Making out and its ramifications

[bobtheenchantedone]

First of all, I operate under the assumption that, if one writer sees another mentioned here on the bb, they will run and inform that writer posthaste. ; )

Second, I admit I get into trouble with Mormons all the time for thinking sex is a fascinating topic of conversion rather than an inappropriate one.

Third, I was trying to speak more generally, but it's much easier to illustrate a point with specifics than floaty general implications, and I am nothing if not impatient.

[Zedability]

Third, I was trying to speak more generally, but it's much easier to illustrate a point with specifics than floaty general implications, and I am nothing if not impatient.

Fair enough

[Yog in Neverland]

There were definitely comments in the parent thread of this thread about Kirke that I found in poor taste. And dragging his fiancee into things was just not nice. Zee and Concealocanth were certainly not alone in feeling uncomfortable with the whole thing. That's all I have to say because this is just totally hijacking the thread now... :/

[bobtheenchantedone]

Well, I think Kirke is pretty ridiculous, and as he is giving his advice publicly I feel no shame in publicly disagreeing with him, especially when I feel that the advice he's giving is so wrong as to be damaging to those who read it. Also, my comments about his future wife and marriage were intended to be hypothetical because I was unaware at the time that he was in a relationship at all, much less engaged.

[UnluckyStuntman]

I'm about to hijack this thread and get a little TMI, so stop reading now unless you want to read potentially juicy stuff about my love life.

My husband and I had sex before we got married, and I'd like to say that in my personal experience, making out wasn't what led us there. Now, before some of you start yelling at me about being biased or proving my own point false - hang tight.

The reason that we were intimate was because we decided to be. Neither of us were particularly religious/spiritual at the time, and so sex wasn't something that we were trying to avoid. To us, it was a natural progression of our relationship.

Now, how can I know that making out wasn't a direct influence on that decision? (And I'm not saying that it didn't influence us at all - obviously we didn't go directly from holding hands to intercourse while skipping everything in the middle.) Because I'd had several relationships before - serious and potentially long-term relationships - where I'd made out with my significant other and didn't have sex. Same thing goes for my husband. We were both different people with more Mormon-centered priorities, so we didn't cross the boundaries we'd set for ourselves.

People will probably make mistakes even with the boundaries they set for themselves - I made a few in those early relationships - but knowing your own limits (and priorities) seems to be better advice than OMGDON'TKISSWITHYOURTONGUE!

The end.

[UffishThought]

It's fairly likely you're discussing my comment, and in looking back, maybe it was out of line. I came from a sarcastic, joking thread, and I meant to apply the same spirit to my comment here, and it probably didn't translate. Of course he knows about birth control, of course he realizes kids can be delayed. I do find it both interesting and funny that he doesn't even mention that as a possibility, and that's what I'm saying.

On the flip side, as was mentioned, Kirke didn't answer the real question: "should I have let this guy kiss me, even though he was still dating someone else?" Instead, he takes the opportunity to moralize on the appropriateness of the type of kissing, not the situation in which it occurred. What's more, his "if a PROPHET can't convince you, you'll probably never learn" and the "welcome to being an object lesson" bit were incredibly condescending and rude. And speaking of unfair, it's not a conversation that the asker can join back in and defend herself--once she puts it in the public sphere, she's free game for the writers to criticize and ridicule, even if they get off topic or personal. Now maybe that's not ideal, and maybe we didn't react to our shock and discomfort with Kirke's hard-line stand on the topic as well as we could have, and I guess that goes to show we're all human.

I'm sorry for the offense I've given. But as the person who originally hired Kirke, I'm also sorry for the offense he's given. I'm glad to have some balance on the Board, but at the same time I agree with bob--some of the things he's recommended lately are, in my opinion, very damaging. I'm glad to see that other people feel the same way, and that we can discuss what we believe are healthier alternatives.

[Concealocanth]

Ahh... thanks for explaining, guys! I don't think I was responding just to Uffish's comment, but I'm really glad she explained what she said. I wasn't trying to berate anyone; I love the awesome, open discussion we can have on these questions... just some of the stuff people said definitely set me off, especially in my Taking Things Too Seriously mood I woke up in.

[NerdGirl]

1. Making out in the living room in your garments sounds like an awkward thing to do whether you are married or not. Don't take your clothes off in the living room if other people live in your house.

2. Sex is a fascinating topic. I agree with that, bob. This is the reason why the only non-mandatory lectures that my entire class shows up to are the urology ones.

3. No offense to Kirke if he actually is reading this, but he comes off as being very young and very naive and yet very eager to tell everyone else what to do without seeking to really understand the other person's point of view (and not just in this particular instance). I wouldn't be surprised if he is not actually like that in real life, since people often come across differently on the internet. But it is the way he presents his opinions and rather than his actual opinions (even if I disagree with a lot of them) that make me react so negatively to much of what he writes. Not saying he's a bad person or anything like that, and I would assume that he's probably actually quite pleasant in person, but really does come across as a very young returned missionary who sees the world as being very black and white and thinks that anyone whose experience has been otherwise must be doing something wrong.

[Portia]

I know I have teased Kirke in the past, but also have expressed the fact that I have sympathy for his black-and-white view. I also have known his relationship status for a while, because, c'mon, it's me, I know things like that. I have zero (0) interest in the particularities of his physical relationships. He has broadcast his views on the Board, and we have all assumed that he practices what he preaches. Virgins will figure it out on their wedding night, Mormon or not. I believe that at the very least the groom should be very, very well-educated as to female sexual response and take things slowly, and educate himself from solid, non-euphemistic information. If a guy is shocked that, say, first-time sex can be painful for a woman, or is unaware of foreplay, I don't think that's going to lead to a good sexual relationship. As not-a-virgin, I know that jumping right into sex is not something that is easy or possible for me, and I like some time to . . . transition. I honestly wonder if people who have never made out have sex the same day. It's not some prurient, voyeuristic thing, and has nothing (nothing!) to do with anyone specific. I just know that I enjoyed my half-decade of making out before taking the plunge and it's not something I would trade. I see this problem on the opposite side with people not from conservative religious denominations who see sex as something to "get over with." I just don't get it. But everything I learned about Mormon honeymoons I learned from the last sentence of Jack Weyland novels. (Cue Uffish's groans!)

[Marduk]

Glad to see you all playing nice again. And really, the invitation is more than open for Kirke to continue to defend himself here. Unfortunately, the style we use here is not nearly as easy to handle as the uni-directional one that happens on the board proper.

On topic, I do have to say I'm a bit confused about the direction of the answer. Perhaps it is because it was more aptly answered by the previous writers, and so Kirke just wanted to add a (rather sanctimonious) moral dictum to round out the answer, but even then it was...oddly out of place. Even if the moral here is "making out before marriage is evil just look at all the harm it causes" that really doesn't necessitate the harshness of delivery that happened. I wonder if perhaps writers don't often forget these are real people they are dealing with, and despite frequently being barrelled down by a deluge of questions, each one is asked by a living, breathing human being, ones who often (as this time) invest much in the outcome of those questions.

As to what this thread has more overtly discussed, my opinions are probably well known by now. Sexual compatibility is as important as say, similar outlooks on budgeting and money issues. Alone it probably won't destroy a marriage, but the benefits to a relationship of an active sex life that is satisfying to both partners really can't be overstated. Is making out the only way (or even A way) to do this? That I can't really say, as personally, making out has no appeal to me. Kisses are for affection, not arousal.

[yayfulness]

On topic, I do have to say I'm a bit confused about the direction of the answer. Perhaps it is because it was more aptly answered by the previous writers, and so Kirke just wanted to add a (rather sanctimonious) moral dictum to round out the answer, but even then it was...oddly out of place. Even if the moral here is "making out before marriage is evil just look at all the harm it causes" that really doesn't necessitate the harshness of delivery that happened. I wonder if perhaps writers don't often forget these are real people they are dealing with, and despite frequently being barrelled down by a deluge of questions, each one is asked by a living, breathing human being, ones who often (as this time) invest much in the outcome of those questions.

For me, constantly being aware of this is the single hardest aspect of being a writer.

[mic0]

On topic, I do have to say I'm a bit confused about the direction of the answer. Perhaps it is because it was more aptly answered by the previous writers, and so Kirke just wanted to add a (rather sanctimonious) moral dictum to round out the answer, but even then it was...oddly out of place. Even if the moral here is "making out before marriage is evil just look at all the harm it causes" that really doesn't necessitate the harshness of delivery that happened. I wonder if perhaps writers don't often forget these are real people they are dealing with, and despite frequently being barrelled down by a deluge of questions, each one is asked by a living, breathing human being, ones who often (as this time) invest much in the outcome of those questions.

For me, constantly being aware of this is the single hardest aspect of being a writer.

yayfulness! Next time I'm in Utah we really need to meet. Because that was definitely one of the hardest things for me, too.

[TheBlackSheep]

For me, constantly being aware of this is the single hardest aspect of being a writer.

Ditto!

Also, amen to Uffish. Guys, I was once a Writer myself so I understand the strange impulse to immediately jump to each other's defense around here. Buuuuuuut Kirke gets all kinds of license to be judgy and santimonious about sex and teh gay and whatever else on a forum where, generally speaking, no non-Writers can respond. A few jokes in good fun and some criticism over here where he can respond are no big in comparison, in my opinion.

Also also, a predictable amen to Unlucky Stuntman. When I had sex, it was because I decided to have sex. Making out and sex have each had one or two negative consequences in my life, but that was because I was making out or having sex with jerkfaces and not because either of those two acts ALWAYS has negative consequences outside of marriage. In fact, I would say that making out and having sex have done wonders for my positive relationships. I guess I'm all agnostic and woman-dating these days, but still, Kirke's blanket statement applies as I'm not married (couldn't be if I wanted to, dun dun duuunnnnnnn) and it just hasn't been true in my experience at all.

Final also, amen to Mico. Thanks, yayfulness, for answering the question. Good advice, too!

[yayfulness]

Making out and sex have each had one or two negative consequences in my life, but that was because I was making out or having sex with jerkfaces and not because either of those two acts ALWAYS has negative consequences outside of marriage. In fact, I would say that making out and having sex have done wonders for my positive relationships.

It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that many Church members think that we're not allowed to have sex/make out/masturbate/view porn/whatever because it always does Bad Things to us. Fact is, that's not true. I fully believe that sex outside of marriage can be good for a relationship under some circumstances. The reason it's forbidden is because sexuality is sacred and is meant to be used only within marriage, as God intended.

A friend of mine has an amazing quote on her Facebook profile that really sums it up to me: "Rabe'a al-Adiwiyah, a great woman saint of Sufism, was seen running through the streets of her hometown, Basra, carrying a torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. When someone asked her what she was doing, she answered, 'I am going to take this bucket of water and pour it on the flames of hell, and then I am going to use this torch to burn down the gates of paradise so that people will not love God for want of heaven or fear of hell, but because He is God.'" Preaching fear of consequences just teaches people to be afraid and ignorant, and what's more, when they find out that those consequences might not always come, or might not come immediately, it invalidates everything they've learned.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Slightly in that strain, my Institute teacher asked "Why do you read the scriptures?" And had us all write down our reasons. After that, he shared a button load of scriptures about the blessings of the scriptures, after which I responded firmly with the same answer I gave at the start: I read the scriptures because it's a commandment. I know that there are all sorts of blessings involved with it, but it doesn't matter. Even if there weren't, I would still be reading the scriptures every day.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Yayfulness, I think that is an excellent point, and one I have been struggling to remember lately. There are plenty of wonderful people in the world who have a cup of coffee in the morning, have a glass of wine with their dinner before sleeping with their long-term S.O.,etc, and nothing bad happens to them because of those decisions. No lightning strikes, nothing. So the only question becomes "do you have enough faith in the God, the Mormon church and its leaders to obey, even if the rules don't make sense?" I'm not sure I always do, but that really is what it comes down to.

And besides, a lot of the squabbling on here has been on the "guidelines", not the commandments. That's what personal revelation is for- what is the right guideline for Kirke may not be the answer for Bob, but if everyone is praying about it, that's just fine.

[Emiliana]

Making out and sex have each had one or two negative consequences in my life, but that was because I was making out or having sex with jerkfaces and not because either of those two acts ALWAYS has negative consequences outside of marriage. In fact, I would say that making out and having sex have done wonders for my positive relationships.

It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that many Church members think that we're not allowed to have sex/make out/masturbate/view porn/whatever because it always does Bad Things to us. Fact is, that's not true. I fully believe that sex outside of marriage can be good for a relationship under some circumstances. The reason it's forbidden is because sexuality is sacred and is meant to be used only within marriage, as God intended.

A friend of mine has an amazing quote on her Facebook profile that really sums it up to me: "Rabe'a al-Adiwiyah, a great woman saint of Sufism, was seen running through the streets of her hometown, Basra, carrying a torch in one hand and a bucket of water in the other. When someone asked her what she was doing, she answered, 'I am going to take this bucket of water and pour it on the flames of hell, and then I am going to use this torch to burn down the gates of paradise so that people will not love God for want of heaven or fear of hell, but because He is God.'" Preaching fear of consequences just teaches people to be afraid and ignorant, and what's more, when they find out that those consequences might not always come, or might not come immediately, it invalidates everything they've learned.

But wouldn't it make sense that God issues commandments because they will benefit us? Or perhaps not only us directly, but others as well (e.g., there's a commandment against murder because murder hurts others). What other reason would there be to command someone to do something? In other words, what makes an act inherently good or bad?

I'm playing devil's advocate at least a little bit here, because I'm more or less agnostic and I have nothing against premarital sex, much less premarital making out. But if you're going to make a case against premarital-whatever, I think it *should* be related to its consequences, physical or otherwise. At the risk of a bit of TMI, the emotional consequences of sex are a lot more significant than I ever realized before experiencing them (oxytocin is REAL, yo).

(I'm not sure if this makes much sense; I'd be glad to clarify if it doesn't.)

[TheAnswerIs42]

Well, a lot of things could have negative consequences, even if they don't always have them. For example, not everyone who drinks alcohol has anything bad happen as a result. But certainly a lot of people do- ranging from embarrassing themselves to killing people on accident. And most of those people thought they would be just fine, and if someone told them not to drink, they would have said that nothing bad happened before, so they didn't need to worry about it.

But more abstractly, faith is required. And faith doesn't mean that we know of any reason to obey. Sometimes it might not have a reason except to test us.

[krebscout]

Sometimes it might not have a reason except to test us.

I've never believed this. It's contrary to my understanding of the nature of God, who, among many other things, is fair and efficient and orderly. I think there are always good, solid reasons behind everything we're legitimately commanded (and not erroneously commanded, such as withholding the priesthood from black males), though we may not understand them. And perhaps cannot understand them. I used to think that was a cop-out, but the further I go in my personal spiritual journey the more I'm comfortable with the fact that I am a baby and sometimes I just have to accept holy mystery. But it's taken me a while to get to the point where that sounds valid to me and not like b.s., and I may feel differently tomorrow.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Hmm. I always compare Heavenly Father's actions to my meagerly attempts at parenting. And when my son had so much trouble understanding communication as a toddler, I spent a lot of time practicing things like "go" and "stop". We would walk around the house, and I would help him to go and stop on my command, and then let go of his hand and have him just listen to my words and obey. I didn't actually need him to go or stop that day, and nothing bad would have happened if he disobeyed. But I needed him to learn how to listen to my voice so that when he was running toward the street later and I yelled "stop!"he knew what to do.

So maybe it isn't so much testing us, but teaching us how to receive personal revelation and obey, so that when bigger things come along, we know what to do? And maybe having such strict rules isn't because the first drink will kill you, but to prevent us from even coming near dangers that could come later on?