dating divorcés and other non-virgins

[Portia]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/76446/

Dan Savage would absolutely, categorically tell you to be up-front with your lack of sexual and relational experience.

If that bugs him, he's a prick and you don't want to date him anyway.

If he's fine with it, knowing will help him and inform how he treats you/encourage him to take it slow.

Plenty of other LDS guys and women will have had sexual experience, too. Plenty of LDS guys and women have essentially none. It's all good and better to communicate and be open. :-)

[vorpal blade]

It is strange to be worrying about too little experience. Traditionally men have wanted women with as little previous experience as possible. The less, the better. At least for the women they would consider marrying.

[Portia]

...

today's virgin/whore dichotomy brought to you by 1966 and Lucky Strike.

[Marduk]

It is strange to be worrying about too little experience. Traditionally men have wanted women with as little previous experience as possible. The less, the better. At least for the women they would consider marrying.

Yeah, this attitude has basically flipped for most males today.

[Genuine Article]

Portia, why do you say "guys and women" when the natural pairing is "men and women"?

[vorpal blade]

It is strange to be worrying about too little experience. Traditionally men have wanted women with as little previous experience as possible. The less, the better. At least for the women they would consider marrying.

Yeah, this attitude has basically flipped for most males today.

Don't you think it strange that a tradition that has lasted thousands of years and has been prevalent in most, if not all, cultures, would suddenly change in the last few years? What evidence is there of this cataclysmic change, and what could be the cause of it?

[mic0]

Not to be simplistic, but I would guess the answer to your question, vorpal blade, is the sexual revolution.

[Marduk]

It probably has to do with women starting to claim their own sexuality, and not simply see themselves as receptacles for male sexual desire.

And it is fairly prevalent in the Judeo-Christian world, and the Muslim world, but not as much outside of that.

[vorpal blade]

Not to be simplistic, but I would guess the answer to your question, vorpal blade, is the sexual revolution.

Thanks, Mico. The article talks a lot about events that happened during the 1960-1980 time period, but seems a little weak in explaining why these things happened. It doesn’t answer the question of how sexual experience is supposed to now make a person a better choice as a marriage partner, when traditionally it practically made them unmarriageable. The sexual revolution sought to obliterate concepts of morally right and wrong, but doesn’t explain how vice became superior to virtue.

It probably has to do with women starting to claim their own sexuality, and not simply see themselves as receptacles for male sexual desire.

And it is fairly prevalent in the Judeo-Christian world, and the Muslim world, but not as much outside of that.

I don’t think so, Marduk. Women have been claiming their own sexuality for eons, and I doubt that in their own minds they ever saw themselves simply as receptacles for male sexual desire. You underestimate women.

Unfortunately since the sexual revolution the trend has been to put even more pressure on women to see their value and their worth in terms of their ability to sexually attract men. Today far too many women measure themselves by how many boyfriends they have had, how many relationships they have had, and how many men they have had in bed. They brag about how attractive the men were that were interested in them.

Note the concern in Doubtful Dater

I guess it scares me he's been married because he's gone all the way and knows what he's doing and is probably used to have a partner who knows what to do too. What do you think? Would a divorced man want a more experienced companion?

She apparently sees herself as someone a man would use for sexual gratification, and her worry is not whether she is claiming her own sexuality, but whether she is going to please him, given her lack of experience. From what you say most men today want an experienced woman, so women are going to feel inadequate without experience. I submit that if anything the sexual revolution has not liberated women, but made them more than ever slaves to men’s desires.

[thatonemom]

Women have been claiming their own sexuality for eons, and I doubt that in their own minds they ever saw themselves simply as receptacles for male sexual desire. You underestimate women.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? I can think of quite a few examples, from the woman taken in adultery in the New Testament (without a man, of course. Not sure how you adulter by your lonesome), to Hester Prynne, to the virgins promised Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants, that all exemplify the idea that women could not make their own choices about sex.

Then there's the recent facebook post I read about a young LDS lady who mentioned that pornography isn't a problem in her marriage because she never turns down her husband for sex. She said it didn't matter how she felt at the time or if she wanted to or not. The way to keep porn out of your marriage was to never say no. Yikes.

Or, the grown women I used to work with in Chicagoland, of a variety of religious and ethnic backgrounds, who all agreed the way to keep a man was to do x, y, or z sexually because if you didn't, he'd go to someone else. Seems like women have long been seeped in a culture of being expected to meet men's sexual needs, regardless of their own feelings or desires.

[bobtheenchantedone]

Seconded. Even now, many women do not feel they have control of their sexuality.

[Portia]

I don't think bringing back slut shaming is the way to make this LDS thirtysomething virgin feel more confident in the relationship. If she wants to have sex, godspeed; if not, godspeed, I say.

[Katya]

Women have been claiming their own sexuality for eons, and I doubt that in their own minds they ever saw themselves simply as receptacles for male sexual desire. You underestimate women.

It's so kind of you to speak on behalf of "eons" of women. Whatever would we do without you to tell us what we think? (Or, even better, to correct us when we tell you what we think.)

[Portia]

Women have been claiming their own sexuality for eons, and I doubt that in their own minds they ever saw themselves simply as receptacles for male sexual desire. You underestimate women.

It's so kind of you to speak on behalf of "eons" of women. Whatever would we do without you to tell us what we think? (Or, even better, to correct us when we tell you what we think.)

<bows to my sensei>

[vorpal blade]

Women have been claiming their own sexuality for eons, and I doubt that in their own minds they ever saw themselves simply as receptacles for male sexual desire. You underestimate women.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

I hope so, thatonemom.

9 ¶And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

Emphasis added.

[Amity]

9 ¶And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

Emphasis added.

I don't think this one quote (by the way, I wouldn't interpret this passage the way you do--I think it's describing how Sarah was post-menopause and theoretically unable to have children) disproves the many other examples of women being shamed for their sexuality. What about Mary, the mother of Jesus, who faced social ostracism and the breakup of her betrothal because she was pregnant out of wedlock?

[vorpal blade]

Amity, lets back up for a moment. The question I posed was this: isn't it strange that a tradition that lasted thousands of years, that it was better to marry a woman with little or no sexual experience, had suddenly changed in the last few years. I asked if it was really true, and if so what could be the cause of this change in social mores.

Marduk replied that recently attitudes had flipped, and he suggested that the cause of this change was

It probably has to do with women starting to claim their own sexuality, and not simply see themselves as receptacles for male sexual desire.

I replied that I did not think this could be the case as women have always claimed their own sexuality, and I doubt that women have seen themselves in their own minds simply as receptacles for male sexual desires.

The point of the Genesis quote is to see that way back in the days of Abraham, Sarah took pleasure in her own sexuality, thus showing that she claimed her own sexuality. It is implied that this is after the manner of women. Furthermore we see other ways that Sarah did not see herself as simply a receptacle for male sexual desires. She saw in addition to pleasure sex is a means of obtaining a child, which she dearly wanted.

I'm saying that it is normal and good that men and women take pleasure in sex between husband and wife. I'm saying that normal men and women have always thus claimed their own sexuality. I'm saying that women have had many reasons for wanting sex in addition to enjoying it. One of those reasons is to have children. Another reason is to bring husband and wife together. Men and women have additional reasons to marry and have sex, including an increase in status, prestige, power, wealth, and social position. I don't see how anyone can think that before a decade or so ago the only reason women ever had sex was because they "simply see themselves as receptacles for male sexual desire."

I'm not speaking on behalf of any women, I'm not trying to tell you what you think and I'm not trying to correct any woman who has tried to tell me how she thinks. I was disagreeing with Marduk about what he thinks women think. Is there any woman here who claims that she has always just simply seen herself as a receptacle for male sexual desire and never had a thought about how sex might benefit her or her family?

I'm sure you are right, Amity, that the main point of the scripture was that she too old to have children. But there is more to it than that, including the idea that Abraham was too old as well. I remember a young gospel doctrine teacher who assumed "well stricken in age" and too old to have sex and enjoy it was around forty five. I had to laugh at that.

There is a big difference between "being shamed for their sexuality" and being shamed for their immorality. Married men and women ought not to feel shame in having sex with one another. They should be proud of it, as it is a good thing. Unmarried men and women should feel shame for consensual sex. The problem Mary faced was not that she was pregnant, but that she not married. We don't blame women or men for wanting to have sex and enjoying it, but we do believe it is against the commandments and a grievous sin if sex is engaged in outside of marriage.

Nothing good comes from sex outside of marriage. Many personal and social ills are the result of sex outside of marriage. Of course men and women are free to make their own choices regarding sex, but some choices naturally lead to the destruction of the individual and the family. And by the way, what kind of a marriage is it if you only think about your own needs and don't think about the needs of your spouse?

Have there been injustices in the past? Of course there have. Has the world sometimes set up a double standard so that society condemns a woman for doing something it does not condemn when a man does it? Yes, and this is a great wickedness. The church has never approved sexual immorality in either men or women. But the idea that making women equally debased with debauched men somehow makes women better because they are more equal isn't the way I want to see things go.