Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Dragon Lady wrote:So, hugs?

Outrageously extreme hugs for all.

I agree that some people in our church misunderstand sexuality and how it interacts with the Gospel.

Let's take a step back here and find some common ground. We all agree that sex, improperly used, can be intensely destructive, right? And we all agree that individuals are always responsible (however, to varying degrees) for the actions that they take, right? And (hopefully) we all agree that there are instinctual responses in sex, which we can learn to control, but nevertheless still exist and must be recognized?

Ok, those caveats aside, let's look at where that leaves us. Wait, first one more caveat. We are responsible for controlling our own actions, but can't ignore that any action will also affect others. While we cannot control what effect it may have on them, we certainly believe in taking certain steps to try and avoid certain reactions.

Ok, NOW where does that leave us? First, let's look at the paraphrasing that I provided, and see if we can make it accurate to our understanding of sex. Sex as a river of fire: what is fire? Is it an unstoppable destructive force that only causes harm to all in its path? No, absolutely not. Fire accounts for most of our electricity production in this country, for example. It certainly is a tool that has an important purpose. But used inappropriately, or without proper controls, it can have devastating effect. What is sex? Is it something inherently harmful that destroys those who use it? No, absolutely not. Sex accounts for all human life on this planet, for example (I'm sure you could quibble on this point, but a few rare cases aside, the point remains the same.) It certainly is a tool that has an important purpose. But used inappropriately, or without proper controls, it can have devastating effect. So we must take steps to control it.

Can a man keep his thoughts pure around immodestly dressed women? Sure, to an extent. But I wouldn't advocate watching pornography while trying to keep your thoughts in the right place. Can a man drink alcohol without becoming addicted? Sure, to an extent. But I wouldn't advocate frequenting bars and trying to retain your agency. You're right, Bismark, there are some frank discussions that need to happen, that frequently aren't. I remember a friend of mine telling me her mother asked her grandmother, moments before her wedding, what she could expect from the wedding night. Said grandmother ran out of the room rather than talk with her daughter. But to say that we should all be responsible for our own actions, and not worry about the motivating stimuli that leads to immoral action is quite literally playing with fire.

The alcohol example, while hyperbolic, serves to illustrate the point. No one lives in a moral vacuum. Whatever we do will always affect those around us; we have an obligation if we are to take Christ's name upon us to do what is in our power to help others make moral decisions.

bismark wrote:Let's not mince words.

I try to avoid it as a rule. If I ever seem to be, it is an unintended failure on my part. I do apologize if my approach made it seem like I was singling you out by using your quote as a format to approach multiple ideas. I can try to avoid doing so in the future. My focus only turned exclusively to you as an attempt to explain why I drew the conclusions I did from what I interpreted as your meaning, as I am doing again.

bismark wrote:Obviously we have experienced different chastity talks, different super Saturday devotionals, different tv shows, different books, etc. Untamed beast? Ok, a bit hyperbolical to get across my point. But are men treated as if they have less control than they really do and that their sexuality is something to be approached as nearly hostile? My experience says yes.

So it would seem. My experiences have been quite the opposite, if anything. Hence the assumption that your statement was an endeavor at satire.

bismark wrote:Nope. But I do advocate teaching our boys that they can control their own sexuality no matter what situation they find themselves in.

That pretty much has been what I've experienced, whether by what was said or by what I've heard.

bismark wrote:Ok, so let's hear your definitions. Am I really the only one in the dark to these commonly used phrases that have universal meaning to everyone? Or am I the only one who sees that these, dare I say it, yes, archaic terms keep sexual acts and indiscretions nebulous and undefined in the minds of LDS youth, therefore only leading to more confusion, guilt, and secrecy?

Eh, the first thing that comes to my mind is erotic touch, with necking involving kissing and petting involving the hands. I've heard some say necking was kissing at or above the neck, and petting below, but I'd doubt that would have evolved. Etymology of petting as a caress is fairly self-evident, I'd say; though I've seen it's origin sourced back to 1920 (F. Scott Fitzgerald, of all people) or 1875. Evidence that at least "necking" was common language at the prime of the General Authorities could be implied by the Groucho Marx quote: "Whoever called it necking was a poor judge of anatomy."

bismark wrote:I would have certainly preferred to hear penis and orgasm instead of hearing about how I have a little built in factory that needs to release itself on occasion or how I have a built in stop sign that pops up so I know when I should stop kissing a girl. Yup, I've heard both in priesthood classes.

Ouch. Perhaps you've been unlucky with your instructors, perhaps I lucked out with mine. Most likely a little of both. I was also in an extremely small priesthood class, which may have influenced things. Did no one else read "On souls, symbols and sacraments"? I seem to remember LJ bringing it up in a response, but whether he was exposed to it before, during, or after his mission, I wouldn't know.

bismark wrote:Here is the major difference: the original quote implies sexuality is inherently destructive to the human soul and I strongly disagree with that.

Again, depending on how you choose to interpret it. Knowing the inherent power of water I'd have likely left it as a river, thus more overtly implying usefulness as well as destructive potential if mistreated. As it is, a river would pretty much be ignored by the majority of those hearing said quote, whereas a river of fire demands attention.

Just an interesting tidbit I saw. I was reading Above the Law (a legal blog). They had a story on a "What Not to Wear" seminar for law students. This quote came from a fnon-LDS source

LEGALLY FABULOUS: “Looking sexy in a law firm is disrespectful” – Mary Nicolau. Absolutely. No one should be able to see your cleavage and your skirt or dress should be knee-length and not too tight. The partner you’re working for is someone’s husband/father/boyfriend. Show some respect.

I don't think the idea of respecting other people by dressing modestly is a wholly-LDS thing. Not directly related to everything discussed, but tangentially interesting.

Wired, for some reason that reminded me of an etiquette book from the 50s I once read that said that women should wear sleeveless dresses to formal events, unless they are fat, in which case they should wear a shawl over them. That doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about, but I just thought of it and decided I would share.

Such blatant anti-fat rhetoric. Got to love the 50s.

wired wrote:Such blatant anti-fat rhetoric. Got to love the 50s.

Oh man I could go on such a good WoW/obesity rant that would piss so many people off.

Tao wrote:

bismark wrote:I would have certainly preferred to hear penis and orgasm instead of hearing about how I have a little built in factory that needs to release itself on occasion or how I have a built in stop sign that pops up so I know when I should stop kissing a girl. Yup, I've heard both in priesthood classes.

Ouch. Perhaps you've been unlucky with your instructors, perhaps I lucked out with mine. Most likely a little of both. I was also in an extremely small priesthood class, which may have influenced things. Did no one else read "On souls, symbols and sacraments"? I seem to remember LJ bringing it up in a response, but whether he was exposed to it before, during, or after his mission, I wouldn't know.

Actually, I think the factory analogy got its start with Elder Packer (source).

So I thought I'd throw in something. Before leaving on my mission, I worked in a store that was next to a popular lakeside marina. Females of all shapes and sizes, exhibiting a wide range of skin coverage (or lake thereof) came into the store. I'm not an oversexed person, but with all those bikinis running around, I noticed. And I was aroused by it. A lot. I hated it. And there was nothing I could do about it. After I received my mission call, I set myself a goal to stop staring at the scantily clad women that would come into the store. I failed utterly and miserably. I didn't go have sex with any of them, or harass any of them, or assault any of them. I didn't go out and buy a subscription to Playboy or start renting X-rated movies. I was still worthy to go on my mission when the time came, but the situation was harmful to me nonetheless.

So, say what you like, but skin which your culture dictates normally be covered, when shown, can have a significant impact on those of the opposite gender. And we all, males and females, should be mindful of that.

Damasta wrote:Actually, I think the factory analogy got its start with Elder Packer (source).

Yup. Doesn't matter how far up the line it comes from, poor teaching about sexuality is poor teaching.

Damasta wrote:So I thought I'd throw in something. Before leaving on my mission, I worked in a store that was next to a popular lakeside marina. Females of all shapes and sizes, exhibiting a wide range of skin coverage (or lake thereof) came into the store. I'm not an oversexed person, but with all those bikinis running around, I noticed. And I was aroused by it. A lot. I hated it. And there was nothing I could do about it. After I received my mission call, I set myself a goal to stop staring at the scantily clad women that would come into the store. I failed utterly and miserably. I didn't go have sex with any of them, or harass any of them, or assault any of them. I didn't go out and buy a subscription to Playboy or start renting X-rated movies. I was still worthy to go on my mission when the time came, but the situation was harmful to me nonetheless.

So, say what you like, but skin which your culture dictates normally be covered, when shown, can have a significant impact on those of the opposite gender. And we all, males and females, should be mindful of that.

ok, but no one has answered my question about people who are fully clothed and arouse others.

my best friend lived in new york city and got the most cat calls when she wore a sweatshirt and jeans. again, even when someone is FULLY CLOTHED, people still have dirty sexual thoughts about them. i have them when i see a guy in a suit and tie. it's sexy. it arouses me. so should men not wear suits and ties? should i stop wearing my afro? where do we draw the line, folks?

Imogen wrote: ok, but no one has answered my question about people who are fully clothed and arouse others.

my best friend lived in new york city and got the most cat calls when she wore a sweatshirt and jeans. again, even when someone is FULLY CLOTHED, people still have dirty sexual thoughts about them. i have them when i see a guy in a suit and tie. it's sexy. it arouses me. so should men not wear suits and ties? should i stop wearing my afro? where do we draw the line, folks?

I don't know where exactly we should draw the line, but afros and suits with ties should be acceptable and public nudity should not be.

I really liked elder... uhm... someone's talk on...someday morning, when he was discussing this point and emphasized that how we dress is a statement about our self-worth. I'm much prefer that message to "dress modestly so that men, who are completely helpless, won't be horribly turned on, because men are so much easier to arouse and you as women need to protect them" (I've read the thread, and you guys make some good points for both sides). I'm just saying that the fact that your dress reflects on who people see you as is a nice motivation though.