Happy Days in Random Chatter 10

[Owlet]

Originally I was planning on going on a mission--I've been having struggles deciding whether or not to go for awhile, and this just made it a whole lot harder.

Dude (sometimes I call everyone dude), I had this exact same problem! I wish you the best as you make your decision.

[Portia]

Called it. Lowering the mission age introduced a de facto increased expectation for ladies to ship out, intended or not.

All your opportunities sound splendid. Make a decision, push forward, and if it's no good, it will feel off. Don't worry about what other people think. Because people are idiots. And you're awesome.

[Katya]

Congrats!

[S.A.M.]

Hooray for Squirrel! Looking forward to many more epistles.

[Squirrel]

Congrats!

Hooray for Squirrel! Looking forward to many more epistles.

Thanks Katya and S.A.M.! I hope I can make it through probieship. I'm having tons of fun with it though.

[Tally M.]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

[Portia]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

AAAAAUGH.

Petting is getting handsy, btw.

[Tally M.]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

AAAAAUGH.

Petting is getting handsy, btw.

Good to know =P

At least they're acknowledging that girls can have problems with pornography, too.

[Portia]

Also, morality is not merely chastity. (Duh.)

[Katya]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

This is yet one more problem with having only men in charge: you get only the male view of the world. Contrary to what your bishop apparently thinks, women have sex drives, too, which means that it's up to both parties to keep themselves under control. Also, if it's the woman's job to restrain the man, that implies that if things go too far (up to and including rape), it's the woman's fault. Thirdly, this kind of attitude leads men to think that the absence of a "no" is a "yes," since it's a woman's job to say "no" if she doesn't want to do something.

[Tally M.]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

This is yet one more problem with having only men in charge: you get only the male view of the world. Contrary to what your bishop apparently thinks, women have sex drives, too, which means that it's up to both parties to keep themselves under control. Also, if it's the woman's job to restrain the man, that implies that if things go too far (up to and including rape), it's the woman's fault. Thirdly, this kind of attitude leads men to think that the absence of a "no" is a "yes," since it's a woman's job to say "no" if she doesn't want to do something.

There was a few female leaders in there as well who chimed in agree that it was the woman's responsibility as well. (Guys are apparently wired differently, and therefore can't help it...whatever) It just kind of ticks me off. Because it really is the responsibility of both of them to keep actions in check.

[Portia]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

:evil:

This is yet one more problem with having only men in charge: you get only the male view of the world. Contrary to what your bishop apparently thinks, women have sex drives, too, which means that it's up to both parties to keep themselves under control. Also, if it's the woman's job to restrain the man, that implies that if things go too far (up to and including rape), it's the woman's fault. Thirdly, this kind of attitude leads men to think that the absence of a "no" is a "yes," since it's a woman's job to say "no" if she doesn't want to do something.

There was a few female leaders in there as well who chimed in agree that it was the woman's responsibility as well. (Guys are apparently wired differently, and therefore can't help it...whatever) It just kind of ticks me off. Because it really is the responsibility of both of them to keep actions in check.

A lot of the older women seem to have patriarchal, sexist attitudes ingrained. Fortunately, my mother's history led her to be a realist, and gave me good, balanced advice.

Until rape is no longer a problem within the community, this is a real problem with real consequences. I also see these skewed attitudes bleeding over into LDS marriages and wreaking havoc with married sex life.

[UffishThought]

I've also heard it said by some church leader or other that in cases of sexual transgression, he always put the blame solidly on the guy's shoulders, because they were almost always the ones pushing the boundaries, and that rubbed me the wrong way, too. Both parties at fault! (Unless it is rape--and then it's the rapist's fault.)

[Katya]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

This is yet one more problem with having only men in charge: you get only the male view of the world. Contrary to what your bishop apparently thinks, women have sex drives, too, which means that it's up to both parties to keep themselves under control. Also, if it's the woman's job to restrain the man, that implies that if things go too far (up to and including rape), it's the woman's fault. Thirdly, this kind of attitude leads men to think that the absence of a "no" is a "yes," since it's a woman's job to say "no" if she doesn't want to do something.

There was a few female leaders in there as well who chimed in agree that it was the woman's responsibility as well. (Guys are apparently wired differently, and therefore can't help it...whatever) It just kind of ticks me off. Because it really is the responsibility of both of them to keep actions in check.

Yeah, someone pointed out to me recently that we treat male sex drive as if it's uncontrollable, but female sex drive (if it even exists) is controllable, for some reason.

[Tally M.]

Had a chat with an old ex/friend from high school on Facebook today. Nice to talk to him again, but also a good reminder of how it wouldn't have worked out...

[Portia]

Lesson in R.S. today taught by the bishop about morality. I'm still not quite sure what petting is =P Regardless, I've noticed my opinions of how morality lessons are taught has changed over the past year--unsurprisingly, because of the Board. One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them. Doesn't really sit quite well with me.

Been mulling this over all day, and the more I think about it, the more disturbed I am.

A) that a member of the relief society presidency wasn't teaching this lesson. It feels like such an invasion of that stewardship role (I say this as a former R.S. president)
B) that we use outdated terms like "petting" and "necking" (French kissing/making out) to obfuscate the issue. My parents didn't use this terminology, and I doubt my grandparents did. Yay 1937.
C) essentially painting men as having a rapist inside just waiting to be unleashed. I can state from life experience that Mormon guys have a very skewed perception of their sexual self-control compared to non-Mormon ones. It can only be messed-up messages like this
D) the general conflation of moral worth with sexual untouchedness. I am convinced that this mania is promoting the very worldly values that we claim to work against--basically objectifying women's bodies and boiling our worth down to our sexuality. This is perverse. The best way to keep girls out of sexual trouble is to teach them that their worth is derived from their individual self and their accomplishments. I spent a lot of my late teens and early twenties trying to exploit my feminine wiles to win the approval of men (thereby meaning I had value!). I am no fool and know this is not unique to church culture, but I wonder if my obsessions about body image, my dating life, and yes, my sexual desirability weren't exacerbated by countless talks like these. Seems counterproductive.

[Tally M.]

I've been looking at some recent stuff from the church about chastity and such--it seems to be the people teaching it that's more the problem than what the Church actually teaches. (See For the Strength of Youth.) People are so used to hearing it taught and teaching it a certain way, that even if the Church changes its approach, people don't seem to do the same.

[S.A.M.]

One of the things that was mentioned is how women are in charge of how far the physical relationship goes and we're essentially responsible for saying no--that guys will go all the way if you let them.

This definitely goes both ways. I have two very handsome teenage sons, and we have had this talk with them, that girls will go all the way if they (the boys) let them (the girls). Especially in this part of the country, where most of their friends have been raised with much different moral values and attitudes about physical boundaries. My boys absolutley have to be in charge of how far the physical relationship goes.

[Whistler]

there's a church sex ed manual, and in it it distinctly says that our ideas about "sex drive" are kind of skewed. Having sex is a choice! Your brain can control your body! (somewhere in this manual http://www.lds.org/manual/a-parents-guide?lang=eng)

[thatonemom]

That's an interesting link, Whistler! Parts of it definitely felt nearly 30 years old, but I thought there were some really good ideas in there, too.

It seems like the chastity lessons for the brethren focus more on their responsibility to control themselves, with emphasis on avoiding pornography/masturbation and having clean thoughts. (At least, this is based on the Young Men's lessons my husband's taught. I've never been to a priesthood lesson on chastity). But a lot of the law of chastity lessons I heard (especially at BYU) seemed to focus on the girl controlling/being responsible for the actions of the guy. Like Tally's example of being told that girls need to be the ones to put a stop to things. That's problematic. And incorrect. But also common.

It'd be nice if everything we heard at church (especially about this) was the gospel truth. Instead sometimes we get to wade through tradition! or euphemisms or apocryphal email forwards. It's hard to be the one to teach at church, and I think most people try to do the best they can. But sometimes crazy stuff gets taught anyway. (Elder Holland's last conference talk put that much more eloquently than I just did, but same idea). Anyway, I think it's important to have the Holy Ghost, and become confident in our own abilities to recognize it and receive personal direction. It definitely makes it easier to sift through all the things we hear/are taught and find the good.