Why Are Leftists/Apostates Obsessed with Masturbation?

[_Runtu]

And hooray for ipse dixit. However, a subject's place "in LDS theology" does not make it objectively true, or make it even reasonable or plausible. "LDS theology" also holds that the human race began with two people in Missouri circa 6,000 B.C.E. "LDS theology" also holds that the entire planet was covered with water a few thousand years ago, and that all human and animal life that now exists descended from the refugees on Noah's ark. "LDS theology" also holds that the origin of different languages in the world is God confusing people's speech at the tower of Babel. "LDS theology" also held, for 148 of its 181 years of existence, that Negroes were inferior to every other race on Earth. And so on.

So maybe the Church sanctifying old wive's tales and discredited psychological theories isn't all that impressive. I never cease to be impressed by how you alternate between claiming to embrace legitimate scholarship and studies, but then reject it as agenda-driven and "leftist," depending on whether you perceive such things as supporting your value judgments. Despite your references to "pop psychology," the scientific view that masturbation is normal and healthy is real psychology.

E.g.,

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professiona ... avior.html

Once widely regarded as a perversion and a cause of mental disorders, masturbation is now recognized as a normal sexual activity throughout life. It is considered abnormal only when it inhibits partner-oriented behavior, is done in public, or is sufficiently compulsive to cause distress. About 97% of males and 80% of females masturbate. Although masturbation is harmless, guilt created by the disapproval and punitive attitudes of other people may cause considerable distress and impair sexual performance. Masturbation often continues at some level even in a sexually healthy relationship.

And Droopy, it really isn't a manifestation of an anti-Mormon or "leftist" agenda for normal people to find it extremely creepy for a middle-aged man to take a teenager into a closed office for a session of truth-or-dare.

Well said. I suppose the only reason this still bothers me is that I recognize the damage done over something that really isn't a big deal. Serious guilt should be reserved for serious wrongs, like theft or murder or rape, not trivial parts of perfectly normal life. I do not want my kids or anyone else's to deal with the distress of such misguided teachings.

[_Morley]

I wonder how Droopy or BCspace would feel if the middle school principal took their daughters alone into a private room, closed the door, and started asking them if they masturbate. Or if they've ever had sex with animals.

At least the middle school principal has some training.

[_Runtu]

At least the middle school principal has some training.

And schools usually conduct a background check.

[_Runtu]

Maybe the reason people like Droopy and quaker don't "obsess" over this issue is that they've learned how to not feel guilty.

[_Shulem]

All I can say is that everytime I saw those boys on that pamphlet it gave me the strong desire to masturbate. They are sooooo hot!!

The Church is so stupid. They shouldn't have put cute looking boys on the front cover of the pamphlet and then tell us not to masturbate. Damn, the picture was good enough to take to the closet.

Paul O

[_Droopy]

No CFR forthcoming? That's alright, its not a requirement here to answer one.

[_Droopy]

Yes, Droopy, I think the church's teachings about sexuality damaged me and others.

So, please explain how a teaching of no dating until 16, strict celibacy before marriage, and complete monogamy and sexual fidelity after marriage "damaged" you and others.

[_Droopy]

Er, no. As it happens I am a rather conservatively minded person in the standards I prefer my children to observe.

Interesting phraseology...

Partly for that reason, I find it improper that anyone but their parents should talk to them about such matters on a personal and intimate level in early adolescence, especially not a man in the case of a daughter, and especially not in private.

I highly doubt that most ever do. It was never done in my experience. In any case, when receiving the priesthood, being interviewed for a mission call (male and female), or interviewed for a Temple recommend (male and female), parents do not have the priesthood authority or responsibility to interview that individual to ascertain worthiness to obtain the calling or responsibility in question. Bishop's and stake presidents are called, authorized, and responsible to the individual they interview, the church they serve, and the Lord in seeing that all things are done in righteousness and order.

But I am happy to believe that if you had a daughter you would genuinely think that your LDS bishop interviewing her in this way would be a good thing. I do not think you mean any harm, even if (as I suspect) the great majority of fathers reading this will take my view on the matter, and find your way of thinking bizarre.

There is no reason to think that any particular Bishop would ever bring such a subject up to a pubescent girl. Only if she brought it up herself would it become an issue in which some discussion was necessary. I've had a number of interviews with Bishop's in my day, and this never came up at all. The only exception would be a Temple recommend interview, in which one is asked the broad question of whether one keeps the law of chastity.

That's the time to come clean and begin a repentance process if there is any problem. I know of no interview in the church in which a specific question about masturbation would ever be asked proactively by a church leader. I'm sure its been done by some Bishops who have been overzealous or who thought that is what was required, but this would be by far the exception.

If there is any problem, it would normally be far easier for a teenager to tell a trusted non-family member (and I have met very few Bishops in my time that could not be trusted with such knowledge, and far more) knowing that the problem would be kept in the strictest confidence, than his or her own parents.

[_Shulem]

So, please explain how a teaching of no dating until 16, strict celibacy before marriage, and complete monogamy and sexual fidelity after marriage "damaged" you and others.

Droopy,

I'm an eleven year old boy and my bishop told me that touching my private parts was sinful and that I shouldn't do it. The bishop gave me creepy feelings while saying those things. I'm thinking about going to my school counselor and reporting this. Do you think I should report this? I don't feel right about talking about masturbation with my bishop and he told me I wouldn't be worthy to hold the priesthood or go to the temple if I did. He looked at me in a real funny way and made me feel scared.

I'm going to report this to my school counselor.

Paul O

[_Tarski]

Yes, Droopy, I think the church's teachings about sexuality damaged me and others.

So, please explain how a teaching of no dating until 16, strict celibacy before marriage, and complete monogamy and sexual fidelity after marriage "damaged" you and others.

You left out the part about sexual thoughts being dirty and about how masturbation is sinful and makes the Holy Ghost go away. You left out the part about necking and even mild petting making one unworthy, dirty. You left out the shame and guilt mongering. You left out the negativity about even slightly sexy clothes.