What I Won’t Tell My Kids [or when the right answer might just ruin your life]
Like any of you, our friends and relatives run the gamut of good, bad and ugly. We have the jailed and the insane, the honest and the dishonest, the divorced and single, the happily and the unhappily married, those who made sensible decisions and those who didn’t. I’ve watched them and followed their stories over the long term. Not in judgment so much as a . . . scholar? seeker of wisdom? observer of human nature? future crone in training? All provide me with examples of life — how life takes directions from our choices. How life takes turns in circumstances beyond our control. How sometimes the ‘right’ answer is also the disasterous one.
On EmilyS’s marriage thread I had a short jet-lag induced exchange with Rosalynde about the [IMO] unfortunate LDS culture of early marriage and the consequences that sometimes follow. I mentioned my distant cousin [whom I’ll call Nell] who is presently in a really sucky marriage.
A distant cousin of mine [brilliant, full-scholarship BYU student] fell for this — she was graduating from BYU and hadn’t yet married. She was desperate ’cause she was 23 and not yet married and all the ‘good’ guys were gone. So she married ‘jerk-face’ ’cause he asked, and has led a horrible and unhappy life ever since. [Now there are several children. Makes it worse ’cause she feels absolutly stuck, but divorce is not something she’d “do to the kids”]
There is more to the story than this, of course. In addition to the desperation, fear of no ‘good’ men and cultural expectations for an early marriage, her siblings have wondered if the celibacy/horniness issue might also have had something to do with her lack of judgment. She felt she’d never get married. Her body wanted sex. Jerk-face came along. The rest of her life began.
Which brings me to my observation: would Nell have been better of sleeping around [with condom] than marrying a jerk in the temple? Would her life had been happier if she had chosen what the church teaches is the greater of two evils? Premarital sex is much more easily repented of than marrying and having children with the wrong person. Your life is easier to fix. Your bad decisions don’t run into the next generation. Your indiscretions can be more fully healed and your life and the lives of your potential children might turn out much better if your sin was fornication and not lack of judgment in a marriage partner.
I won’t tell my kids this, obviously. I will teach them to obey the law of chastity and to avoid stupid hormone-driven marriage decisions. I will pray really hard that they do both. I will hope they can do the whole celibacy-eternal marriage-Mormon path thing and do it well. OTOH I’m pretty sure I’d be more devastated by finding them stuck in a bad marriage with no way out than finding out they’d ’screwed’ up [ fornication, not adultery] but could still repent and have a better chance at a successful life.
N.O.
[note: this discussion is supposed to be about those adult children who have rejected long-term celibacy as an option for their lives. Obviously an LDS parent would hope for celibacy over either of these, but in the long-term we don’t get to chose for anyone but ourselves.]
Something I will try to help my daughter understand is as she gets older(and possibly desperate), that I would rather she find a good man that makes her happy and isn’t a member, than settle for a scumbag who is a member just because she feels like she’s running out of options.
Comment by jjohnsen — July 28, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Which brings me to my observation: would Nell have been better of sleeping around [with condom] than marrying a jerk in the temple?
In many circumstances, yes. I had a friend who recently returned from his mission (dropped out of school, but still had thousands of dollars in student loans, now in a collection fund), was only working part time, and decided to marry his (short term) girlfriend who he never got along with. I swear, if I have ever seen a sex marriage, this is it. He even [explicitly] told me that a primary reason for his marriage was sex. I don’t think sex should ever being a deciding factor in marriage. As important as sex may be to a marriage, there are things that need to come first in deciding if marriage is right. Our society often separates brotherly love and romantic (or erotic) love, but in the case if marriage, the former must fall before the latter, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, after that tangent, I should say that my friend and his bride are probably sexing and fighting as we speak. I think they should have had sex and said goodbye, because I think they will be happier [at least in this life].
Comment by Rob — July 28, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
My very conservative LDS hairdresser would definitely say go for the premarital sex, rather than the marriage. She had a quick marriage, soon after she met the guy, and it turned out to be awful. They stuck it out for fifteen years and four kids. She thinks she would not have married him if she had waited even a few more months, but their bishop warned them to marry quickly to avoid fornication. She says in retrospect, a little fornication would have been much less traumatic than breaking up a temple marriage with four kids.
Comment by pjj — July 28, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
Given the pitfalls and difficulties women have with intercourse, I’d say that neither option was good. In fact, they’re both about equally bad for her.
I’d say she needs to be told (or reminded) that yes divorce is hard on the kids (I personally hate it would would almost never advocate it) but that they deserve a good father and a good role model. If her husband’s such a jerk then he is neither.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — July 28, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
Yep. Or, at least figuring out how to masturbate.
Cultures with a Divine Mother as well as Father don’t have a problem with human sexuality.
My friend from Micronesia tells of the real meaning of the “love shack.” Many families have one out back, because it is expected that the teenage daughter needs a place to discover her own sexuality, with her boyfriends.
Her sexuality must be mature and understood before she can consider marrying. Because men expect the women to lead them to an understanding of their own sexuality, and the divine.
Just another perspective. I have it on good authority that non-Mormon Micronesians take their divine relations very seriously, and are not doing this out of perdition or moral laziness.
Comment by pele — July 28, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
II had premarital sex with my DH. I was a convert while he was born LDS and served (half) a mission. We are going through the repentance process right now and it’s a lot easier for me than him. Our decision to have premarital sex has wrecked spiritual havoc on my husband, even though we had it knowing we were going to get married. So I’m not sure about the pre-marital thing being less of a burden, I guess it’s all real personal.
Comment by just_kelly — July 28, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
Why are pre-marital sex and a crappy marriage the only two options here? Do you seriously think those are the only two things your friend could have done, or are you just playing devil’s advocate for the sake of discussion?
There are plenty of people who marry after 23, and are virgins on their wedding night. People can and should control their sexual appetite - it’s what the law of chastity is all about.
Comment by The Wiz — July 28, 2006 @ 5:11 pm
Not to be too hard on the guys here, but they do tend to be a wee bit old fashioned on the subject of the purity of their future wives. I think it would significantly impact the “type” of guy you would be able to marry if you had say committing the lesser evil of premarital sex rather than a bad marriage.
I’m not saying that there are no men that are not enlightened enough accept it if the woman (and let’s be fair, or the man) has gone through the repentance process, but they are probably few and far between.
As to the people that say keep your legs together, that is fine to stand in judgement of those when this is not a sin that you struggle with. Would you want someone to judge you on a sin that you struggle with? It isn’t the same for everyone. They may do great on everything else but this is the one thing that is hard for them. Some people even have the tragic circumstance that because of something in the way they were brought up makes them desperate to turn to a man or woman for deep affection to make them loved. As they say, until you have walked a mile…
Comment by Denae — July 28, 2006 @ 5:28 pm
Denae -
I’m not judging people who have premarital sex - I know it’s a great trial for many, many people, (yes, myself included, I do have hormones) and a hugely complex issue.
I just think “Nell” would be upset to hear her situation reduced to “her body wanted sex and jerk-face came along” as if she had no agency in who she slept with or when. That’s why I wonder if NO seriously thinks those were the only options or if she’s merely trying to generate discussion.
Comment by The Wiz — July 28, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
Nice post N.O.
I agree with The Wiz (#7), there are more than two options here. However, for arguments sake (as was no doubt your intention), let’s assume your cousin had only those two options. In this case, the answer is an unqualified no brainer: have sex. Comparing the negative ramifications of premarital sex to the negative ramifications of “marriage to a jerk-face” is a molehill-to-mountain comparison, in my opinion. I’m curious why Proud Daughter of Eve would find these two options equally bad.
It astounds me that Denae (#8) thinks that the number of men in the LDS ranks who could accept a repentant non-virgin for a future wife are few and far between. Maybe she’s right. If so, it certainly doesn’t paint a pretty picture of the average LDS male.
Comment by Matt Thurston — July 28, 2006 @ 6:29 pm
A little fornication would all be very well and good if afterwards everyone just walked away unscathed. Unfortunately, in the real world it’s not like that — even with condoms. I’ve seen what my non-member friends have gone through. This includes fun experiences like having boyfriends who died of AIDS, getting cervical cancer, abortions, not to mention all the broken hearts.
Then there’s the problem of co-habitation which is a natural outcome of fornication. I had one friend whose live-in boyfriend dumped her and took everything including their mutual friends. This was after she had put him through grad school. If they had been married first and he had divorced her it would not have been quite so easy for him to leave her so high and dry financially.
And remember that women have a biological clock. All those years invested in live-in relationships that go nowhere add up. I know it’s also possible for non-sexual relationships to drag on, but usually if you’re not sleeping together it’s generally easier to figure out that it’s not going anywhere and move on.
As for sex marriages, I still think that even if the parties divorce later they are still better off because there was a legal agreement in place. This is especially true for the woman who has some protection and can at least get some child support. And don’t tell me that they wouldn’t have had those kids anyway even if they weren’t married. Like unmarried couples never have children.
Of course, I also have to look at my own life. As an active member of the church who has been single much longer than I would have liked, there have been many times when I have wished that the law of chastity did not exist. Or at least that we didn’t have to take it quite so seriously.
I think back on the men in my life. And oooooohhh how I wish I could have slept with some of them because I know it would have been a real good time. I’m certain of it. I am *absolutely* certain of it.
But then I also think back on other men that I nearly slept with and shudder to the core of my being with relief and gratitude that I didn’t sleep with them because they were scum.
Herein lies the problem. At the time that I was in these relationships I could not tell the difference between the good guys and the scum. It’s only with the benefit of hindsight and a certain amount of emotional distance that the distinction becomes crystal clear. Unfortunately when we are in the middle of a relationship we don’t have emotional clarity.
So after all these years of being single and as much as I hate to admit it, I have to come down on the side of Heavenly Father on this one and thank Him for saving me from myself. Turns out He actually knows what He is doing.
Comment by Lorelei Lee — July 28, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
I would suggest that it doesn’t matter whether she’d be “happier” if she’d indulged a bit in college.
We’re commanded not to so indulge. And I’m not budging on that, no matter what the hypothetical.
We’re also commanded not to commit adultery in our hearts, which to my mind, solves the issue of the “hasty horny marriage.”
We’re also advised not to be idiots. And I have a hard time thinking that a bit of sex in college would have improved her supposed judgement (or lack of it) one whit. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
I think you overestimate the improvement that age makes on people.
In scenario A, we have a hypothetically foolish woman who married unwisely.
In scenario B, we have a hypothetically foolish woman who slept around in college and may still marry unwisely.
Usually, people don’t change half as much throughout life as we would hope.
Comment by Seth R. — July 28, 2006 @ 7:29 pm
I saw a lot of this growing up in my small town. My friends or friends of friends would lose their virginity to their boyfriends/girlfriends, and instead of just repenting and stopping, they would get married. They believed you should be a virgin till marriage, and if you weren’t, then you’d better fix it by marrying whomever you lost your virginity to. As a result, I am one of the very very few that has yet to get married, and most already have children. I also saw a lot of the “let’s get married at 18 because we are virgins still but….it’s gettin’ hard to wait”. I think one way to fix it is to perhaps take the emphasis off of sex as this huge fun locked box that is opened up with marriage. Marriage is about much more than sex, it’s about companionship, mutual respect, creating children- honestly, sometimes I do think that those who think premarital sex is okay are much more likely to make a decision based on anything BUT sex when they get married, because sex has been had, what they want is a partner- *I STILL DON’T believe in premarital sex to be clear*. I just think that the way we teach about chastity reduces it to no marriage= no sex marriage=sex thoughts. I know that’s the truth, and I don’t pretend to know how to present it to youth differently, but it just seems that the two biggest things taught to youth are temple marriage and chastity, over and over again. They are very important, and if you are an active member obviously you should follow both guidelines, but if the other aspects of marriage were emphasized WITHOUT being in the context of a talk on chastity and no no no sex! and perhaps if there was less emphasis on securing that temple marriage, get married, hey, did we mention you should get married? oh, by the way, why aren’t you married? kind of culture, maybe more people would be okay accepting longer celibacy. They would be less likely freak out at 23 and marry the first person that came along if they didn’t think that marriage was the sole goal in life and there was an expiration date stamped on their back somewhere….
Comment by sophia*rising — July 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
pele,
Masturbation doesn’t solve the hormone impulse even one iota.
It almost always escalates. Low-level empty passion is never satisfied and will always seek to take it to the next level when indulged. It’s a temporary solution that brings no satisfaction and leaves the actor continually searching.
Comment by Seth R. — July 28, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
Well, perhaps sometime. But I am one of those people who did change and u-turn her life. I’m an adult convert. As a young woman, I cohabitated with two different boyfriends, and when dating, did as I pleased. One day I woke up and realized what horrendous mistakes I was making with my life, and changed.
Now, I am married to a preisthood holder, I hold a temple recommend, have three children and a very happy home. Sometimes the folly of youth is just that.
That said, and I know NO was make an argurment, I do think there were more than two options. However, I have to agree that breaking temple covennants seems to be a weightier sin, and as a child of divorce, breaking up a family even worse.
Had she chosen to have sex, she could have repented and gotten her life in order and made right with herself and the Lord- I did. However, broken promises to children and a husband and the Lord are way bigger than anything I would mess with.
You got that one right, Seth.
Comment by TracyM — July 28, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
Oh, and I also don’t plan on sharing the details of my early 20’s with my children….
Comment by TracyM — July 28, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
NO, here’s why I’m glad you won’t tell your daughter this. Being your daughter, she’ll clearly be competent, organized, and confident; she’ll very likely be able to pull off premarital sex without unintended pregnancies or diseases, risky behavior, or emotional casualties; very possibly, she’ll repent, marry the right guy at the right age, and go on to lead a happy life.
My daughter and your daughter might be best friends or roommates. My daughter, seeing the happy outcome of your daughter’s choices, might decide that she’s on to something good. But my daughter, being my daughter, will very likely be less competent, less organized, and less confident; she’ll be much more likely, therefore, to get pregnant or diseased, engage in risky behavior to please her partners, and waste years in dead-end relationships with them. Then, as a 28-year-old woman with a daughter of her own, a string of failed relationships, and an STD, she’s much, much less likely to achieve the happy outcome.
Social changes that benefit middle and upper class women are very often disastrous for their most vulnerable sisters.
Comment by Rosalynde — July 28, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
I will grant right up front that just about every member of the church would say that the church teaches that fornication is worse than a poorly made temple marriage. We certainly hear more about fornication from the pulpit. However, doctrinally, I would say that a poorly made hasty temple marriage is worthy of greater condemnation. When you’re sleeping around you’re breaking a straightforward commandment that is and always has been binding on you. When you enter a hasty temple marriage you are *seeking out* sacred covenants that you don’t really intend on keeping (because you haven’t considered what it is you are promising). Those sorts of things should not be taken lightly.
Comment by Starfoxy — July 28, 2006 @ 9:37 pm
A 28-yr-old single mom with a “string of failed relationships” and an STD is unlikely to marry an upper middle class guy, that’s true. But I don’t think that’s the definition of “happy outcome.” Working class guys are a lot more forgiving of more vulnerable sisters, and more accepting of the fact that people screw up and then step up to the plate to deal with the consequences. I’d rather marry one of them than a Mr. Middleclass Prissypants who can’t stomach the thought of his angel bride having been sullied before he ever met her, repentance or no.
Comment by Beijing — July 28, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
one more maybe off topic kind of thing- I think it’s important to remember that, until very very recently in human Christian history, marriage was NOT seen as a blessed way to celebrate normal sexual desires both sexes held. It was the blessed way to procreate. Women were expected not to enjoy sex and most of the time their premarital flings were seen as their weak base natures being taken advantage of (of course, they were still punished severely in those cases) they were there to take care of home and hearth and give the man legitimate children once they were married. Likewise, the man was expected to get his kicks most of the time extramaritally, be it with prostitutes, mistresses, or slave women. We’ve all read the quotes about prostitution being a necessary evil because it keeps good women pure for men. Religions that were just as strict on male virginity were noteworthy! This new way of approaching chastity- requiring it as stringently of men, while simultaneously finally realizing it is hard for women to control their desires- is so so new. We probably haven’t perfected a good way of teaching it- or, to be honest, living it.
Comment by sophia*rising — July 28, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
It seems to me that if the choice is between marrying a jerk and having pre-marital sex, there are deeper problems for someone to deal with. After all, if one would marry a loser because of a combination of fear of old age and a desire for sex, chances are that person would sleep with a similar type of person. And having pre-marital sex with that type of person will in no way make someone less likely to seek acceptance in that kind of relationship and, in fact, could very well lead to a non-temple marriage to said loser or one that is similar. Remember, satisyfing the one desire will not satiate the other desire — the desire to be married.
Comment by N.G. — July 28, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Oh my. I appreciate the level-headed and respectful attitudes you’ve all maintained, but I’m going to have skip all that and cut straight to pointing out how ridiculous this is.
First of all, hypotheticals are problematic. Lesser of two evils, yada yada yada. But the thing I can’t get past is how many of you just don’t get it. (And not just from this post - I think many conversations on FMH have this same issue.)
I can’t understand this need to always maintain one foot within “the Church” and one firmly planted in the world. Do you really think it’s a choice between marrying “the wrong guy” and having premarital sex? What rational woman would break the scenario down to those options. Or better yet, what devoted daughter of God… There are so many things wrong here.
About horniness: C’mon! Feminist of all people shouldn’t be stooping to that level. That has been a constant and major factor in the debasing of women throughout history. That’s not a valid reason for anything. (I don’t think anyone here would condone an unmarried man using single women to satiate his horniness while he waits for the right girl to come along.) SO, what “Nell” or any future daughter should be taught instead is to rise above physical appetites. Utilize her brain and her strength, along with the Lord, to overcome that. How awful to have this hypothetical based on the premise that she can’t control herself in the first place.
About marrying the “wrong guy”. It seems like there’s a quote somewhere from one of the prophets about how any man and any woman could be happily married so long as they’re both diligently following the Lord. I believe that. I also believe that to exchange husbands is to simply trade one set of problems for another. I think you can love anyone you want to love. And as for him being the at-fault jerk, I think people are capable of having a very significant effect on their spouses if they put forth the effort and are willing to act on selfless love. So perhaps “Nell” could choose to not give up on Jerk Face just yet. Perhaps she could meet him halfway and together they could resolve their problems, along with his jerkiness, bit by bit. If “Nell” thinks of her husband that she could have done better, than I’d say “Nell” got off track herself. In my world, you don’t think that of your husband.
If anyone’s interested, I married my husband at age 18, after a bit of fornication and a downward spiral away from the church. Not surprisingly we filed for divorce after two years - all the antidepressants in the world couldn’t save me from the darkness that crept in once the Spirit left, which happened when the fornication started… Our divorce was never finalized. We both found our way back to church after we had separated. Once we each realized the Church was true after all, we felt obligated to undo the divorce. I moved back in practically a stranger, but determined to make it work. Eight years later, I don’t have the words to express how much I love him. I can’t imagine a happier marriage and I am incapable of believing that a woman has ever loved her husband this much.
Comment by farrah — July 29, 2006 @ 12:32 am
That was Spencer W. Kimball, Farrah:
Comment by Mark Butler — July 29, 2006 @ 1:10 am
farrah (#23): Your opinions seem to be reasonably informed by your interesting life experiences. (As are everyone’s opinions, to one degree or other.) Having said that… (there’s always a “But..” isn’t there?)… the idealistic approach you take just doesn’t track for me.
“About horniness: C’mon! Feminist of all people shouldn’t be stooping to that level.” I could say the same thing about “gentlemen”, I guess. I try my best, of course, but I’m still a pretty “horny” individual. So is my wife. I’ve always tried to control my physical appetites, but I’ve never seen them as “stooping” to a “level”, nor have I ever considered my wife’s (or any other woman’s) natural physical appetites “debasing”. I’ve always seen them as healthy and human, something to be controlled and respected, for sure, but healthy and wonderful all the same. I guess I just don’t see anything wrong with “Nell” being “horny”.
As for the oft quoted notion that any man and woman could form a happy marriage if they diligently followed the Lord. Well, to this notion (not to “farrah”), I say: Gag Me! Frankly, I think this could be a potentially dangerous idea as it could lead some trusting and naive young man or women into a loveless marriage under the premise that it will all work out if the young man or woman “marry” him or herself to the Lord. In fact, I guarantee it has happened innumerable times. A couple’s commitment to the Lord is one variable necessary for a happy marriage, but it shouldn’t be given more priority (or worse, exclusive priority) over a dozen other necessary variables as suggested by this too-pat platitude.
Comment by Matt Thurston — July 29, 2006 @ 1:20 am
Ah hem,
Amen Matt.
I married too young. And at least part of the reason was due to the fact that I’m horny as heck. (yeah baby!) I’ve admitted as much in my HIstory. And as luck would have it, twelve years later, I’m in a rock solid marriage full of much joy and occational annoyances.
And what is my point, well I must have one. I think it is, that so much more than the actual choice itself, it the reaction to those choices that make the key difference. (As Rosalynde already opined)
But to go further with Rosalynde’s example, to the thinking of your average Mormon individual, I would have been a better example (than N.O.’s daugher) for Rosalynde’s daughter. Marry a squeeky clean RM, in the temple, live happily ever after. But the hard fact of the matter is, that of my friends who married as young (or younger) than myself (a lot of them) almost all in very difficult, even disasterous situations.
So had Rosalynde’s daugher been my roommate (and followed my comparitively good example) rather than Not Ophelia’s, I can’t say that her situation would have improved.
I made bad choices (at least on paper, but with luck and hard work and competence) it turned out okay. Rosalynde’s incompetant daughter would have turned the whole thing into a blazing fiasco.
And another thing to consider, how much do roommates (or perfect example) really protect Rosalynde’s less competent, less organized, and less confident daughter? Some, I’m sure, but how much? And how much are we willing restrict the behavior of Not Ophelia’s competent daughers to protect Rosalynde’s flake? And how much good/harm does it actually do?
Comment by fMhLisa — July 29, 2006 @ 2:58 am
I said it before and I’ll say it again, I think that kids need to be taught how to have a solo sexual experience in Sex Ed class.
Comment by Former Surgeon General Elders — July 29, 2006 @ 4:50 am
LL
That is an excellent point.
I got my bachelors from CalState L.A., which at the time had 1/3 traditional students and 1/3 older students (and 1/3 inbetween) and I saw a lot of people burned out from the emotional wrenching that went with multiple partners over time.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 29, 2006 @ 5:43 am
I dont think older adolescents should be having sex OR getting married. But if masturbation or protectected sex is going to help a 33 year old single feel a sense of fulfilment and satisfaction, isnt that better than hastily marrying the 2ng guy to finally come along? Scrupulously denying oneself ANY sexuality including masturbation, can be just as harmful as marrying a near stranger for lawful sex.
Comment by jj — July 29, 2006 @ 6:17 am
I’m with jj.
The Church often treats singles of all ages (18-100+) like children who are going to make horrible mistakes and ruin their lives–children who need to be protected; children who don’t have sex drives and should be able to remain celibate for decades if no Prince Charming swoops them up.
These things should be determined by maturity–not age or marital status.
Comment by None for this post — July 29, 2006 @ 6:39 am
To those of you that asked — yes, there are [of course] more choices than just ‘bad marriage’ and ‘pre-marital sex.’ I think I made it pretty plain from my original post:
Perhaps I might clarify things a bit by pointing out the obvious — how personality factors in to all of this.
Those of who aren’t an only child raising an only child undoubtedly know that kids raised in the same family, under nearly identical circumstances can turn out completely differently. Nell was raised in a good LDS home, she was taught the gospel, she was loved. I’m pretty sure she belives strongly in the law of chastity. OTOH, her siblings [rasied pretty much the same way] didn’t have her reaction to the marry-young-or-else-you’ll-end-up-unloved-and- die-alone-as-a-virgin subtext that one can find in LDS/BYU culture. They found other answers and other solutions. Maybe Nell could have as well. But the thing is she didn’t — a quick, incompatible marriage was her solution.
So perhaps those two alternatives were all she could see. Perhaps the one she chose was better [for her] than the alternative. Perhaps she’d never have turned her life around. Perhaps she’d have ended up like Rosalynde’s nightmare. Perhaps emotional hell on earth is her pathway to the CK [although that sounds a bit too medieval for my taste.]
But as a parent, I worry about my kids and I want the problems they chose freely and stupidly, or stumble into blindly to be fixable problems. Nell has decided to stick it out and make the best of a bad decision, even though that decision will haunt her the rest of her life.
But my point was [yes, for discussion’s sake] would a different bad decision have left her with better options?
Comment by not ophelia — July 29, 2006 @ 8:20 am
Masturbation and protected unmarital sex will not help ayone feel a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction, at least not one that lasts for long.
In the Non-Mormon world, people still have to exercise control over hormones, despite the fact that pre-marital sex is culturally acceptable, even applauded.
Because sex is still USUALLY reserved for monogomous relationships, and those only come along ever so often.
OK, college partying is an exception, maybe. But most women who go ahead and have sex whenever they feel like it (and I’m not being prejudiced when I say women, because I think men are held to a different standard) are labeled, well, hussies for lack of a more astringent term. And so women are motivated to save themselves to a certain degree, no matter the cultural acceptance of premarital relations.
So horniness… not an excuse… and one or two sexual experiences (ok, or even 10 or 20) are not going to significantly reduce a sexual drive.
True, masturbation could to a degree, but… well, that’s addictive and empty, as I discovered in the case of my dear X. So it is best avoided if possible.
So really, the choice thing has no premise… just be wise and don’t make decisions based on hormones. That means, listen to your freinds and mom and see what they say about Him, be willing to re-examine even in the face of horniness, and pray and wait for your answer. I know plenty of women who managed those things just fine..
I also find it a tad debasing to be reduced to the level of uncontrollable horniness, and I’m sure just about any person would feel likewhise.
interesting discussion, thanks.
Comment by nosurfgirl — July 29, 2006 @ 8:32 am
Pele #5
Well, as I sure you know the cultural expectation is very different here. I can speak from my own experience that celibacy at the right time from choice/obedience [not desperation] gave me a closenss to the spirit I wouldn’t otherwise have had.
Sleeping around before marriage wasn’t something I would/could even have contemplated. Alien to my upbringing and my personality and my spirit.
[Likewise for early and/or hormone-induced marriage. I have other sins and faults to battle . . . ]
N.O.
Comment by not ophelia — July 29, 2006 @ 8:33 am
I have a friend in a similar problem as NO’s cousin. My friend had premarital sex. She hadn’t planned on it and was very young but it happened one “steamy night”. The shame she felt drove her to marry. They weren’t able to marry in the temple obviously. I never liked her husband… he hasn’t graduated from high school, he is a theif, he told my friend he had a testimony but since they day they were married he hasn’t stepped foot in a church of any kind, and he is cheating on my friend. They were too young but felt like they had to get married because they had sex and now he is realizing he loves someone else. Also to talk about what someone said about the Kimball quote… you’re perfectly right, if BOTH parties are willing to work it out, it can. But in my friends case, she has beat herself up and changed every little thing he said he didn’t like about her, yet he is still sleeping with another women. My friend has heard that quote and is convinced that she should wait out what he calls “break from marriage”(!?!) and then they will live happily ever after.
I, on the other hand, had plenty ‘o sex before I got married and was with great guys and big losers. I have a WONDERFUL temple marriage with a guy that doesn’t care about my past sex. We didn’t have sex before we were married and I think having had sex before, it took the edge off of waiting because I knew what we were so excited about (sex) was great fun, but not everything. My friend is afraid if she gets divorced no guy will like her because she’s had sex before. I think the idea that men won’t want us because we’ve had sex is an idea that we women bring on ourselves (usually). At least in my case it was. I was scared to death to tell my then fiancee that I wasn’t a virgin.
All that said, I hope my kids never have sex before they are married. There is not black and white…
Comment by Lyndsey — July 29, 2006 @ 9:15 am
Why it AOK for an 18 year old to marry, sleep with and procreate with someone she barely loves and hardly knows, just because of a ceremony? Yet a single friend of mine was exd for having sex for the 1st and only time in her life at age 41.
Comment by jj — July 29, 2006 @ 10:38 am
jj-
I have a hard time understanding excommunication on any grounds. It doesn’t really seem very forgiving or productive to me, and seems to alienate when someone needs support the most. So, I’m confused by your friend’s situation, but the whole concept is confusing to me in general. I hope your friend is coping well with all of it.
Comment by sophia*rising — July 29, 2006 @ 11:04 am
JJ … the current standards (almost a decade old) would not ex someone for having sex once.
“Micronesia” … sounds like Coming of Age in Somoa, uncovered as a complete fabrication, though the author’s reputation, built on that, was not harmed by the disclosure.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 29, 2006 @ 11:45 am
There’s the assumption here that marriage should not be based upon sexual attraction, but I have to say that marriage without sexual attraction has got to be a sad, sad state!
That said, I am going to cast my vote with the pro-premarital sex crowd. I have thought many times that much misery in Mormon marriage could be sidestepped if we were more permissive and much less uptight about premarital sex. The argument that premarital sex causes more heartache than it solves doesn’t really work for me: Rape, abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy…all of that happens within marriage as often as it happens outside of it, but within marriage, it is much more difficult for the victim to get away from her abuser because he’s her husband.
By saying that sex outside of marriage=sin, we save ourselves from having to think about sexuality–or about marriage–in any complicated way. But plenty of parents in the world successfully do teach their children to be responsible about premarital sex. Would it be possible, though, for the Church? We love absolutes; although an informed, thoughtful, responsible sexuality that permits sex before marriage might be instrumental in producing happier and more responsible marriages, I don’t see the Church ever deviating from its sexual absolutes; the greater sin will always be premarital sex, and miserable marriages will continue to be not simply the lesser of two evils, but very often the norm.
Comment by Sonnet — July 29, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Anyone have any evidence that having pre-martal sex makes you more able to choose a good marriage partner?
If “Nell” felt pressure to hurry up and marry for sex and because thats what those around her did, should would have been in the same boat if she was 35, having sex, non-mormon and unmarried. She would look around and think she’d better hurry up and marry or it will be too late.
The thing is, she had her choice. There were other guys around who were not jerks, but she didn’t choose to marry one of them. She married the loser she was dating.
If she’d was sexually active and 35, she would probably marry the loser she was dating at the time and who asked her to marry her because that is the type of person she is.
She wanted to get married and wasn’t picky about the guy. Or she wanted to get married and didn’t understand how to choose a guy.
Maybe at 35 she might have been a little wiser, but not significantly. She would have been the same person.
Let’s face it, she’s married the man and continued to sleep with him and have children with him. Obviously she was sleeping with him and still thought he was good enough to continue to share her life by having MORE of his children.
Even if I were married to a jerk and felt I should stay with him, I wouldn’t choose to have kids with a jerk for a father. So what does that say about her overall decision making ability?
My final verdict: sleeping with him doesn’t get him out of her system. Pre-marital sex would not have solved this problem.
Comment by jks — July 29, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Overall, I’d say this is a self-esteem issue. She didn’t, and doesn’t, think she deserves better.
And we wonder how women end up in abusive relationships. She isn’t that far away from that sort of situation.
Comment by jks — July 29, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Anyone have any evidence that having pre-martal sex makes you more able to choose a good marriage partner?
Well, the evidence is that pre-marital sex results in a higher divorce rate, for whatever conclusions you can draw from that.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 29, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Interesting discussion. Here’s my two cents: Nell decides to have the premarital sex and what does she find out? She finds out (like a majority of women) that losing her virginity is an uncomfortable experience and that it takes some time for sex to become pleasurable. Where is she now? She has now broken the law of chastity (probably with a jerkface), is probably riddled with guilt, and hasn’t had any fun in the process.
Doesn’t sound like a win-win situation to me. Of course neither does being married to jerkface and all the misery that might bring with it.
Let’s throw a third option up there; single and celibate. Maybe not a win-win situation either but if I to pick one of the 3 options and the trials that come with each one I’d bet on the third one hands down.
Comment by kaki — July 29, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
JKS–In response to your question: Does anyone have any evidence that premarital sex makes you more able to choose a good marriage partner?
I definitely do not have evidence, but as I think about typical Mormon marriages, it seems to me that most are characterized by haste and by extreme youth, for a number of reasons that I probably don’t need to enumerate. It has always seemed strange to me that the Church condones and encourages quick, young marriages, because these circumstances do not seem to be ideal, especially considering that we profess to take marriage seriously, and we believe it is an eternal state. Ideally, I think that marriage–especially eternal marriage–should be a serious commitment that we engage only with someone we know well, trust, and love. If we professed a responsible sexuality that was not limited to marriage, I think that more people would be inclined to take time before rushing into marriage in order to make sure that their decision is a wise one. Of course, I do not have statistics to back this up (but neither does anyone else, really); but the ample counterexamples of hasty marriages that surround all of us do not promote young, quick marriages as a wise alternative.
Of course, I am setting up a false dichotomy: We are not limited to quick (yet chaste) marriages on the one hand and thoughtful, prolongued relationships that include premarital sex on the other hand. I think that many people do take marriage seriously, take time to get to know one another beforehand, and abstain from sex before marriage. Yet in the Church, I think that there are more examples by far of young, hasty, and regrettable marriages.
JKS, you describe “Nell” as having an infinite number of choices available to her; NO pointed out earlier that “Nell” felt as if she had no other choices. Although we construct marriage as a choice in the Church, I do not believe that it is a choice at all, especially for young woman: If we want to achieve exaltation, we marry whomever comes along, and hope for the best. I know that I am being reductive here, but truly, young women do not have their choice of any man in the Church…if they have any choice at all, it is from a very small pool, and the choice to remain single is not *truly* an option, either. I personally believe that I married too young and too quickly, like several of you have also mentioned, but I have been fortunate that the person who came along, and whom I married is wonderful. I don’t think everyone is that fortunate. So…I’m still in the premarital sex camp, especially if it enables our youth–especially our young women–to take time and to look before they leap.
Comment by Sonnet — July 29, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Pre-marital sex would have had it’s own negative repercussions. Both have led to an equally ugly place. Yes she could have repented but so too could she work on her marriage. People are not jerk faces and non jerk faces, they are a strange complex make up of the two. If they are both willing a bad marriage can be resolved. And here is what i have to say about Divorce (abuse excluded). We each bring our own personality glitches to a marriage. To suggest that problems created in part by ourselves will go away, simply by switching partners is a fallacy. I am sure that Nell is not 100% innocent. And i plan to teach my boys this. 1st love your self!!!!! 2nd Choose carefully your love then love fully your choice.
Comment by Tasha — July 29, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
I haven’t read all the comments, so I apologize if someone has already said this, but since when does “sleeping around” make someone happy. I think what your sister probably craved was the affection and intimacy that would come with a good marriage… Sleeping around would not have gotten her this.
Comment by GInger — July 29, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
Stephen, the “author” of coming of age in Micronesia was my friend, the Micronesian, who experienced the Love Shack. OK, I wasn’t there. Heck, maybe she’s really pulling my leg. However, As Hamlet said,
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Comment by pele — July 29, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
I think the OP ignores all the emotional baggage that goes along with pre-marital sex. Sex isn’t something that most people can just chalk up to experience and then shrug off, especially if they’ve been raised in the Church. Ginger (45) has a good point - Nell was probably craving emotional intimacy more than sex. Having pre-marital sex would have betrayed her own deepest longings, same as getting into a bad marriage has. She wouldn’t have been any happier searching for emotional intimacy in a bunch of extra-marital relationships than in one marital relationship with a jerkface.
And kaki (42) had a good point too - she probably wouldn’t have had much fun in extra-marital relationships.
Here’s a thought: next time y’all teach the law of chastity to teenage girls, tell them that, for many females, sex really hurts the first times and they’d be better off waiting for a husband who’s willing to make a long-term commitment and be patient on the honeymoon, then throw away sex on an over-eager boyfriend who’s going to rush things and hurt you because he’s afraid you’ll change your mind if he doesn’t hurry.
That is an amazingly cynical statement. I disagree. There’s probably less of that treatment in a marriage than in a live-in relationship.
My experience has been exactly the opposite from the ideas suggested here. I’ve never thought the Church encouraged quick, thoughtless, young marriages. On the contrary, I’ve always heard the seriousness of the marriage covenant stressed, and singles encouraged to be thoughtful and prayerful about making a commitment as serious as marriage.
Sex confuses peoples’ emotions. I think pre-marital sex in a relationship would be just as likely to lead to a stupid marriage as rushing into marriage for the sake of sex. You don’t get all rational and mature just because you’ve thrown sex into your dating life. You’re probably less likely to make a rational decision if you’re having sex with your boyfriend because you’re going to confuse your hormones for your emotions.
Of course, you can confuse your hormones for your emotions in a celibate dating relationship too.
Sounds like the solution is to get your hormones under control before deciding to have sex or to get married.
Self-control. You’ll make stupid decisions that make you miserable without it.
Comment by Melinda — July 29, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
The more I read the Bloggernacle, the more I’m afraid I have my to pull my daughter from the YW program and let my wife “home school” her.
I’d be appalled if I knew her YW advisors would encourage their children, when faced with this set of hypotheticals, to pick the sin and hope for the best.
Comment by queuno — July 29, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Melinda (47) is right– the Church does NOT condone quick hormonal marriages. Every GA who talks on the subject recommends dating for a long time and then being engaged for a short time. It’s the church culture that rewards 18 year old first semester freshman girls for snagging diamond from the first hormonal RM she sees.
I also don’t think Nell realized her 3rd choice–to stay single celibate. This is absolutely a cultural/self-esteem issue. Once you are an adult, our culture dictates that your value correlates directly with the productivity of your womb. A friend in my ward married within a few weeks of me, and our oldest kids are a month apart. I have 2, she just had her 5th. While I get the occasional, “Isn’t it about time you…?” questions, she is roundly praised. But I digress. Neither of the options NO brought up should have been viable options for a smart, educated girl, but if she believed that marriage was the only thing left for her to accomplish, it’s not surprising she ended up where she did. Until she believes she is worthy of more, any man who could take her to the temple would do for her purposes.
This is why it’s so important, when I talk to my girls about sex, that I not just get into the biology, but tell them that their value is on no way associated with having sex or having kids. While mainstream society celebrates sex, ours celebrates the result thereof.
Comment by Juli — July 29, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
Speaking as one of the Nells of the world (sort of; I was an old maid until I was 26, a painfully long time in this culture, though thankfully my DH has not turned out to be a jerkface), I sympathize with the fear of not being wanted. Ever.
You say she had her choice, but I say if that’s your reality, lucky you! Some of us simply don’t have the choice of a lovely harem of men, worthy or otherwise, to choose from amongst. Some of us — for whatever quirks of personality or circumstance — couldn’t buy, beg, or borrow a date for Saturday night, much less a proposal or two or three and by that a “choice” in any meaningful sense of the word.
Geez, this makes me sound pathetic, doesn’t it? LOL. Oh well.
I don’t know what the answer is in the contest of bad choices. I think either could end up equally disasterously. I think that what would really help the Nells of the world — and what would have helped me — would be a ginormous cultural shift away from the emphasis on marriage as the be-all, end-all to existence. I don’t suggest any doctrinal changes, because obviously celestial marriage is extremely important (and because God says so, so there). But we’ve been reassured that those who don’t have the opportunity to be married won’t be cheated for their lack; why continue to beat up (however subtly or unintentionally) on all the singles of the church — imply that it’s their fault they never had a harem, and gee maybe they should marry the first or only jerkface who ever asks just so they can hitch a ride to the CK?
I hate that nobody bats an eye in this culture when talking about 23-year-old “spinsters.” That’s just sick. I’ve got two toddler daughters and, while I can’t change the entire culture of the church, I can and will work my hardest to (a) instill in them a sense of their truth worth regardless of their relationship status and (b) debunk the romanticized fairy-tale notions of sex/marriage as the answers to everything (or to anything while they’re still teenagers, lol!). I’d hate for my girls to think that a crappy marriage vs. premarital sex were the best options for a bad life simply because they weren’t married by 23 (or 33 or 43…).
Comment by RCH — July 29, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
Sonnet wins my just-invented Smart Woman of the Bloggernacle award for her comments on this and other recent FMH threads. I heartily concur with her assertion that as much Bad Stuff happens within marriage, as it does outside of it. And, as she so astutely points out, when you’re married, you’re tied to the person legally.
One thing I don’t see being discussed here is the impact socioeconomic status has on all of these issues. And it’s clear that there are many commenters here that are smart enough, and educated enough, to not be ‘accidentally’ overlooking this variable in a topic that otherwise devolves into an emotional tug-of-war of Good vs. Evil, availability heuristics, and testimony bearing. It is my guess, based on very old data that still resides somewhere in my tired brain, that the effects of ‘premarital sex’ or ‘cohabitation’ on most if not all ‘negative’ outcomes, would be reduced or disappear if SES were controlled for.
Comment by RE — July 30, 2006 @ 7:41 am
What strikes me about this thread is that there is a distinct feeling among Church members that:
1. Unmarried people should not have a sex drive, or are evil for having one and desiring sex (i.e. that desire should be repented of). It is also wrong for unmarried people to explore their own bodies through masturbation.
2. Unmarried people should not have sex, no matter how old they are, what their circumstances are, whether they are pre-/post-menopausal, mature, etc.
3. Married people, no matter how old they are, if they love their spouses, if they even wanted to marry their spouses, can have sex as much as they want. Even separated and divorced couples can have sex as long as the ink isn’t dry on their divorce papers. Engaged couples can’t have sex the day before the wedding (couples who love each other and are about to pledge their love), but feuding couples about to wreck a home can have sex till the cows come home or at least until the divorce is final.
Doesn’t this sound absurd to anyone else? Must things really be so black and white? People are people, whether they are married are not. Human beings have needs and desires that should be attended to.
Not all pre-marital encounters result in disease, despair, unplanned pregnancy or even shame.
I fear that black and white condemnations of outside sexual relations (for gay and straight people) will do a number of things:
1. Alienate those who for whatever reason have “made the mistake” of non-marital sex (i.e. NOT adultery, but unmarried sex), whether that person was a member or not at the time; no matter the age, maturity, or other needs.
2. Create assumptions in the minds of youth such as “everyone who isn’t married, for whatever reason they aren’t married, should be able to control the urge for sexual release and shouldn’t desire or experience anything more than platonic friendship from the opposite sex until death.” These assumptions create fear-based thinking that could lead to early marriage, marriage because of sex, or disdain for the unmarried losers who either don’t get to have sex, or are detestable sinners because they dare to act on their sexual feelings.
3. Create assumptions that everyone outside the Church is who is unmarried is swinging off the chandeliers and ruining their lives.
3.
Comment by Mary Alice — July 30, 2006 @ 7:56 am
And LOL it doesn’t always hurt the first time! That’s an awful thing to tell YW–more scare tactics.
BTW–I was 37 and married when I “lost my virginity.” I do believe that people should and do have CHOICES, though.
Comment by Mary Alice — July 30, 2006 @ 8:03 am
Like others, I think N.O. has set up a false dichotomy. There are bigger issues to address if someone thinks their only options are marrying someone undesireable versus breaking the law of chastity.
The first thing I thought of was “become the right person.” Not fulfilling your current potential is one way of attracting the wrong kinds of people. Wasn’t “become the right person first, then you will find the right person” a theme of a recent conference talk or CES fireside?
Emotional problems, self-esteem issues and eating disorders are some common things that I see preventing people from becoming the right person. It’s frustrating to listen to some people complain that they can’t find the right person, when it’s so obvious that they have “deal killer” type problems themselves that they are not willing to admit, let alone work on to correct.
The second biggest thing that I see that prevents singles from finding worthy dates/mates is an unwillingness to do a little travel. Many people assume they shouldn’t go out of their city, thereby limiting themselves to their own ward or stake. LDS dating web sites can often provide a pool of prospects within traveling distance.
The third biggest source of impediments to singles getting married to the right person is the unreasonable expectations imposed on many by some aspects of the LDS culture. Many hurtful comments and questions are directed towards singles over the age of 25 from married members. Not all “deal killer” type problems are obvious. And the underlying problems, or causes of those problems are generally not the kinds of things one should discuss in casual conversation.
The fourth common problem that I see is single people just giving up and withdrawing as much as possible from social activity in the church. They’ll attend Sunday meetings, do some HT/VT-ing, do their calling, and that’s it. They don’t travel, they don’t get on the LDS dating web sites, and they avoid all church-sponsored singles events.
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
It is a false dichotomy to an extent, but the bigger question–marry (or hold out for) a temple-worthy “jerk” versus marrying a non-member or non-temple worthy guy–is still valid. I actually started posting anonymously after saying some really nasty things on this topic on an LDS blog long ago. Essentially I said that I would much rather see my daughter(s) [no kids yet] marry good men who are not members rather than “hold out” for something that they may not get.
This is of particular concern to me because I had planned to adopt children of a certain ethnic minority, and I was concerned that they may not find males in the Church willing to date them, let alone marry them in the temple. The response that drove me “underground” was something along the lines of, “You’re a poor example for even thinking that you shouldn’t counsel your daughters to marry in the temple. Why, I knew a sister [of said minority] who was absolutely miserable in the singles ward, nobody would date her, but she kept praying and praying. Finally, one day, a new convert from [minority nation of origin] moved to the ward, and they got married!”
I said some nasty, nasty things in response that convinced me that posting anonymously was a good idea, and I stand by it. God will favor a marriage between two good people over a priesthood sealing full of unrighteous dominion or abuse.
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Oh, and forgot to add: “And Heavenly Father’s plan for his daughters does not include requiring them to wait for a righteous man of the appropriate ethnicity to marry them when the local priesthood holders won’t give them a second look.”
Comment by Anon — July 30, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Either way, you’re screwed (pun intended, heh). But if you’ve come to a place where you really feel you are going to go one way or the other, I think violating your chasity, although it sounds worse, is potentially safer on your wellbeing then just up and marrying someone. It’s like, which would you do? Steal a car from a lot to get out of a serious natural disaster, or decide to walk away from it without any assurance you can make it in time?
Comment by Hot Texas Mama — July 30, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
And I know these aren’t the only two options, but sometimes a person comes to the point, for whatever personal reason, good or perhaps bad, where they’ve decided they are going to do one thing or the other.
Comment by Hot Texas Mama — July 30, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
I was referring to Margaret Mead’s book, which is extremely close to your friend’s comments. It turned out they were pulling her leg. She sold a lot of copies of her book, built a very powerful reputation, and is still called upon as a talking head pundit on the strength of the book.
May be that your friend’s corner of Micronesia is different from Somoa …
Anyway, the statistical data we have is that pre-marital sex and cohabitation make for weaker marriages rather than stronger ones, for whatever that is worth.
Mary Alice I had a friend who was getting divorced and he definitely felt it meant an end to sex, not to mention, in most states if you are still having sex the Judge won’t grant your divorce. You have to have quit sixty or so days before the final hearing.
On the other hand, the scriptures are pretty clear that when God has forgiven people, we should not call their sins to mind.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — July 30, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Anon–I don’t know where you live, but when I was in the inner city ward in St. Louis the white boys seemed to have no problem dating and marrying the black girls. It was a non-issue. Any guy that would have a problem marrying a minority woman isn’t worth a white woman’s time, either. Bleah. If they’re racist, they aren’t worthy. Period.
Comment by janet — July 30, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
I can agree with that. But there are still more options.
But I’m still wondering how and why women in the church feel like they are expected or required to or need to marry jerks. I’m currently unable to comprehend why some women see marriage to a jerk-face (even a temple wedding to a jerk-face) better than remaining single.
There are rules and there are exceptions. The “rule” (for both men and women) in the church is to be temple-worthy and hold out for a wedding in the temple with a righteous and marriage-worthy spouse. As Elder Oaks recently said, exceptions are up to the individual, and are between the individual and the Lord.
Sometimes marrying a non-member works out. But, my observation is that more than 50% of the time, marrying a non-member means the member goes inactive and the children are raised outside of the church. Even in those part-member marriages where the member stays active, over 50% of the time, the non-member never joins the church.
I’d add a third choice to the “marry a jerk in the temple, or marry a nice non-member” question. Remaining single and active in the church is a viable option. Something that I always understood, but is now being voiced more often is: “Those who remain single through no fault of their own will not be denied any blessings.” It has surprised me that so many people don’t understand that. I’ve known people who (erroneously) thought that by marrying outside of the church they still had a good shot at exaltation, but by remaining single they would lose all chances. I always thought it was the other way around, and that one has a better chance at exaltation by remaining temple-worthy and single than by marrying a non-member.
Back to the Spencer Kimball quote about any “good” LDS man and “good” LDS woman being able to have a happy celestial marriage if they are “willing to pay the price”, I’d say that what Spencer Kimball called a “good” person, you and I would call a “perfect” person. Also, most of us are not willing to pay any price that might come from having a “good but mismatched” spouse.
Spencer Kimball also talked about being equally yoked or matched. He said Catholics should marry Catholics, Jews should marry Jews, Protestants should marry Protestants, and Mormons should marry Mormons. I’d go further to say that active temple-rec holding LDS should marry active temple-rec holding LDS and lukewarm LDS should marry other lukewarm LDS.
I’ve seen no problem with interracial dating and marriage in my neck of the woods (Mid-western state, east of the Mississippi). Non-caucasian members of the church who take care of themselves and make themselves presentable have no problem finding dates/mates around here based on their ethnicity or skin color.
Comment by Same as Anon #54. — July 30, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
Stephen M, I’m not talking about the law of the land–after all, laws are different in many parts of this land and in many other lands. The Church, and presumably, the Lord, doesn’t care if people stop having sex six months before the divorce decree (and in most cases how can the couple know exactly when the divorce will be granted)? Give me a break. I think you’re trying to dodge the very salient points I raised.
Comment by Mary Alice — July 30, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
A friend of mine linked me to this discussion. She said it was like watching a car wreck. I have to agree that the whole discussion has been excruciatingly tragic and only morbid curiosity made me read through all the comments. I can only hope that this article was written for cheap shock factor to get a discussion going. It is unfathomable to me that an actual mother would think that fornication is an acceptable alternative (for her child) to holding out for a worthy mate.
From reading the comments I know that nothing I say will make absolutely no difference to the people I wish it would. (I’m glad that a good number of commenters didn’t share the misguided view) But for some reason I feel compelled anyway…
“The Church” is not run by a bunch of out of touch old men. The doctrine is not out of date. We are lead by our Savior through a prophet who holds all the keys to the priesthood. I know that the prophet is aware of all the evils that plague our society. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING that can’t be borne with the Savior in our lives. There is no scenario you can concoct where sin will be acceptable to the Lord because there is no weakness or despair he doesn’t understand. We all have access to Him through the atonement. I know this is true. I hope most Latter Day Saints know it is true. So “The Church’s” stand on fornication, masturbation, excommunication=The Lord’s stand on them. If you don’t understand why I suggest you ask Him yourself.
Comment by Jessica — July 30, 2006 @ 10:37 pm
“Non-caucasian members of the church who take care of themselves and make themselves presentable have no problem finding dates/mates around here based on their ethnicity or skin color.”
Is it just me, or is that a weird statement? I can’t figure out exactly what disturbs me. But it rubs me the wrong way.
Comment by Kerri — July 30, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
It caught me a bit off, too.
Comment by TracyM — July 31, 2006 @ 12:35 am
Jessica, I think most of us dearly believe you are right about Christ’s empathy; He has felt every possible temptation and despair. But the point of that experience, as I understand it, wasn’t so much that He could then stand around condeming us, but that He could offer the alternative to concemnation. Maybe I just misread your wording, but it sounded as though you were saying Christ’s empathy renders Him less, rather than more, understanding of our foibles. I agree that no sin is “acceptable,” but most are forgiveable. I imagine fornication is always a sin when commited by someone who truly knows it is wrong, just as I imagine marrying the wrong person out of desperation or hormonal drives is a sin. Jesus can comfort someone after both, and lead them to spiritual grace just as He would with someone who believes they are in better standing because they haven’t commited sexual sin. We all sin. We all require the atonement. I think the question here was more of a hypothetical, “which sin is worse in terms of its potential to wreck the remainder of a person’s life.”
Personally, I’d rather have a child fornicate while using birth control than marry an abusive jerk and bring children into a highly disfuctional family. What I’d prefer to both of those, of course, is that my future children find a lovely soul-mate with whom they share their faith, and wait until the wedding night.
Comment by janet — July 31, 2006 @ 1:44 am
sorry to drag this out again…it seems odd that this “author” waited to challenge Margaret Mead AFTER she died. And, isn’t it interesting that this “author” found that ALL of those women lied to her?
I smell a rat, and an axe to grind. I won’t go into why, but it may have to do with how female sexual freedom makes a lot of caucasian folks queasy.
Interesting my friend who grew up there decided to lie to me, too. Hmmm. Someone should do a study on the women who Lie in that part of the world, not Lay, so to speak.
I don’t question her earlier work, but this posthumous work could be suspicious. If you hear of any posthumous punditry by Margaret Mead, please notify. I’d be curious about that.
Comment by pele — July 31, 2006 @ 2:12 am
THIS:
“Unmarried people should not have sex, no matter how old they are, what their circumstances are, whether they are pre-/post-menopausal, mature, etc.”
PLUS THIS:
“It’s frustrating to listen to some people complain that they can’t find the right person, when it’s so obvious that they have “deal killer” type problems themselves that they are not willing to admit, let alone work on to correct.”
EQUALS THIS:
“…single people just giving up and withdrawing as much as possible from social activity in the church.”
I’d be interested in what righteous LDS consider ‘deal killer’-type problems. And, I wonder how some singles get the idea that they’re not ‘good enough’ to get married - as though one has to be ‘good enough’ to win the right to achieve matrimony…?
And for the record, I think married LDS people, particularly those who married quite young (NB 21-year-old brides telling singles what’s ‘wrong’ with them [ie, they’re too desperate]), are more likely to suffer from personality foreclosure and narrowed worldviews, as well as to both pity and blame single people for their single status, without having a *clue* about what it’s like to be a single *adult*.
Comment by RE — July 31, 2006 @ 3:51 am
PS - Are married people somehow exempt from “‘deal-killer’ type problems that they are not williing to admit, let alone work on to correct”??
Note: This is not directed primarily at the commenter who used this language - and in the first place, I’ve no clue whether they’re married or single (not that it matters for this discussion). Rather, I think this line of thought is well represented amongst Mormons in general, so I’m using it as the closest example of this type of thinking - NOT just lambasting the person who said it here.
Comment by RE — July 31, 2006 @ 4:03 am
I can’t decide if comments like these indicate deliberate or innate obtuseness.
And thank you Janet for this:
NO
Comment by not ophelia — July 31, 2006 @ 7:11 am
RE–thank you very much! (#51) And to your equation in #68, I would add, too, that the prevailing opinion that every single Mormon should just “control themselves” (even though married people do not have to) plus the assumption that singles must have some kind of “deal killer” also yields marriage to the first thing that comes along…we’re right back to NO’s first suggestion: that single women in the church–even young, lovely, promising, talented ones–sense these attitudes toward remaining single and make bad decisions in order to avoid it like the plague, even at 19, 20, 21 years old. I remember that I felt like a spinster at 19…
NO and Emily–thank you very much for these discussions. I have been thinking about these kinds of questions for years, and I firmly believe that we don’t discuss the realities of marriage nearly enough…especially not in church. Many here assume that women who have premarital sex experience some kind of emotional trauma that their “chaste” sisters are spared, but the trauma that is completely invisible in the church is the heartache and confusion that young women experience because they were inadequately prepared for their temple marriages. So thanks to you both for giving us the chance to start to talk about this clearly volatile issue.
Comment by Sonnet — July 31, 2006 @ 7:35 am
Very, very wise post, NO. I was thinking about this very thing the other day and I concur with your conclusion.
Comment by annegb — July 31, 2006 @ 7:47 am
“The Church” is not run by a bunch of out of touch old men.
Yes it is.
Comment by Ann — July 31, 2006 @ 8:15 am
Amen to that, Ann.
I have a question - I’m not a regular contributor to this board, nor do I read it all that often. But when I do, I’m often impressed by some of the very good comments I read here.
I would love to issue a challenge to you smart FMH women: Start a whole thread about women and their roles in the church, and their place in life generally from the church’s view. In this thread, the words wife, mother, motherhood, babies, children, or any other related terms must be totally off-limits. In other words, only women’s roles as *people* would be discussed. Can/would you do it? And if you already have, can you point me to it?
Comment by RE — July 31, 2006 @ 8:43 am
#60 and #61: Glad to hear that at least in some places, interracial dating and marriage have become non-issues. In Utah and in my previous Midwestern home it was a very big deal–although I shouldn’t be surprised at anything that happens in Utah, and also remember not to conflate “Utahisms” with “the Restored Gospel in general.”
If true colorblindness really has hit our Church within the 20-ish years it’ll take for us to have kids and for them to come of age, then by all means I will encourage them to marry within the Church/Temple as a priority. I truly hope that happens!
Comment by Anon — July 31, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Perhaps this thread is a good reason for us to remember the importance of giving our daughters opportunities to develop talents and self esteem. We can teach our daughters the importance of getting a good education and encourage them to set goals to graduate from college.
My 19 year old daughter is already feeling very left out as so many of her friends have already gotten married after short courtships. I spend a lot of time with her talking about how important this time in her life is. She will never get this time back. It is HER time to discover who she is and what she wants from life and a mate.
I got married at the ripe old age of 25. Utah Mormon culture told me that I was already an old maid. While my friends back in Virginia wondered what in the worldI was doing getting married so young.
Comment by Tammy — July 31, 2006 @ 10:53 am
The implication is that non-caucasian members who aren’t dating must have problems with basic hygiene, or something. Furthermore, by specifically referring to “non-caucasian” members, it’s also implied that caucasian members either don’t have problems in this area, or that it’s less of an impediment to dating, if they do.
If that’s not what the original author meant to imply, the statement could have been better phrased, I think.
Comment by Katya — July 31, 2006 @ 11:07 am
I think that both really are evils. There isn’t necessarily a choice between pre-marital sex or bad marriages, anymore than we have to choose between not feeding our children and stealing.
The best advice I’ve ever seen came from Kathryn Kidd, who said that our bodies want us to have children, but don’t care if we are happy after we do it. I’ve been single much longer than I ever planned, and at this point I don’t know if I’ll ever have sex. I’ve had a few breakups in my life, and there’s not a single one that I wish I had slept with. The breakups were hard enough - adding another tie to break would have been dreadful. I would have felt betrayed by someone who advised me to do it.
Comment by Katie P. — July 31, 2006 @ 11:22 am
I suppose a lot of it is geographical. In my experience where I’ve lived, Mormons are a bit more likely to marry interracially than others are. (I have 5 sisters-in-law, and they are a rainbow of nations and races. Many of my friends have married interracially as well. I’ve never seen anyone complain.)
Comment by dangermom — July 31, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
I was single and celibate until age 29. Early on, I figured out a few things that I could do to help myself survive that time. For one, I always had a tuned piano in the apartment or house in which I lived. I became such an “empassioned” piano player that I once offered to play Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C Sharp Minor for a tour group at Taliesin West on one of Frank Lloyd Wright’s grand pianos (excellent acoustics, they invited me back). I have never played so well as during those years. he he It was this huge energy releaser.
I think it is very important to teach youth to have some hobbies or activities that they can physically throw themselves into like biking, rock climbing, travelling, music, hiking, sports, wood working, etc.
Another thing that I would do is avoid movies or shows that had sexual undertones (like Friends). I did not need the reminder! It is like when you are fasting: Stay. Out. Of. The. Kitchen.
Look, I am not gonna lie. It was an extraordinary situation in which to find myself! I had gone to BYU and had felt marital pressure since arriving there at age 17. But the thing is, the activities I was involved in were ones that had a natural esteem that came with them and I always felt blessed for my efforts. I ended up with a fantastic man and we both felt really fortunate to be leaving the whole thing. LOL
Sorry to oversimplify. I know that everyone’s situations and opportunities are very different. I am enjoying this thread…
Comment by Carol F. — July 31, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
I wish I’d done anything rather than marry my own Jerk Face.
Comment by Blonde Mouse — July 31, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
“The Church” is not run by a bunch of out of touch old men.
“Yes it is.”
The apostles and prophet seem to me much less likely to be provincial in their views than virtually anyone commenting here. They travel a great deal, speak with all kinds of interesting and intelligent people from all walks of life, must out of necessity keep current on political happenings and world events and have a lifetime of experience to draw upon. I would be interested to know what is it they do or say that makes some here believe they are out of touch. Please keep in mind that your disagreeing with them and their being out of touch are not the same thing.
Comment by Mathew — July 31, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
I think many of these questions are good ones. It really does boil down to the related question, “What is marriage good for, uhn?”
If marriage is a commandment-ordinance, it shouldn’t matter when one marries. After all, people get baptised and endowed with very little preparation.
the problem is, this is the only “commandment” that relies on another’s agency AND has a lot to do with attraction, procreation, hormones, looks, flirtation, sex appeal, charm, sexual prowess, romance, etc. For this reason, people come up with condescending reasons singles aren’t married/”obeying the commandment” by a certain age–they must be ugly, must not have enough sex appeal, must not be obeying other commandments, must not have enough faith…
The tricky thing is that we are animals. We are not these pristine “exalted spiritual beings” or some other imaginary otherworldly being. Married or single, gay or straight, we were meant to act on our sexual feelings, and not acting on them at all is harmful.
If we’re going to teach YW anything, it should be that masturbation is harmless and that while they shouldn’t sleep around, if they happen to get caught up in the heat of the moment, they should not feel like it’s the end of the world. Marrying foolishly and raising kids with the wrong person is more immoral than half an hour of hanky panky.
Comment by Mary Alice — August 1, 2006 @ 5:54 am
What a foolish thing to say.
Comment by farrah — August 1, 2006 @ 10:01 am
Well it’s certainly less harmful than a practice I remember where BYU students would drive to Vegas, get married, “get it on” all weekend, then get an anullment and be single again.
It’s true. People have physical needs. We are sexual creatures and a solo experience is the lesser of many evils.
Comment by Kerri — August 1, 2006 @ 11:46 am
We are also rational and spiritual creatures and can govern ourselves. It is not actually necessary to choose any of the evils.
Comment by Katie P. — August 1, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
This quote from Neal A. Maxwell seems to fit in this particular blog…
“Just as the capacity to defer gratification is a sign of real
maturity, likewise the willingness to wait for deferred explanation is a sign of real faith and of trust spread over time.”
( Neal A. Maxwell, “Willing to Submit,” Ensign, May 1985, 71)
Comment by Shaurby — August 1, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
I was 33 and a virgin when I got married. I was also a lifelong Mormon living in Mormon central. I felt all the pressure and all the judgment about being a single Mormon women than has been mentioned in this thread.
And I am glad I did not have pre-marital sex. Call me a hopeless romantic, but there’s just something sweet and heroic about waiting for a “one and only.” I know myself well enough to know that I would have had major self-esteem issues if I had given away the most intimate physical part of myself to someone who did not want me around permanently, but just thought I was good to hang around with and screw. I would have cheated myself if I’d had pre-marital sex.
Maybe there are people who can separate their emotions from their bodies and would think pre-marital sex would be just an interesting experiment in physical sensations. I’m not one of them. For me it was all or nothing. And for the 33 years I was single, I could deal with nothing, even though it wasn’t easy.
And now that I’ve got it all (emotional and physical intimacy with a man who made an eternal commitment to me), I can honestly say that I’m glad I stuck it out through all those years of “nothing.”
Comment by Melinda — August 1, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
I think Nell ought to have gotten a bunch of non-member female friends and done interesting and random things, instead. There is nothing quite like lining up for Star Wars with dozens of people and finding multiple adult women who aren’t married (some who are sexually active, some who aren’t) well after the age of 19 and who don’t mind. Even the religious ones (Catholic and Evangelical) were decidedly in the “‘old maid’ = ‘over 50′” camp.
One of my good non-member friends is actually getting married (by which I mean that none of my close friends has married yet) and it seems incredibly soon to everyone — she’s just shy of 24. My younger sister (6 years younger than I, about to turn 20) is starting to run out of member friends her own age who aren’t married yet. It creates a very odd mental state; she’s quite happy to note that none of the members at her college have gotten married within the last year (some are already married, at least one is divorced, but a bare majority are single and have never married at all.) Nearly all of the people who were seniors with her in Seminary (at least, whose names I know) are either engaged or currently serving/preparing to serve a mission; one has come back from his mission and so he messes up the statistic.
I don’t think anyone does it (the really young marriage thing) on purpose, though. And most of these girls seem quite level-headed about the whole thing; these aren’t “OMG I found an RM my life is COMPLETE!!” weddings. Several of the girls who went to BYU last year have reportedly already broken up with at least one RM. I can’t speak to the mental state of the guys, as they don’t come to YSA events or gossip about their own lives in my living room.
Comment by Sarah — August 1, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
I wasn’t trying to. If you’ve filed for divorce, you ought not to keep having sex with each other.
BTW, good point about Mead “She died in New York City on November 15, 1978, aged 76.” I’ve only seen tapes of her trotted out, not some sort of undead revenaunt. I should have paid more attention to NPR when I was listening last time I heard the taped material. Sheesh. My mistake.
Which addresses “I smell a rat, and an axe to grind. I won’t go into why, but it may have to do with how female sexual freedom makes a lot of caucasian folks queasy.”
BTW, for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coming_of_Age_in_Samoa
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — August 1, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
There is a part of the culture of many organizations, including the church’s, of not reporting bad news to higher ups.
It does take a while, sometimes a decade or more, for problems at the rank-and-file level to filter up to the Brethren.
It took almost two decades for the Brethren to address some problems in the missionary system concerning baptizing-just-for-the-numbers, and also in the way the youth of the church were being prepared and vetted for missions.
From what I heard one of the 70’s and one of the regional representatives say in the mid 80’s, I concluded that disclosure of the grass-roots problems hadn’t even gotten up to their level. They were clueless as to how many missionaries were actually performing their duties in the field, and how unprepared and unwilling so many missionaries were, and how that created many of the problems that were not addressed until the 90’s or later.
John Dehlin documented some of this when he described how shocked and disbelieving some church leaders were when he disclosed some of the more egregious problems that were going on in his mission.
I support the First presidency and the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators, and that they hold the true keys of authority to God’s kingdom on Earth. But the Lord does not reveal to them absolutely 100% of everything that goes on at the grass roots level. Much of that is to be done through the “return and report” thing. I’m just saying that the “reports” being filed from the field are not always complete.
I’ve seen similar reports in the ‘nacle about Elders Quorum presidents being forbidden to inform their stake presidency or high council about problems in their wards. So it happens at all levels of the church.
Comment by anonymous — August 1, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
I think that it would help a lot, to set women apart as strong and independent, and spiritual and complete in their own right, if the rules for mission participation were changed. It sets up a not so subtle message of women waiting around for men to come back from glorious missions to marry them when the age for boys is 19, for girls 21. I have seen huge huge changes for the better in many boys I have known before and after missions, not to mention just being out away from parents, being independent, finding your own feelings about your belief. Just another thought of how to bolster women’s self worth in and of themselves, without the necessity of a man by 20.
Comment by sophia*rising — August 2, 2006 @ 6:45 am
#91 - I can believe that the problems you point out in your post do exist. However, I think the initial accusation of being “out of touch” was in the context of the Brethren not being sensitive to the sexual needs of single members, not to whether or not they hear about grass-roots problems with missionary work and other Church programs.
As far as the sexual needs of a single person, I’d say that those who think that a single person has to explore herself sexually and have sexual experiences in order to be a whole person are more out of touch than the brethren.
Let me tell you how the brethren are out of touch, because I’ve been out of touch too. One summer I worked at a camp. We had no TV, no movies, no music, no magazines. We had lots of hard work and every minute of it was spent outdoors. We had good friendships, two people even got together as a couple, but the rest of us were just platonic friends. So I spent the summer completely out of touch with the media and out of touch with people who thought sex was indispensable to normal life. It was a shock to get back to ordinary life, surrounded by the media and listening to people obsess about sex again. For an entire summer, we just lived and played, and sex wasn’t a major topic of conversation.
I’ve had a couple of other times in my life when I’ve gotten away from media and people who talk about nothing but sex. You know what? Sex is not the be-all and end-all of existence. You can live without it and be perfectly normal. It does mean cutting yourself off from sex-saturated media and sex-obsessed people. But honestly, if you’re trying to become a whole person, it’s distracting to be around people who think sex is at least 80% of a healthy lifestyle.
So yes, the Brethren are “out of touch” with our sex-obsessed and sex-saturated culture. If you want to live a celibate lifestyle, it would be a good idea if you too withdrew from the sex-obsessed and sex-saturated culture.
Because contrary to what some people think, living as a faithful Mormon celibate is not a grit-your-teeth-for-your-entire-adult-life ordeal. Hormones are most active in your 20s. The urge to reproduce, i.e., the biological clock, stays pretty strong through your 30s. You come to terms with being celibate. And the older you get, the more mature you are, and so the more self-control you have, as well as having more perspective. It’s easier to be celibate the older you get, and the more you avoid media messages that sex is everything. I speak from experience.
So yes, the Brethren are “out of touch” with the media-driven idea that you must explore your sexuality or be miserable. You don’t have to explore your sexuality. Masturbation and constantly thinking about sex sharpen your sexual appetite, they don’t satisfy your sexual appetite. So the more a single person searches for sexual gratification by exploring her sexuality through masturbation, reading dirty romance novels, and whatever other “solo experiences”, the more she’s going to obsess about sex and the less gratified she’s going to feel.
Celibacy is a commitment that requires self-discipline and results in self-respect. It’s not a pitiable repressive degrading state to be escaped by any means possible.
Comment by Melinda — August 2, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
Melinda–
I think your post is especially interesting in contrast to the conversation that is wrapping up on EmilyS’s previous post about marriage. You end here by privileging celibacy as a self-respecting alternative to masterbation, pre-marital sex, and (I’m supposing) hasty, bad marriages. Fair enough; I think that many in the church would absolutely agree, but I’m wondering how this opinion fits with the doctrine that reproduction is central to exaltation. You suggest that a celibate lifestyle can really make sense if we can somehow manage to withdraw from the messages the media sends us; again, fair enough. But I would suggest that it’s particularly difficult to be celibate (or want to be celibate) in a church that constantly emphasizes sexual reproduction, not only as integral to a happy marriage, but as nothing short of godly. Perhaps the “sex-obsession” that you discuss is not something that is produced merely by “Sex in the City;” we are a sex-obsessed people because our doctrine tells us that reproduction is the central feature of exaltation (Again, see the comments to EmilyS’s thread). Given this focus on sexulity, can we really blame the media for our interest in sex? And for the bad choices we make to satisfy our desires (including bad marriages)? And is celibacy really a viable choice for anyone in the church who wants to be exalted?
Comment by Sonnet — August 2, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
I don’t Melinda was saying celibacy is a viable or desirable choice in the church for those who want to be exalted. (or maybe you were melinda.)
It is difficult to be celibate in a “multiply and replensih the earth” focused church, but that doesn’t mean you have to surround yourself with the sex-craved and sex-obsessed media, people, etc. when you have no options for “multiplying” at the present.
When you realize you are going to be celibate at least for the next however many months or years, you have to come to terms with it and be okay with it or life would be really hard and miserable. You have to realize that you can’t fulfill that part of your earthly/ eternal mission yet. It’s not deciding that celibacy is better. It’s deciding that you’re okay with being celibate right now (and not “exploring”).
I think so much of our culture is always looking forward to what we will get at another stage of life– education, career, money, etc. Sex is definitely one of those things. That’s why we live in such a sex-crazed society. It’s all about immediate gratification– one-night stands, masturbation, porn, etc.
(Shaurby do you get LDS-Gems? I just got that quote in my email and loved it!)
Comment by cmac — August 2, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
Stephen, thanks for the Wikipedia article link to the book. On the article’s link to Mead herself, this was mentioned –
Perhaps the truth is still out there.
I think it’s interesting we colonialists will do what we have to, including revise history, in order to “make it sew” as Capt. Picard said.
I have no problem contemplating that a world far from Christianity would encourage the women of the community to explore their own powerful sexuality. Especially a culture still very much in reverence of a Divine, Feminine authority.
Other islands have changed much. Okinawa, for example, was once famous for its centenarians, people now regularly dine on fast food, and develop diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses.
Perhaps the Okinawans have “recanted” their past evils, too.
Comment by pele — August 2, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I think it’s pretty cynical to suggest that no one should be allowed to masturbate before marriage, much less that those who have sex without being married (no matter what their age or cirmcumstances) are evil, wicked, sex-saturated losers.
Most men masturbate–that’s a fact. Not because they’re degenerates, but because the urge is there and it’s a lot less harmful than marrying the wrong person for sex, raping someone, or lying about masturbation (as those who claim they don’t often do). Many women do, too, and should. It’s normal, safe exploration, enjoyable and pleasurable.
Comment by Mary Alice — August 2, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
Pele — maybe so.
http://themouseinthehouse.blogspot.com/ — I just found your blog and now it is gone.
I grew up with a dad in the military. In Las Vegas, there was rampant sexual intercourse in my junior high school. When we moved, most of the kids on the base where we lived managed the transition to a new social group by finding a partner in the existing group to have sex with.
I knew lots of thirteen year olds, and some twelve year olds, who were “exploring” sex, or at least intercourse. They had all the angst of teens, with more intensity. I knew people who were burned out at sixteen.
At Cal State L.A., I met a lot of the same type of people as they were in their thirties. It was not a good life they had lived. I later ran into old friends from Las Vegas. It about broke my heart.
People have a pair bonding mechanism, however imperfect, that is harmed by casual sex. It is why I was a virgin until I was married at 29. I had kind of resolved myself to believe I was going to be single forever by then, but the alternatives to celibacy looked worse.
My two bits, from my own experiences and observations.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — August 2, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
I would be very cautious about applying that label to anyone that way, at any time.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — August 2, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
All I have to offer are my own thoughts and experiences, so here goes….
There were a couple of crappy relationships I stuck with for far longer than was healthy because we had a sexual relationship. If I was willing to sleep with someone than I’d better be willing to stick with them, right? Thank goodness I got dumped on my azz by all of them or I might have ended up married to one of them. I couldn’t see past the sex to the actual reality of things. By the time I grew up enough to know what I had given up, it was too late to get it back. I met a great man who loved me regardless, got married, and have had a really good life.
If I think it would have been better to wait with all the hindsight I’ve gained, how could I honestly be expected to choose either of those crappy options? It’s easy to make it black or white, but there are so many more options. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.
Comment by MarissaS — August 3, 2006 @ 12:06 am
Stephen, I don’t think it works to compare one US/Christian/military demographic with a Micronesian/polytheistic demographic, and say, “see, casual sex didn’t work here, so by correllation, if anyone from Indonesia claims it did work, they’re lying.” What happened amongst the kids in your tribe sounds like power play and adolescent tribal bonding born out of a sense of panic and a cry for rootedness.
What happened (and still happens) in Micronesia is part of a socially sanctioned maturation process. As was mentioned in the Mead link you posted, Micronesian women who are high born are held to a vow of virginity. This is perhaps because they have access and means to follow a spiritual direction, where it is recognized that most others cannot choose that path.
Choosing to channel sexual energy is a powerful decision, and must be supported by the knowledge of what one is striving toward, rather than what one wishes to avoid. Catholic Celibates are examples of the channeling of sexual energy into other pursuits. It is wholesome and amazing to choose that path. But one must be prepared spiritually for it.
An LDS version of Kama Sutra would help matters, but I’m afraid something like that could only come from a church body equally reverent towards feminine as well as masculine wisdom.
Comment by pele — August 3, 2006 @ 1:29 am
I am tired — I meant to say Micronesia in that first paragraph. Indonesia is actually Muslim, and that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Comment by pele — August 3, 2006 @ 1:30 am
P.S. — I meant to express as well that I think it’s sad what happened amongst the kids in your tribe, Stephen.
Comment by pele — August 3, 2006 @ 1:32 am
re comment #100. you have actually made the point that the real issue is who you choose to sleep with, not whether you are married or not. Crappy marriages based on sex happen all the time. The point is its way harder to get out of a marriage.
Comment by jj — August 3, 2006 @ 3:53 am
jj,
True. But without the sex, I NEVER would have been in the mindset to marry said individuals. So it’s better to avoid that possibility by avoiding the sex, no?
Comment by MarissaS — August 3, 2006 @ 9:50 am
I don’t know. I heard somewhere that Mead spent most of her stay in the Pacific in her hut, never really did much credible research among the people, and actually made-up a lot of her observations based on her own preconceived notions about sex.
In any event, non-European cultures are so glorified, idolized and whitewashed in American academia that I have a hard time taking the whole cross-cultural analogy thing very seriously.
Comment by Seth R. — August 3, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Has some great cross-over to this line of posts and thoughts.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — August 3, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
That was very interesting to read– and just what I was getting at!
thanks, Stephen M
Comment by cmac — August 4, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
First of all, why am I the only woman speaking up for Margaret Mead on this forum??
Seth, this is exactly what some American anthropologist wantedyou to think. You are supposed to believe in the superiority of your own culture, because we are still operating under a Colonial, self-interested paradigm. When an anthropologist (such as Margaret Mead, Jane Goodall, or Kinsey) operates outside of that paradigm, she or he often brings back research which expands our view of human nature. Since expansiveness requires relinquishment of our right to “control” another culture, it is no surprise reasearchers who go outside the paradigm are hazed and maligned.
Seth, if only Margaret Mead had whitewashed her findings, then you would accept what she had to say.
A culture which operates successfully outside Christianity gives a lot of people moral vertigo. We don’t have to like or emulate what happened in Samoa. But we can learn something about our human nature. And, it is highly possible these researchers are wrong, about everything. But that doesn’t mean they’re the only ones.
Some nice, colonial researchers were looking, not too long ago, for genetic evidence of the inferiority of black people. It turned out they were wrong. About everything.
Comment by pele — August 4, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
Pele, let me emphasize that I can’t back up that statement. I said I don’t know.
I was asking for a response to what I’d heard about her work. I was not asking for accusations of a cultural superiority complex.
I may indeed be ethnocentric. But the accusation does nothing to shore-up Mead’s credibility for me. It’s a common tactic that the multiculturalists use: whenever someone challenges the credibility of their pet-theory - imply they’re a racist. That’ll shut em up!
That’s not scholarship. That’s not advocacy. That’s not apologetics.
That’s demagoguery. And has about zero credibility with me. It probably wasn’t your intent to debate in that way. But just realize that it really looks like you’re coming close to using the same tired ole smear tactics and left-wing intimidation tactics that are heedlessly thrown at anyone who disagrees with left-wing academia. It hurts your argument.
That said, I’m not interested in getting into an argument of who is name-calling whom.
If you want to make a serious response to my comment, the author I heard this from is Dinesh D’Souza and the book is “The End of Racism.” His review of Mead was rather scathing.
You can attack D’Souza as a racist, an ethnocentric, a Republican lapdog, or an incompetent scholar if you wish. Many have. But it will not move me at all.
Make a response to his actual assertions, backed up with some evidence however …. and I’m willing to be persuaded.
But I don’t demand such a response. I don’t expect it. After all, my own post in comment 106 wasn’t really well thought-out or all that seriously posted anyway.
So it certainly doesn’t deserve any more response than it got. But if you’d care to engage, I’d welcome it.
Comment by Seth R. — August 7, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Seth, why so angry? f you think Margaret Mead is a nutcase, her findings weak, why should anyone else’s opinion make you feel angry? I, personally, know differently. I have a friend who attests to growing up in that lfestyle. I am impressed by her high standards, the way she raises her son to respect women, and how it seems to have done nothing to mar her morally. She is, believe it or not, very devout in spiritual matters. So that’s what I know. I like to know love, light, and the truth which may or may not always be convenient.
There are plenty of “bad” intellectual propositions out there which have plenty of support from the status quo. Genetic Modification of plants. Neoconservative colonial self-interest in the Middle East. We are only just starting to be outraged by the idea of Ethnic Cleansing. If you want to be outraged, look at how these things might actually affect the world around you.
Female sexual freedom in Samoa is nothing, relatively speaking. Margaret Sanger, right or wrong, bless her departed soul, should not be the focus of your eloquent anger, Seth. The bad guys out there are happy you don’t care about GMO’s and Neoconservative Wars (which are, by the way, different from what the Republican Party traditionally stands for).
Comment by pele — August 7, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Pele -
I think Seth is angry because you called him a racist, and now a war loving neocon.
And I disagree with your idea that the church doesn’t respect feminine widsom.
Thanks,
Comment by Katreena — August 8, 2006 @ 8:09 am
Pele,
I’m not angry.
I’m a guy. We argue for fun and rarely get all that emotional about it.
As for myself, I’m a habitual devil’s advocate. Often you’ll see me shooting-off a vehement diatribe against a conservative post by Ivan Wolfe on Millenial Star on exactly the same day (if not the same hour) as I’m ruthlessly criticizing a post by Not Ophelia, or whoever on fMh.
My actual political and social views are rather ambiguous.
Oh, and thanks for calling post #106 “eloquent anger.” But I think you are being waay too generous with me.
Comment by Seth R. — August 8, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
I’m 33 year old guy and still single. I’ve heard questions like why arn’t you married? Are you attracted to girls? Some of these comments have pissed me off almost leading me to inactivity. Marriage is pushed too much in the church. I don’t even feel comfortable speaking to married couples cause I notice that it’s an effor for them to speak to me. I notice that singles in the church hang out with singles and couples hang with couples which I think is insane.
For so many LDS people marriage is he answer to everything and I just find the culture so confusing. The only thing that keeps me hanging on is my testimony on the Savior.
Comment by Richard L. Doyle — August 12, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
Has anybody out there married a non-member? If you have how’s life?
Comment by Richard L. Doyle — August 12, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Richard L. Doyle,
I married a non-member, and life is good, but also…complicated. Since marrying non-members isn’t the topic of this post, I won’t elaborate here, but if you dislike awkard questions like “Why aren’t you married?” marrying a non-member won’t help. I simply traded “Why aren’t you married?” for “So, is your husband joining the church yet?” *sigh*
Maybe this would be a good topic in the future?
Comment by Stephanie — August 14, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Here’s how I feel…marriage in the church is so pushed that it ruins alot of relationships. If they(church culture) would lay off of singles and the idea of marriage their would be alot more happy couples.
For example…”don’t procrastinate marriage” or “short engagement” here’s my question…is the life of every single ready for marriage.
For a succesful marriage some people have to wait till the time is right for the both of them. Why is their so many unhappy members, married & single? What hurts is the people that once looked up to me…such as Stake Pres’s, Bishops now frown cause I’m still single. It seems like it doesn’t matter that I;m still active. Another question why is it that when I attend single activities their are no guys there. Are the single men going inactive…I wonder why (sarcasm) I always observe that the only men that attend are the ones older and divorced.
My concerns won’t be resolved by getting married either, I just don’t like what I see anymore.
Rob
Comment by Robert — August 15, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
here’s a question…why are the single woman in the church wiered?
Comment by Robert — August 26, 2006 @ 2:47 pm