Masturbation

[Yarjka]

Question #69681
I find it very interesting that the writers say we should be more open and talk about masturbation and yet choose to use an anonymous pseudonym as their signature.

Masturbation is different than smoking for so many reasons. One important one, though, is that someone can masturbate in private and no one will ever know. It can be kept secret pretty well. It's much harder to keep your smoking a secret.

I also don't believe masturbation is addictive in the same way smoking is. Whether or not someone masturbates a lot is much more dependent on a person's libido. So for someone with a low sex drive to tell people with a high sex drive that they just need to control themselves is to be giving advice that will just lead that person into a state of depression and unhappiness.

And as for talking about it making it less likely for someone to do it, I can give myself as an example of someone who was told repeatedly by bishops, parents, leaders, and peers that masturbation is a terrible sin that should never be done ever -- and yet I still did it (despite my sincere attempts to stop).

It's very difficult to teach children and teenagers not to masturbate without feeling hypocritical--since you've either masturbated yourself as a teen or are still masturbating. It's much easier to tell them to abstain from drugs or alcohol, since chances are you've never tried them yourself (or if you did, you saw the negative effects of it). With masturbation, the guilt is the worst part, so it's hard to justify adding an extra heaping of guilt to it.

[UnluckyStuntman]

It's a little disappointing that the writers didn't feel comfortable attaching their nyms to the question, though I suspect that may have more to do with keeping the answer BYU-approved than with their willingness to be forthright.

And I lol'd at your last paragraph. It's a little disconcerting to even imagine that all those youth leaders and seminary teachers who begrudgingly warned us against the "dangers" of masturbation were just awkward about it because they'd been dong it for years. *jibblies*

[Yarjka]

It's a little disappointing that the writers didn't feel comfortable attaching their nyms to the question, though I suspect that may have more to do with keeping the answer BYU-approved than with their willingness to be forthright.

I also want to make it clear that I do not condemn the writers for their anonymity. I understand that masturbation holds a very strong social stigma in our culture (not just in church, but in general--see any teen comedy for examples of making fun of someone for masturbating).

[Talons]

Question #69681
And as for talking about it making it less likely for someone to do it, I can give myself as an example of someone who was told repeatedly by bishops, parents, leaders, and peers that masturbation is a terrible sin that should never be done ever -- and yet I still did it (despite my sincere attempts to stop).

So you knew fully well what you were doing before you first tried it out? Do you think there's anything leaders could have done to better prepare you to face the temptation?

[Whistler]

I never figured out how to masturbate.

[Portia]

This made me curious to see if I had ever attached my pseudonym to a question regarding masturbation. There's this and this. (I especially like the latter. I crack myself up sometimes.)

I don't think in either one is it unambiguous whether I myself participate. Whether I wank off, drink, smoke, swear, am sexually active, or wear short skirts is, quite frankly, no one else' goshdarn business. I consider the 100 Hour Board enough of a "public" forum that I would be highly unlikely to start confessing, and I stand by that now.

I think it's less shameful for a girl to mastrubate in the church: in fact there is pretty much no response one way or another, as far as I can tell, which has held true through another presidential election. But seriously, I am neither surprised nor displeased that no one was like "yep, I'm rubbing one out as I speak, and here is my pseudonym which all my close friends and significant others know by now!" Not really appropriate in tone or for privacy's sake. I would be surprised if any writer confessed to something as relatively innocuous as coffee drinking, and I'd advise against it, seeing as they're BYU students.

[Marduk]

I think it's less shameful for a girl to mastrubate in the church:

Personally, I don't think ANYONE should be masturbating in church.

[Yarjka]

So you knew fully well what you were doing before you first tried it out?

Yes, I heard the Bishop talk about it, and had a realization "Oh, so that's why I get an erection." Then I went home and tried it out. That's simplifying things a bit--it's not as if I'd never touched myself. I was aware already that there was something to it and that it had to do with sex, but I didn't have an idea of how the action was performed or what was supposed to happen until I heard the Bishop talk about it.

Do you think there's anything leaders could have done to better prepare you to face the temptation?

Not really, as I don't see it as a temptation, but rather as a natural biological process. Basically, I don't think it's healthy to try to limit masturbation. I heard a good analogy once where masturbation was likened to pooping: imagine that all of your leaders are telling you that pooping is unnatural, that it shouldn't be done, that the body will eliminate the waste in its own time while you sleep, you'll have a "dirty dream", but you just need to clean it up and not dwell on it--and certainly if you do decide to initiate the pooping yourself, you should definitely not enjoy it and you should repent immediately and never initiate the pooping process again. I think we have set up an unnecessary (and for many, an impossible) moral standard with masturbation (although, as mentioned above, girls don't get this message as strongly as the boys do... but girls get all sorts of other messages about controlling their sexuality (and the sexuality of the boys) that I think are at least equally damaging).

[NerdGirl]

I think it's less shameful for a girl to mastrubate in the church:

Personally, I don't think ANYONE should be masturbating in church.

Hey, at least it would give everyone a good story to tell if someone was masturbating in church.

[Genuine Article]

Today's Modern Mormon Men article is about masturbation, so I thought I'd post it here: http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2012/11/ ... arker.html

[Marduk]

Wow, just...wow. I can't imagine living in that kind of marriage. That takes a real saint.

[Whistler]

yeah, I feel like he would be happier in that relationship if his wife became more accepting of her own sexuality

[Marduk]

You know, as I've been thinking about it, there's SOOOO much more wrong here than whatever issues the husband might have. If you can't even be UNDRESSED in front of your spouse, that relationship is beyond just sexually dysfunctional, and is just plain old dysfunctional.

[Portia]

Name Withheld needs to see a decent, non-Church-affiliated therapist, his wife even more so.

And I liked commonsensefulness's answer to the erection question but would go so far to say that in MY opinion, it'd be a good thing, and would never be displeased.

[Watts]

Question #69681
I find it very interesting that the writers say we should be more open and talk about masturbation and yet choose to use an anonymous pseudonym as their signature.

It's a little disappointing that the writers didn't feel comfortable attaching their nyms to the question, though I suspect that may have more to do with keeping the answer BYU-approved than with their willingness to be forthright.

I feel like I should give a bit of perspective here on answering this question. Though I was not one of the writers who answered this question, though originally I had written a very lengthy answer with my 'nym attached. There were a few reasons why I ultimately decided to delete my answer. The easy answer would be that it was probably an over-share, and that my anon counterparts did do a good job of addressing some of the issues.

The bigger reason for deleting my original response was because it felt hypocritical. I felt like if I answered the question in a way that would be appropriate for BYU 100 Hour Board standards, then I wouldn't actually be telling the real story, I would be telling a filtered version of the events. I didn't want to be a hypocrite so I decided to delete my answer, which basically outlined my entire experience as a woman who masturbates and is a member of the church. I even talked about what it meant for me here at BYU, and the various conversations with my bishops. None of them have ever felt the need to take away my endorsement because I am keeping the lines of communication open with the, so I don't really feel the threat of getting kicked out of BYU for openly talking about it. But despite all of this, there were still some things that I felt I could not include in my response that were pretty crucial to heart of the narrative.

I felt sad, deleting my answer, because I thought it was well written and might spark some conversation about masturbation in the church. However, the final product felt dis-genuine. Even though I talked about real experiences, I was leaving a lot of things out of the equation. I really do think that this needs to be a more open conversation, and I really wanted to contribute to that discussion, but I think I recognized that maybe the Board was not the proper forum for my whole story.

[Portia]

Question #69681
I find it very interesting that the writers say we should be more open and talk about masturbation and yet choose to use an anonymous pseudonym as their signature.

It's a little disappointing that the writers didn't feel comfortable attaching their nyms to the question, though I suspect that may have more to do with keeping the answer BYU-approved than with their willingness to be forthright.

I feel like I should give a bit of perspective here on answering this question. Though I was not one of the writers who answered this question, though originally I had written a very lengthy answer with my 'nym attached. There were a few reasons why I ultimately decided to delete my answer. The easy answer would be that it was probably an over-share, and that my anon counterparts did do a good job of addressing some of the issues.

The bigger reason for deleting my original response was because it felt hypocritical. I felt like if I answered the question in a way that would be appropriate for BYU 100 Hour Board standards, then I wouldn't actually be telling the real story, I would be telling a filtered version of the events. I didn't want to be a hypocrite so I decided to delete my answer, which basically outlined my entire experience as a woman who masturbates and is a member of the church. I even talked about what it meant for me here at BYU, and the various conversations with my bishops. None of them have ever felt the need to take away my endorsement because I am keeping the lines of communication open with the, so I don't really feel the threat of getting kicked out of BYU for openly talking about it. But despite all of this, there were still some things that I felt I could not include in my response that were pretty crucial to heart of the narrative.

I felt sad, deleting my answer, because I thought it was well written and might spark some conversation about masturbation in the church. However, the final product felt dis-genuine. Even though I talked about real experiences, I was leaving a lot of things out of the equation. I really do think that this needs to be a more open conversation, and I really wanted to contribute to that discussion, but I think I recognized that maybe the Board was not the proper forum for my whole story.

So much like on so many points. Especially to your bishops!

[Watts]

So much like on so many points. Especially to your bishops!

I have lucked out on bishops. Most of them have had a fairly relaxed approach to everything. I have many friends who have not been as lucky and who have had to "take a break" from school for a semester because their bishop was mean.

I mean I get that we signed an Honor Code, but shouldn't we celebrate someone honestly and honorably coming forward instead of punishing them for it? Good grief, it's no wonder some people feel the need to lie on their endorsements. /endrant

[Portia]

So much like on so many points. Especially to your bishops!

I have lucked out on bishops. Most of them have had a fairly relaxed approach to everything. I have many friends who have not been as lucky and who have had to "take a break" from school for a semester because their bishop was mean.

I mean I get that we signed an Honor Code, but shouldn't we celebrate someone honestly and honorably coming forward instead of punishing them for it? Good grief, it's no wonder some people feel the need to lie on their endorsements. /endrant

My break was four years long. I think that stops being a hiatus and more becomes dropping out. But my long-term ex and I (who are still totes friends? weird, oh well) were talking about how BYU is fairly generous in re readmittance.

I wouldn't say I LIED but I do have a pretty laissez-faire approach. A lot of people have the need to be the ueber mormon, and I'm like well, am I chaste or living the Word of Wisdom or active according to my best understanding right now? Yep. Then good. I was very frank with my bishop about my huge doubts concerning the church/God, and he was like "well there are tons of people in this ward like you and we want you in the temple working toward a stronger testimony." It came down to pay your tithing (which I give to Hurricane Sandy victims on the Other line and call it a day, if people want to get in a tizzy, their choice) and come to Church.

Can't say I won't be glad to be done with endorsements though. Probably won't consider grad school at BYU for that reason (not to mention a much stronger program in my field elsewhere).

It is also my pet peeve that bishops at BYU become Gestapo officers and less shepherds to their fold. I blame the HCO. My bishop here in Sandy isn't that way. But then I don't go confessing if I make out with a guy. (Because I don't think it's wrong!)

Sorry this was rambly even for me.

[Watts]

I was very frank with my bishop about my huge doubts concerning the church/God, and he was like "well there are tons of people in this ward like you and we want you in the temple working toward a stronger testimony." It came down to pay your tithing (which I give to Hurricane Sandy victims on the Other line and call it a day, if people want to get in a tizzy, their choice) and come to Church.

Yeah this is basically my bishop right now.

At this point I cannot say for certain that I will/will not stay in the church post-graduation*, but I am grateful for a bishop who understands that struggle and is actually listening to me and helping me instead of cutting my legs out from under me. There are a lot of things I believe in within the church, and somethings that I don't believe at all. I'm trying to find that balance right now in my life. I mean for Pete's sake I'm 21, how much about the world can I possibly expect to understand for a certainty at this point? That's why I value the opinions of others, either who have been in my shoes and/or who are older and have a bit more experience with this whole life thing.

Apparently I am also getting the rambles today. It's contagious. Very, very contagious.

[Portia]

At this point I cannot say for certain that I will/will not stay in the church post-graduation...

I hear you, sister. This is complicated by a Guy who is more Mormon than I am and without whom I can't imagine life. Twenty-one is rough: but you seem to have a good head on your (as yet untattooed) shoulders.