch this. Get a load of this. I'm going to throw this hairless, toothless, weak dog into the fight and watch the fun. Who cares what they think. It's just fun to play with them."
Then we answer back as if they are sincere.
This is how I felt yesterday after having some exchange with Will where I thought some level of intelligent ideas were being brought out. Then suddenly, he turns on Liz like some spoiled middle school student with about the same manners. It was shocking to me. Then I thought, this guy is a joke. He isn't here for thoughtful discussion, this is a game to him. Some place to just "mess around". Make jabs at the opostates and watch them squirm.
After reading further posts, it became evident that no sane person would be making these kind of statements. They're just posting with only one rule in mind. Say whatever you want, but never, ever give in. Loosing is not an option.
$.02
Blixa added:
Thanks for saying this. This is the reason I've been absent the last few weeks, though lurking now and then. No grand farewell posts but I think I'm close to being outta here. Don't want to get into it in this thread. Maybe I'll write more later. Suffice it to say that a few bullies can manage to reduce things to the trivial and nauseating far too quickly.
I hope these two clear examples demonstrate what I’m talking about. Will’s behavior is what made me think more about this concept overall, in fact. I began referring to him as “wee willie” as a deliberate “tit-for-tat” action, although that probably doesn’t resolve anything.