SWKT Parachuter wrote:Sometimes it's hard for me to tell if Nantipoo is trying to be sarcastic or if he's just saying something dumb again. I actually thought he was just saying something dumb that time, especially because vorpal had made a legit point about treating people as individuals rather than as members of a gender.
You know what, you're right. Vorpal Blade was only stating werf's beliefs, trying to add something of genuine value, that pertains to the topic and I responded immaturely. Whether it was sarcastic, dumb, both, or something else, it was uncalled for and unneeded. So sorry for inserting dumb comments into these topics, nor should I be celebrating my alacrity for posting such comments.
Sorry Vorpal for my response.
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
Well, although I would certainly not discuss this in polite company (despite becoming a lot more liberal (in various senses) over the years, I still have a Puritan streak), I was one of those girls who thinks it is a fallacy, so here goes.
I'm not talking about averages, here. I'm talking about individuals. Therefore, I think that there are plenty of girls whose sex drive is just as great if not greater than the drive of some of their male counterparts.
We talk here of biological reasons. Sure, um, I have no semen to be released, but come on, now. Doesn't almost every girl think, "man, Christian Bale is sexy," when watching The Prestige? You guys honestly haven't dated girls that want to have long kissing sessions every day? Don't you ever just want some action, not for any emotional reason--just because humans desire sex and that's natural/normal?
[Sort of incidentally . . . I like kissing guys with scruff. I know Krishna has mentioned this on the Board, too.]
As a pre-pubescent Beehive, the "don't have sex" talks did little except bore me. The freshman year of college talks using outdated terms like "necking" just confused and scared me a little. It's not that I didn't know anything about human anatomy: I was a precocious six-year-old who wanted to be an OB/GYN and read stuff aimed at people three times my age about prenatal development--it's that there was sort of this whole subtext that I woudn't and shouldn't enjoy physical aspects to relationships, and when the opposite turned out to be true, it caused me a lot of unnecessary guilt, quite frankly.
Instead of coddling all the YM and acting as if their desires are uncontrollable, maybe they need a wake-up call that their future wives will have similar desires, too, and that they should not be selfish in their physical relationships. Why can't we communicate more openly about what would make us happy? I think we just end up with a lot of sad girls who end up conflicted about their bodies, and many confused guys who are clueless about feminine wants/needs. (Not that that always happens, but it seems common enough.)
You can't honestly argue to me that the sex drive of a typical twenty-something female isn't comparable to that of a teenaged male. However you want to measure it--frequency of thinking about it, attempts at initiating physical contact, percent of brain devoted to it . . . I don't really think the species would propagate itself if women were just ambivalent towards sex. Even during Victorian times, dissatisfied women would go to doctors for treatments with vibrators, no? You can't tell me that was any disease but built-up sexual tension.
Some of the comments about orgasms and the like make the uptight-in-public part of me blush, but suffice it to say that I think what the others have to say is worthwhile, and if people are approaching marriageable age, they should educate themselves about such things in healthy, non-stupid ways, and not assume that, er, your garden-variety sexual encounters are always going to be that . . . exciting.
So, I don't think I should somehow be ostracized from society at large or my religion just because I am very much attracted to guys or I can happily kiss someone I like every day. It's not like I'm going to go out and pay for a gigolo or shun guys who have the slightest flaws and see them for nothing but their primary or secondary sexual characteristics. It's called self-control.
Then again, maybe I am just this WEIRD anomaly. What can I say? I guess I just come from a long line of horny, horny heterosexuals, given the fact that I am here. :P
Last edited by Portia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Portia wrote:You guys honestly haven't dated girls that want to have long kissing sessions every day?
Truthfully? No, I haven't. At least not that they have told me anyways. Which I think means I am asking all the right questions.
Maybe you just need to date more interesting girls? . . . ;)
I want to clarify that I really am not this licentious, maniac person. I was well-known in high school for my knee-length-skirt wearing, Seminary*-going, non-Mean Girls-watching (several friends agreed it would not fit well my tastes) girl. I don't think you can somehow just jump from that to amoral licentiousness in a couple of years.
My only point is that I am one woman, and there seem to be plenty, that likes physical affection for its own sake, and I am glad other females on here or on the Board will admit that. That doesn't mean that we're all going to go around in skanky clothes and become pole dancers or something. I think one's morality has little to do with one's inherent sexuality . . . I think if we started accusing guys of that, everyone would know immediately that that's ridiculous. But far too often I have heard or read statements that girls have to always be the ones to say "no," that only address these issues in front of a male audience, that girls somehow bear the burden of male desire. Since the LDS Church expects people to save sex for marriage [and most people have some requirement for the type of situation where one should go all the way], I think the onus should fall on both genders to make that as painless as possible. If one goes into a relationship assuming that you can make out as much as you want with a girl and it will have zero affect on her, I think you are in for a long, hard ride.
So. I don't really see the point of waiting about a quarter of my life for something if it weren't even going to be enjoyable, and if a guy wouldn't care how I felt about it. If I (or others) happen to have a greater desire for that than other women, I don't think these feelings should be dismissed (which is sort of what I got out of the attitude of the questioner's married friends).
*for those few not Mormons--daily religious classes fro teens: not in the sense of entering the Catholic Preisthood
Portia wrote:You guys honestly haven't dated girls that want to have long kissing sessions every day?
Truthfully? No, I haven't. At least not that they have told me anyways. Which I think means I am asking all the right questions.
Maybe you just need to date more interesting girls? . . .
Or spend time to get to know them more, too I suppose.
Thanks for your comments Portia, in my opinion it has changed the attitude of the discussions to something more enlightening and not so blushingly embarrassing.
This site, and the opinions and statements contained herein do not necessarily reflect on my sanity, or lack thereof.
Excellent points all around, Portia. I wish more girls felt comfortable communicating those needs and expectations. Ignorance is NOT necessarily a virtue, especially for marriage-age folks like ourselves.
My girlfriend and her roommates last year (who have no problem with talking about sex in general) had a particular roommate that would avoid the topic completely. She was uncomfortable talking about it, she never made out, and she knew nothing more than the basics about the mechanics of the biology. Here's the kicker: she was engaged. She was about to be married to this guy, and she refused to even talk about going to a gynecologist or discuss birth control with her friends. That's not virtue, that's flat out willful ignorance. We all wondered how the honeymoon was gonna go down, and if they would just hold hands in the hotel for two weeks.
Early to bed and early to rise
Precludes you from seeing the most brilliant starry nights
Arguing in this thread would be... Extremely unsettling...
That being said, I've been around some pretty wild girls... The sexual drive of a person is not at all linked to there gender. There may be trends, but I've seen outliers on both sides of the spectrum!
And I agree that we may err on the side of conservatism on the issue, but as the Apostles and Prophets have said... It can get very dangerous very fast (in terms of spiritual well-being). And in this case, I think being a little uncomfortable on marriage night isn't too much to pay for that extra buffer.
Everything below the line of coherence may be safely ignored.
you have the rest of your life to learn technique, but people should be educated about birth control and sexual health LONG before they enter into a sexual relationship. i was on birth control for a year before i had sex. i was given comprehensive sex education in school three years before i had sex, and let me tell you IT SCARED ME! i did NOT want to a)get pregnant or b)get one of those gross STDs they showed us in the slide show. so i held off on sex until i had more education and was more comfortable. but i was able to make an informed decision about it and my body. no person should enter a marriage ignorant of the possible wants of their partner. a grown woman who refuses to even discuss going to a gynecologist is not in for happy times. being able to talk about sex with a partner is really important. what if something they do just REALLY turns you off. you have to be able to say that. being uncomfortable on your wedding night IS too high a price if it means people are taught to feel bad about having sexual feelings. sex guilt is a disgusting consequence of our puritan society. even people who are married have sex guilt! it's absurd!
and i agree with portia. there is WAY too much pressure on GIRLS to keep boys out of trouble. why can't they be responsible for themselves? my low cut top may temp you, but how about some topless, sweaty, sexy man? i have eyes too. i appreciate hot man flesh. so why shouldn't they keep it covered up so I don't get tempted too? and the double standard that drives me CRAZY is this: girls must be pure and virginal. boys can have lots of sex. but who are these boys supposed to have sex with if girls have to be pure and virginal?
in fact, giving women an orgasm was considered the best treatment for "hysteria" in Victorian times. how many women do you think faked hysteria so they could have some fun at the doctor's office since their husbands were taught they had no sex drive?
i may sound crude, and if i do, i apologize. but i strongly believe educating people about sex, what it means, how it can affect one's life, and using REAL, TRUE, GOOD information can only be helpful. it means people can make informed decisions. and if you teach someone about condoms etc, that doesn't mean they'll have sex. if someone is really morally against pre-marital sex, they won't do it regardless of the information they have. but that decision should be freely discussed between a couple. not just...awkwardly run around.
Although I am tired, (it is waaay past bedtime...) I figure I'll post some of my ideas on the subject: I feel that the onus of instruction falls more on the parents than on the church or the school system. Sure the school should teach biology, but morals come from the home. The church is a nice back up for the home, supporting potential weaknesses, but the main responsibility is with the parents. I know a woman who claims to have believed that babies came from mothers going up to heaven and swallowing them up until she attended college. This level of ignorance was astounding to me, who was exposed to enough innuendo on the elementary school playground to understand the basics. I have also been a little surprised at the number of comments along the lines of guys not knowing what affects girls. Perhaps it is the researcher in me, but it would seem to me if you aren't able to know which of your actions are affecting your significant other, you aren't paying enough attention to them. Another thing that I don't fully understand is the idea that young men are coddled in some way when it comes to controlling sexual urges. I was somewhat amused by that idea when it came up in the infamous 'modesty debates' of yesteryear. I am sure it is not meant this way, but it comes across as a little petulant, akin to a child sulking after being reprimanded for eating in front of his fasting siblings. Obviously if someone is claiming that females have some form of responsibility over the actions of males, they have a way to go towards completing their understanding; but I find it hard to believe that anyone who could be considered morally upright would teach girls to restrain the boys and teach the boys to go ahead and rut as they may. If there seems to be an onslaught of teachings aimed at teaching girls to say "no", perhaps it is due to the culture's trend that it is the boys who do the asking. When it comes to girls being the ones attempting to take a relationship too far, guys are told to do the same thing. (Go ahead and ask any young man who has been paying at least some attention to class what the 'take home lesson' from Joseph in Egypt is.) I really don't see the double standard. Sure you see guys topless and there is a reason you shouldn't ever see it on campus or from someone who is temple worthy. The existence of a problem does not prove that countermeasures aren't in place. And while you have never seen me topless, (and never will, odds are) it isn't because I was taught that I need to 'help the girls out' as though I were responsible for their actions. Sure we are told that it helps girls stay on the straight and narrow, but I keep my shirt on because I am held responsible for my actions and decisions, and that is one rule I intend to keep. Perhaps another reason for the disparity in counsel comes from difficulty. For guys the rules are straightforward: knee-length shorts and wear a shirt that has sleeves and isn't tight/revealing. Sure it can be a pain to find knee-length shorts, and it makes working out (or mowing the lawn in the sun) a little less convenient, but it isn't a challenge at all. Girls seem to have it harder, the lines aren't as clear, the questions of 'too low' in the front or back, clavicles for goodness sake get called into question. The ratio of counsel doesn't seem horribly skewed there.
Imogen, you mention the need for increased sex ed, and I can see your arguments, had someone been arguing to remove sex ed from schools you would find my post supporting your views almost as staunchly as you would. But to show what may potentially be their side of the argument, I'll toss out some thoughts. You mention your reception of a comprehensive sex ed three years before you had sex, and it convincing you that you did not want to get pregnant nor infected with an STD. Yet some of these sex ed programs, in an attempt to be "comprehensive" feel it necessary to assure that every female knows were to get the pill and every male has a supply of condoms, "just in case". Now for these freshmen/sophomores who have the same qualms as you (not wanting to get pregnant/avoid STDs) are given countermeasures that are "safer" than unprotected sex. Just like playing Russian Roulette with one bullet is "safer" than playing with five. The odds are now stacked such to allow more rounds of playing the game before disaster strikes. Many who argue against sex ed see it as promoting the false idea that "kids are going to do it anyway, so we might as well make it 'safer'." The only 100% "safe" course is abstinence, and while discussed in my sex ed class, it was dismissed almost as an Utopian ideal that no one was expected to stand up to. Personally, I feel that if you are going to remain celibate until marriage, then your reasons for it should be positive: (morals, physical/psychological health etc.) not fear. Fear is an effective motivator (want to postpone childbirth, undertake to learn all the ways it can go wrong... eeek.) yet it's efficacy lasts only as long as the fear does, and either it is dispelled too early, ("go ahead we are using protection", or even worse "well, she's too young to get pregnant, so it's ok.) or it isn't dispelled at all, (a parallel to the sex guilt you mentioned). I think part of the danger stems from the idea that those who are decided on the subject won't be swayed from that decision. Even the most moral or resolute of couple can fall into habits that have the potential to push them into places they didn't really want to go.
Well, it seemed like a coherent stream of thought at the time, let me know if it is horribly jumbled, I will check on it again when conacious.
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcomes himself is strong. 33:1-4
kids ARE going to have sex. i'm from a town that had the HIGHEST teen pregnancy rate in the country for about a decade. my high school (which also had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country for a while) had to add a daycare because so many girls were dropping out. we used to lose at least 100 girls a year to dropping out to care for babies. that number has significantly decreased now, and these girls can now at LEAST get a high school diploma (which is necessary in this country, unless you're bill gates). at that time, my high school taught abstinence only. my brother got a girl pregnant because he learned at school that condoms don't work. they would literally say "condoms and birth control don't work. just don't have sex!" what 16 year old is going to listen to some teacher they barely know? now i have a lovely and brilliant niece my brother never sees because he wasn't ready to be a father. my mother had to take on his burden. plus, in the secular world i live in (remember: i'm not mormon. or religious at all) the guys are stud/girls are sluts double standard is a live and well. especially in texas where we have a lot of football players. boys here gather along the way that they can have any girl they want, and should be players because it makes them "cool." but girls can't have sex because then they're "not nice girls. and no man will marry them" look at the way the media portrays when george clooney breaks up with someone and when jennifer aniston does. he's a "confirmed bachelor" a "fun loving guy." she's "sad and pathetic."
by the time i got to high school, they had move past abstinence only. when i say my sex ed was comprehensive i mean they made us note "abstinence is 100% safe. condoms are 90% effective. birth control will ONLY protect you from pregnancy. but remember. abstinence is 100% effective." i even learned how herpes is spread thanks to the STD slide show that has scarred me for life. and saw a woman give birth thanks to the video that scarred me for life (watching a baby be born at 15 is REALLY EFFECTIVE birth control). so for us, while abstinence was constantly brought up as the ideal choice and the one we should all make because it was healthier, the reality of my town was that people WERE having sex. it couldn't be ignored. teen pregnancy was a problem. now, it's MUCH less of a problem because people know how to protect themselves. a friend of mine at a school in colorado was told if she had sex she was like a piece of duct tape that picked up dirt and no man wants dirty duct tape, so don't have sex. she got pregnant right after high school graduation. not everyone will go out and get the information they need. some people DO need it fed to them. my town also happens to be STAUNCHLY catholic, and they do not believe in using birth control. so at home and church girls were being told not to use it OR have sex, and were getting pregnant and no one could figure out why.
my big question is this, and i'm interested what you guys think: when did we decide to start teaching morals at school? i don't want some teacher telling my kid what to believe about their body or sex or religion or creation or anything. i want them to learn skills and facts at school. why do parents and the government INSIST on teaching morals at school?
The average age of marriage used to be in the teens... Now it's been pushed to almost 30 (27.8 according to wikipedia). As the average age of marriage is pushed farther and farther into the future, the issue becomes larger.
"But I'll get pregnant" is a huge reason for kids to abstain. So is "I might catch an STD"... You are teaching them how to avoid the most visible consequences (99% of the time basically means "it won't happen to me")
Yes, you are educating them and that may be important. But you are simultaneously removing yet one more barrier to sin. Is the trade-off worth it in this case? I couldn't say.
As a fun fact... This strategy of "I am not going to educate you on this subject for your own protection" is used in the scriptures on the topic of secret combinations.
Edit: I am told this isn't a pure LDS community... In that case... If you don't view pre-marital sex as a sin... Educate all you want in your home. But sometimes I think they go too far in school.
Everything below the line of coherence may be safely ignored.
Nanti-SARRMM wrote:As for the rest, thanks for stating the obvious for us. We would have been lost without all your sage advice and research essay style ending. We now know that both genders need some sort of physical need. Except those that are machines, and Hobbes' Death Squad, who only desire anarchy.
I take it that you agree with me. Well, that's something. I was concerned no one would see it my way. 8)
