On Licked Cupcakes *PG-13

[_Runtu]

Wade, I hope you'll take this in the kind and sincere spirit it's offered. Have you introspectively considered why it is that so many people here misinterpret you? Is there anything you can point to that would suggest why things are taken as rude and condescending or "blown out of proportion"? Is it all cognitive distortion or intentional misreading?

In short, to what do you attribute the hostility?

[_Fortigurn]

Never was a twinkie licked in Young Women's and passed around as an example of an unchaste boy whom we shouldn't want. Never.

Er, that's probably because girls seem a lot less choosy in that regard. In that day and age, teaching that guys wouldn't want a 'licked cupcake' but girls wouldn't care was probably totally accurate. But let's be straight here. You say it's right that people shouldn't think that a 'licked cupcake' is dirty. So what you're telling us is that the guys were taught the wrong thing, but the girls were actually taught the right thing. At least that's something.

What was missing was that neither the girls or the boys were taught that 'licked cupcakes' were still as eligible partners as 'unlicked cupcakes'.

[_moksha]

Wade, I hope you'll take this in the kind and sincere spirit it's offered. Have you introspectively considered why it is that so many people here misinterpret you? Is there anything you can point to that would suggest why things are taken as rude and condescending or "blown out of proportion"? Is it all cognitive distortion or intentional misreading?

In short, to what do you attribute the hostility?

I do not know about the hostility, but I would like to come to Wade's side in this a bit. If more young people would follow Wade's example and remain chaste, many social ills could be reduced and the over-burgeoning population tide would eventually abate. After a long enough period of absence and population reduction through attrition, I imagine inviolate cupcake sales would skyrocket.

[_Fortigurn]

If more young people would follow Wade's example and remain chaste, many social ills could be reduced and the over-burgeoning population tide would eventually abate.

I do agree with this. But today, it's chastity which is considered unacceptable.

[_Runtu]

Wade, I hope you'll take this in the kind and sincere spirit it's offered. Have you introspectively considered why it is that so many people here misinterpret you? Is there anything you can point to that would suggest why things are taken as rude and condescending or "blown out of proportion"? Is it all cognitive distortion or intentional misreading?

In short, to what do you attribute the hostility?

I do not know about the hostility, but I would like to come to Wade's side in this a bit. If more young people would follow Wade's example and remain chaste, many social ills could be reduced and the over-burgeoning population tide would eventually abate. After a long enough period of absence and population reduction through attrition, I imagine inviolate cupcake sales would skyrocket.

I am not taking a side against Wade, moksha. I'm just wondering why he thinks his posts are met with such opposition. I think it's a failure of communication, but I'm interested in Wade's thoughts.

[_wenglund]

Wade, I hope you'll take this in the kind and sincere spirit it's offered. Have you introspectively considered why it is that so many people here misinterpret you? Is there anything you can point to that would suggest why things are taken as rude and condescending or "blown out of proportion"? Is it all cognitive distortion or intentional misreading?

In short, to what do you attribute the hostility?

I do not know about the hostility, but I would like to come to Wade's side in this a bit. If more young people would follow Wade's example and remain chaste, many social ills could be reduced and the over-burgeoning population tide would eventually abate. After a long enough period of absence and population reduction through attrition, I imagine inviolate cupcake sales would skyrocket.

I am not taking a side against Wade, moksha. I'm just wondering why he thinks his posts are met with such opposition. I think it's a failure of communication, but I'm interested in Wade's thoughts.

I can think of at least three factors that contribute to that perception:

1) Cyberboard communication is remote and text-only, which means it isn't tempored with body language and facial expressions. So, often, whatever is said on either side may be interpreted as more hostile than intended--even with the use of emoticons.

2) The people I intend to respond to seem to me to be already in a state of hostility. On this thread, we have a women's opening remarks harshly condemning an entire religious faith over the sparadic and well intended use of a rather benign cupcake analogy. A person in that kind of hysterical state of mind is likely to take most any opposing statements in a hostile way. Others here come to the table with axes to grind and carrying chips on their shoulder, which predispose them to viewing opposing remarks in a hostile way,

3) At times I react to the perceived hostility (admittedly, I may be mistaken at times) with a bit of hostility of my own. And, since some of those to whom I am reacting can't for the life of them recognize or acknowledge their own hostility, I comes across to them as though I am the only one being hostile.

I understand, though, that the hostility, regardless of where it is coming from (myself included), is counterproductive to reasonable and efficacious dialogue. I also understand that if one wishes to improve things, one need look inwardly, rather than at the other parties, for change. For some time now, I personally have been striving to do just that, though admittedly not always successfully or perfectly (I am human after all). And, while my personal efforts won't eliminate all the perception of me as being hostile (that will take others eliminating the hostility within themselves), there has been at least some welcomed improvement.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

There is an old saying that goes something like: "It is far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness".

With that in mind, were I to consider a particular analogy potentially and unduly injurious (via stigmitization) to certain parties in a given class, then rather than hypocritically injuring a whole group of people (through sweepingly stimitized condemnations), or in other words rather than cursing what I percieve to be darkness, I would think it far better to light a candle, so to speak, by way of offer a more preferred alternative.

Well...since I don't object to the sporadic use of the cupcake analogy, I would invite those who do to offer a more preferred alternative.

Here is the objective: to persuade young LDS women not to engage in sexual relations prior to marriage (which one would hope wouldn't occur until during or after the early twenties).

Here is a challenge to overcome in meeting that objective: too much talk, or too indepth talk, about sex in a group setting, may be discomforting to some, and may tend to fomment curiousity and excite desires in others such that it may eventually prove counterproductive to your meeting the objective. So, it may be advised to use non-sexual analogies at certain points in the lesson.

In short, what analogies would you prefer be taught to LDS young women that you believe would meet the stated objective? What candle do you wish to light on this subject?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

There is an old saying that goes something like: "It is far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness".

With that in mind, were I to consider a particular analogy potentially and unduly injurious (via stigmitization) to certain parties in a given class, then rather than hypocritically injuring a whole group of people (through sweepingly stimitized condemnations), or in other words rather than cursing what I percieve to be darkness, I would think it far better to light a candle, so to speak, by way of offer a more preferred alternative.

Well...since I don't object to the sporadic use of the cupcake analogy, I would invite those who do to offer a more preferred alternative.

Here is the objective: to persuade young LDS women not to engage in sexual relations prior to marriage (which one would hope wouldn't occur until during or after the early twenties).

Here is a challenge to overcome in meeting that objective: too much talk, or too indepth talk, about sex in a group setting, may be discomforting to some, and may tend to fomment curiousity and excite desires in others such that it may eventually prove counterproductive to your meeting the objective. So, it may be advised to use non-sexual analogies at certain points in the lesson.

In short, what analogies would you prefer be taught to LDS young women that you believe would meet the stated objective? What candle do you wish to light on this subject?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why not just be straight with our young men and young women? Why not just explain to them that the church (and God, by extension) values chastity before marriage and explain the reasons why? Why do we have use these demeaning analogies at all?

Perhaps the analogy was well-intentioned, but it was hardly benign.

[_Seven]

I really don't have a problem with the cupcake lesson, so long as the men have the same lesson for their own virginity.
The OP said the YM lesson focused on women's virginity and not their own. (did I misread?) That is a real problem for me and is very sexist.

I believe lessons on chastity are very important but there may be pyschological harm when you tell a girl she is damaged goods without her virginity. I had some very well planned lessons on chastity as a young woman where they brought in a jewel and compared our virginity to a treasure only to share with our future eternal companion. I liked that method and it left us with a positive message. There was also a woman who happened to be a nurse who discussed the possible things a male could say in convincing us to give up our treasure. She went through the physiological desires that men have and women, but warned us against falling prey to pressures they can put on girls. She also discussed the affect girls can have on men by dressing immodestly, being a tease, etc. I doubt most of that came from the lesson manual and it was a much more balanced approach to both sexes. I also had a lot of respect for my teacher because she actually talked about sex and things my parents would have never told me.

But what was still missing from this lesson was telling us that we should marry a man who has saved his treasure for us.

There is such a great childrens picture book called "Princess and the Kiss" A Story of God's Gift of Purity. From Amazon.com:

Long ago, in a wonderful castle on a mountain of splendor, a beautiful princess was born. Her parents were the king and queen of the mountain and all the green valley below.
The king and queen loved the little princess even before she was born. On the day she came into the world, the royal couple gave their daughter a very special gift from God - her first kiss. While the princess was growing up, the king and queen kept this precious gift safe in their care.
When the princess was finally grown, the king and queen called her to their side.
"We have something very special to give you," said the queen.
Up, up, up the royal family went to a secret room in a tower of the castle. On an elegant table in the center of the room was the same gift given to the princess long ago ... the kiss.

So what happens is the Princess was looking for her true love and many came to her door offering their hand in marriage but it wasn't until she found a servant to her father that also had "the kiss" that she fell in love. He had saved this special gift for her. It's a great book for teaching this principle for both sexes.

[_Seven]

Well, I must be going to hell in a handbasket, because my girls ate the licked cupcake. They weren't about to let a perfectly good dessert they didn't have to make go to waste.

Another object lesson shot to hell. Oh well.

LOL!

I missed the licked cupcake lesson and I am a life long member. I also taught in Young Women's for a few years and never saw this one. This whole topic brings to mind the scripture from D & C 132:

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.