Polygamy and later sexual repression

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:07 am

It comes back to “how much of the repression of sexuality was there already because of the Victorian culture and how much was backlash from polygamy?” Most of American society seems to have progressed past the Victorian era, but Mormonism seems stuck in it. And polygamy amplified that Victorian thinking.

See, for Zina to have had the view of a wife shouldn’t love her husband, just reverence him, there was a LOT of sexual repression and sex is just for babies thinking already. And the Victorian thinking is that men, being animals, will lust BECAUSE that is necessary for human reproduction. Look at how Mormons treat sexuality now. Women have to cover up so that they don’t cause evil (sexual) feelings in the men around them. There is the assumption that men WILL have these thoughts, but that then need to be avoided as much as possible. There is that thread of “men are animals and can’t control their lust” running right through modern Mormon thinking.

See, if God had not made men lustful animals, then the human race would not reproduce at all. But women being pure angles need to control the men. There is not only the feeling that a woman should not fall into romantic love, she must never have sexual feelings because if she does, she can’t control the man’s lustful feelings. You can respect and honor a man with no erotic love, which is almost what the YW are taught. See, I think Mormon teaching to the YW is why my daughter didn’t get that she had sexual feelings toward women and not men. The YW are taught they should find an honorable priesthood holder. They are taught they should respect and honor the man they marry. But not a WORD is ever said about lusting after his body!!!!! I mean, are you kidding. The guys, well from the talk I hear it is just assumed that they will lust after the girls body and they are told all about how they need to control that before marriage. Girls are never taught anything about controlling those feelings that we are not supposed to have.

So, since girls never feel lust, then guys have to or the human race would not exist. That was Victorian thinking there, not backlash from polygamy. One of Brigham’s teachings was that there has to be polygamy because without it the men will have to use prostitutes.

So, interesting. You need to study more about Victorian sexual values, study more of BY’s warped views, get more into what the unhappy polygamous wives taught their sons, and write a book.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:00 am

alas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:07 am
It comes back to “how much of the repression of sexuality was there already because of the Victorian culture and how much was backlash from polygamy?” Most of American society seems to have progressed past the Victorian era, but Mormonism seems stuck in it. And polygamy amplified that Victorian thinking.

See, for Zina to have had the view of a wife shouldn’t love her husband, just reverence him, there was a LOT of sexual repression and sex is just for babies thinking already. And the Victorian thinking is that men, being animals, will lust BECAUSE that is necessary for human reproduction. Look at how Mormons treat sexuality now. Women have to cover up so that they don’t cause evil (sexual) feelings in the men around them. There is the assumption that men WILL have these thoughts, but that then need to be avoided as much as possible. There is that thread of “men are animals and can’t control their lust” running right through modern Mormon thinking.

See, if God had not made men lustful animals, then the human race would not reproduce at all. But women being pure angles need to control the men. There is not only the feeling that a woman should not fall into romantic love, she must never have sexual feelings because if she does, she can’t control the man’s lustful feelings. You can respect and honor a man with no erotic love, which is almost what the YW are taught. See, I think Mormon teaching to the YW is why my daughter didn’t get that she had sexual feelings toward women and not men. The YW are taught they should find an honorable priesthood holder. They are taught they should respect and honor the man they marry. But not a WORD is ever said about lusting after his body!!!!! I mean, are you kidding. The guys, well from the talk I hear it is just assumed that they will lust after the girls body and they are told all about how they need to control that before marriage. Girls are never taught anything about controlling those feelings that we are not supposed to have.

So, since girls never feel lust, then guys have to or the human race would not exist. That was Victorian thinking there, not backlash from polygamy. One of Brigham’s teachings was that there has to be polygamy because without it the men will have to use prostitutes.

So, interesting. You need to study more about Victorian sexual values, study more of BY’s warped views, get more into what the unhappy polygamous wives taught their sons, and write a book.
Alas, I'm familiar with a lot of what you are saying here. I do remember reading Brigham's defense of polygamy as a way to avoid prostitution. This is on record. Wasn't this about the reason Rome fell (according to B)?

One of the sad parts of what you have mentioned is the negating of women as sexual people. I was shocked shocked shocked years ago in my TBM days when a bishop told me, in confidence without disclosing names, that several of the YW in the ward were having problems with pornography and masturbating as well!

NO FREAKING WAY!!!! WOMEN DONT HAVE THOSE FEELINGS!!!!! (or so I was taught).

I remember hearing an interview with D. Michael Quinn where he said that girls and women also have "those feelings", and that hurts women to treat them as though they don't. I remember that talk, and I also remember how my eyes were blown open after my divorce and leaving the church. I met a lot of people who were on the out, all the way out, or never in in the first place. And to my utter surprise, I found there were women (like I mentioned in an earlier thread post) who actually liked sex MORE than their husbands or boyfriends!

It's because of these questions that I started asking this question in the first place. Where does this LDS sexual repression come from? I know it flared its ugly head the most I ever saw during the 60s and 70s when JFS, HBL, and SWK were in office. After that, it kind of softened through backlash as well as doctrinal attrition the church is so fond of.

Anyway, what you are saying Alas is there was a Victorian ideal that promulgated through the ages inside the LDS tradition, and affected people years later.

What do you believe might be some of the reason JFS said openly that sex was for having babies, that contraception was a grave evil, and that SWK would say that sex for fun was of the devil?

thoughts?

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm

Rob4Hope wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:00 am
alas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:07 am
It comes back to “how much of the repression of sexuality was there already because of the Victorian culture and how much was backlash from polygamy?” Most of American society seems to have progressed past the Victorian era, but Mormonism seems stuck in it. And polygamy amplified that Victorian thinking.

See, for Zina to have had the view of a wife shouldn’t love her husband, just reverence him, there was a LOT of sexual repression and sex is just for babies thinking already. And the Victorian thinking is that men, being animals, will lust BECAUSE that is necessary for human reproduction. Look at how Mormons treat sexuality now. Women have to cover up so that they don’t cause evil (sexual) feelings in the men around them. There is the assumption that men WILL have these thoughts, but that then need to be avoided as much as possible. There is that thread of “men are animals and can’t control their lust” running right through modern Mormon thinking.

See, if God had not made men lustful animals, then the human race would not reproduce at all. But women being pure angles need to control the men. There is not only the feeling that a woman should not fall into romantic love, she must never have sexual feelings because if she does, she can’t control the man’s lustful feelings. You can respect and honor a man with no erotic love, which is almost what the YW are taught. See, I think Mormon teaching to the YW is why my daughter didn’t get that she had sexual feelings toward women and not men. The YW are taught they should find an honorable priesthood holder. They are taught they should respect and honor the man they marry. But not a WORD is ever said about lusting after his body!!!!! I mean, are you kidding. The guys, well from the talk I hear it is just assumed that they will lust after the girls body and they are told all about how they need to control that before marriage. Girls are never taught anything about controlling those feelings that we are not supposed to have.

So, since girls never feel lust, then guys have to or the human race would not exist. That was Victorian thinking there, not backlash from polygamy. One of Brigham’s teachings was that there has to be polygamy because without it the men will have to use prostitutes.

So, interesting. You need to study more about Victorian sexual values, study more of BY’s warped views, get more into what the unhappy polygamous wives taught their sons, and write a book.
Alas, I'm familiar with a lot of what you are saying here. I do remember reading Brigham's defense of polygamy as a way to avoid prostitution. This is on record. Wasn't this about the reason Rome fell (according to B)?

One of the sad parts of what you have mentioned is the negating of women as sexual people. I was shocked shocked shocked years ago in my TBM days when a bishop told me, in confidence without disclosing names, that several of the YW in the ward were having problems with pornography and masturbating as well!

NO FREAKING WAY!!!! WOMEN DONT HAVE THOSE FEELINGS!!!!! (or so I was taught).

I remember hearing an interview with D. Michael Quinn where he said that girls and women also have "those feelings", and that hurts women to treat them as though they don't. I remember that talk, and I also remember how my eyes were blown open after my divorce and leaving the church. I met a lot of people who were on the out, all the way out, or never in in the first place. And to my utter surprise, I found there were women (like I mentioned in an earlier thread post) who actually liked sex MORE than their husbands or boyfriends!

It's because of these questions that I started asking this question in the first place. Where does this LDS sexual repression come from? I know it flared its ugly head the most I ever saw during the 60s and 70s when JFS, HBL, and SWK were in office. After that, it kind of softened through backlash as well as doctrinal attrition the church is so fond of.

Anyway, what you are saying Alas is there was a Victorian ideal that promulgated through the ages inside the LDS tradition, and affected people years later.

What do you believe might be some of the reason JFS said openly that sex was for having babies, that contraception was a grave evil, and that SWK would say that sex for fun was of the devil?

thoughts?
The SWK “sex without babies is evil” was part of the fight against birth control. See, it was just after the first effective and totally female controlled form f birth control came out. Men didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with birth control when the best methods were early withdrawal and condoms. Those were under their control and if they wanted the woman to get pregnant, they had the control to do so. For example, my mother never forgave my father for refusing to use a condom after she started working outside the home and he purposely got her pregnant so she had to quit her job. So, the pill suddenly was not only an effective means of birth control, but was totally under the control of the woman. I think men resented that women could now have more control over their own lives and men had less control over women’s lives. It sounds kind man hating to say this, but I think there is some truth to it.

That was the trigger for him to start spouting his ideas, but of course not where the ideas came from. But perhaps the start of the idea really is in the idea of female purity. Let us do a bit of cultural comparison. Mormons are not the only group that is in denial of female sexuality. There is a cross cultural way of viewing women as either pure and innocent, or wicked, corrupted whores. With little to no middle ground. This shows up in the idea that if a woman learns to enjoy sex, she suddenly can’t get enough. Divorcees are looked down on and not trusted because there is this assumption that a divorcee has been married so she has learned to enjoy sex, so f course she now can’t live without it, so of course she will try to steal your husband or sleep with any willing male. There was a time in the church that a divorced woman could not get a temple recommend, but a divorced man could, no matter who caused the divorce. It was because of the assumption in most of American culture that a woman who had been married would hop into bed with any male because she just can’t live without sex. Why this didn’t apply to divorced men or widows is a mystery. But it was only divorced women who now couldn’t live without sex. Their *purity* was gone because they were divorced. Same thing with a woman who was raped. Her purity was gone, so of course she would be hopping into bed with anyone who was willing.

Then there is the extreme of this idea that leads to female genital mutilation. See, if women like sex, they will not have any control and will sleep with any and everybody, so the men must prevent them from enjoying sex. It doesn’t matter if they also can’t enjoy it with their husband. He has permission to rape them if they don’t cooperate. Doesn’t matter if giving birth kills them because of the mutilation, the most important thing is that they not enjoy sex. That is not a Victorian idea nor a Mormon idea. Most certainly didn’t come out of Mormon polygamy. But comes from some fear that men have that if women enjoy sex they will be promiscuous.

This fear shows up in most cultures in one version or another.

It was also part of the whole religious panic about the pill. OMG, if women are not afraid of getting pregnant, they will sleep with anybody and everybody. That was actually said as part of why the pill should not be made available to single women and that women should have to get their husband’s signature before she could get the pill. Once again showing men’s great desire to be the ones controlling if women get pregnant.

Do you know that the Mormon church belongs to the same group as is fighting to keep FGM legal in Africa. The top Mormon leaders see “traditional family” as meaning not only no SSM, but also a man’s right to demand a wife who has had her sexual parts snipped off and sewn almost shut.

So, all these things come together in the Mormon culture where men are always in charge because they have priesthood. And SWK sees the advent of the pill. And the pill was being promoted BECAUSE it gave sexual freedom to women. So, he panics because of this idea of women being just as free to have sex as men are and to to the ones totally in control over whether or not she gets pregnant. OMG, all women are going to become whores.

See, no middle ground between Madonna and whore. A woman is either virginal and pure, or she is a hooker. Men don’t seem to realize that hookers do NOT enjoy sex.

But anyway, SWK looks around desperately for a REASON that he can claim that birth control is evil. And he comes up with the old Victorian idea that sex is only for making babies and to have sex that you KNOW cannot result in babies is evil.

Now, back up a few centuries. In the Bible, there are rules about having sex and avoiding babies. Men are even struck dead because they had sex and prevented babies. But there is NO story about a woman being struck dead for avoiding pregnancy. Only men. Funny that. Women depended on having children to take care of them in old age. So did men but all the cases where men were punished were for depriving a woman who wanted a baby of having a baby because that baby would belong to his brother not him.

But I think maybe the rules about not avoiding pregnancy got a bit twisted over the years. Away from a message of, “men, do not deprive a woman who wants a child of having a child,” and got twisted into the men’s fear of women taking control of what had always been men’s to control. And that was men’s fear that women would enjoy sex, but not give him the child he wanted. Look at Henry VIII who beheaded his wives because they failed to get pregnant on demand when looking back on it, history now says it was the king’s own infertility. Men seem to think/fear that women DO control if they get pregnant. Just look at the men who think that if she is raped, she can just decide not to get pregnant, so therefore if she gets pregnant, it proves she was not raped.

OK, I have hit on lots and lots of ideas, to show that some of the Mormon sexual repression is all part of a much bigger problem. But then all of this is repression of female sexuality while giving males kind of free reign. Which Mormons also have a big streak of sexual repression of males too. And that is where perhaps Mormons differ from the larger culture is that there is so much sexual shaming of men for being men. It is not the boys will be boys attitude of the larger American culture, but boys are animals and should be ashamed. Yet, at the same time men such as Joseph Bishop are given a free pass to whatever they want.

TLDR; there is a lot of just plain craziness about sexual things. SWK was part of the larger craiziness.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:34 pm

Alas...WOW!.

I'm gunna re-read what you have posted multiple times. You have brought up a LOT of eye-opening things I wasn't aware of at all.

I love this site! I learn things all the time,...and its amazing, even when the things I learn are heartbreaking.

Expect a big response. It will take me a while to compose. I have to try to understand more before I respond....

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:25 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
The SWK “sex without babies is evil” was part of the fight against birth control. See, it was just after the first effective and totally female controlled form of birth control came out. Men didn’t seem to have too much of a problem with birth control when the best methods were early withdrawal and condoms. Those were under their control and if they wanted the woman to get pregnant, they had the control to do so. For example, my mother never forgave my father for refusing to use a condom after she started working outside the home and he purposely got her pregnant so she had to quit her job. So, the pill suddenly was not only an effective means of birth control, but was totally under the control of the woman. I think men resented that women could now have more control over their own lives and men had less control over women’s lives. It sounds kind man hating to say this, but I think there is some truth to it.
This is fascinating! I would never have considered this--the timing of SWK statements and the advent of female birth control. However, I do know that there is a type of moratorium on vasectomy still in Handbook #1 (I think thats the one the normal members can't see). Men are supposed to talk with their bishop BEFORE they have this procedure. So, its not completely just against the women.

HOWEVER,...I do see your point, and its fascinating in the context of what you say below....
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
That was the trigger for him to start spouting his ideas, but of course not where the ideas came from. But perhaps the start of the idea really is in the idea of female purity. Let us do a bit of cultural comparison. Mormons are not the only group that is in denial of female sexuality.
Agreed.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
There is a cross cultural way of viewing women as either pure and innocent, or wicked, corrupted whores. With little to no middle ground. This shows up in the idea that if a woman learns to enjoy sex, she suddenly can’t get enough. Divorcees are looked down on and not trusted because there is this assumption that a divorcee has been married so she has learned to enjoy sex, so f course she now can’t live without it, so of course she will try to steal your husband or sleep with any willing male.
I see your point, but this was not my experience. In my lifetime, the big "blaming" for divorce was against the husband, especially in this post internet porn environment. Men are beat down pretty hard: not only for not building families when they are so poor they can hardly eat themselves, but also because they don't devote excessive time/energy to building the church itself.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
There was a time in the church that a divorced woman could not get a temple recommend, but a divorced man could, no matter who caused the divorce.
This utterly blows my mind. Alas, can you give some examples? Does anyone have examples of this? I want to learn more about this, so I'm asking for fact checks,...not because I don't believe you on it, but because its another indictment for institutional misogyny.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
It was because of the assumption in most of American culture that a woman who had been married would hop into bed with any male because she just can’t live without sex.
My experience here was opposite. I was never aware of women being the ones who were nuts about sex. In my environment/culture, through my entire life, women were asexual (which you talk about below), and men were the perverts.

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
Then there is the extreme of this idea that leads to female genital mutilation. See, if women like sex, they will not have any control and will sleep with any and everybody, so the men must prevent them from enjoying sex. It doesn’t matter if they also can’t enjoy it with their husband. He has permission to rape them if they don’t cooperate. Doesn’t matter if giving birth kills them because of the mutilation, the most important thing is that they not enjoy sex. That is not a Victorian idea nor a Mormon idea. Most certainly didn’t come out of Mormon polygamy. But comes from some fear that men have that if women enjoy sex they will be promiscuous.
Was female mutilation because women were thought to be sexually deviant, or did it revolve more around power and control?

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
It was also part of the whole religious panic about the pill. OMG, if women are not afraid of getting pregnant, they will sleep with anybody and everybody. That was actually said as part of why the pill should not be made available to single women and that women should have to get their husband’s signature before she could get the pill. Once again showing men’s great desire to be the ones controlling if women get pregnant.
Now this one I DO agree with, because in the back of my mind, as a child, I remember the horror that presented when the pill became the thing. For the longest time, sex was this taboo topic--you didn't speak it EVER. If you did, you got slapped or your mouth washed out with soap (I have experience with that).

Was the advent of the pill because it began to bring sex outside of the closet so to speak, or was it more because women wanted to have more control? If it was the latter, I can see the backlash, but my experience wasn't because of the men in my life...the horror feelings came from the women.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
So, all these things come together in the Mormon culture where men are always in charge because they have priesthood. And SWK sees the advent of the pill. And the pill was being promoted BECAUSE it gave sexual freedom to women. So, he panics because of this idea of women being just as free to have sex as men are and to to the ones totally in control over whether or not she gets pregnant. OMG, all women are going to become whores.
I honestly wonder if some of these men ever had that much sex ever. I really mean it! I read a quote once from Mark E. Peterson where he said he never saw his wife's naked body. I've heard statements from others that tended to corroborate similar types of crazy prudish life. Further, from the quotes above from Zina Huntington Smith Young, there seems to be something to this.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
See, no middle ground between Madonna and whore. A woman is either virginal and pure, or she is a hooker. Men don’t seem to realize that hookers do NOT enjoy sex.
This I agree with, partially. I have met a lot of people in my lifetime, through therapy groups and networking. Some of the women chose to be hookers as a way to support their families. Two of them told me they absolutely love what they do, provided they get to call the shots. If they can't call the shots, they don't take the client. From this weird group I became aware of others in this line of work who hate it. However, hating it isn't universal--there are some who don't. This was surprising to me, but not really. Some women actually DO enjoy sex,...even if its for sale.

What surprised me about this was not that these women enjoyed it, but that it reinforced in a crazy way the Madonna vs whore topic.

During my entire life, it seems that women are split between being Madonna or whore, with no middle ground. Several respected LDS authors have seen this. Girls are allegedly asexual and pure before marriage, and then, without any training or even allowance to understand, let alone explore sex, they are magically supposed to become this sexual person as soon as they are pronounced "man and wife". Its ludicrous, and damaging.

I know, for example, that Hugh B. Brown wrote about this, indicating that lack of sexual knowledge prior to marriage was devastating to marriage. He, one of the more progressive LDS Leaders, felt it was a serious mistake for this to continue. And yet it does.....
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
But anyway, SWK looks around desperately for a REASON that he can claim that birth control is evil. And he comes up with the old Victorian idea that sex is only for making babies and to have sex that you KNOW cannot result in babies is evil.
This makes sense, and I never thought of it much. But I see the point.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
Now, back up a few centuries. In the Bible, there are rules about having sex and avoiding babies. Men are even struck dead because they had sex and prevented babies. But there is NO story about a woman being struck dead for avoiding pregnancy. Only men. Funny that. Women depended on having children to take care of them in old age. So did men but all the cases where men were punished were for depriving a woman who wanted a baby of having a baby because that baby would belong to his brother not him.
I know of a Jewish community where the Rabbi teaches about conjugal rights. And, in that community, the woman can divorce her husband for not providing for her sexual needs and wants. Its a flip side of what traditionally we read in the bible.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
But I think maybe the rules about not avoiding pregnancy got a bit twisted over the years. Away from a message of, “men, do not deprive a woman who wants a child of having a child,” and got twisted into the men’s fear of women taking control of what had always been men’s to control. And that was men’s fear that women would enjoy sex, but not give him the child he wanted. Look at Henry VIII who beheaded his wives because they failed to get pregnant on demand when looking back on it, history now says it was the king’s own infertility. Men seem to think/fear that women DO control if they get pregnant. Just look at the men who think that if she is raped, she can just decide not to get pregnant, so therefore if she gets pregnant, it proves she was not raped.
In our culture there are multiple examples of this. The honor-code down at BYU is a prime example: writing up the girl who reports rape and taking steps against her.

I have a counterpoint. I have a close male friend who was raped by a girl when he was about 14/15 years old. There was a type of horrible pressure/fear used against him. He went into confession with his bishop, who promptly disfellowshipped him. He didn't understand why that happened, and it scared him. This man is now about 48 years old, and looking into his eyeballs, I asked him to his face: "Were you raped?" He said without hesitation, "Yes".

We then had a long discussion about why his bishop judged him. His response was quite interesting. "Girls don't rape boys. You had control over what happened, and your claiming of rape is an excuse!"

No, it wasn't. And, this is an example of a culture that hurt a man as well. There are cases when it does go both ways.
alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
OK, I have hit on lots and lots of ideas, to show that some of the Mormon sexual repression is all part of a much bigger problem. But then all of this is repression of female sexuality while giving males kind of free reign. Which Mormons also have a big streak of sexual repression of males too. And that is where perhaps Mormons differ from the larger culture is that there is so much sexual shaming of men for being men. It is not the boys will be boys attitude of the larger American culture, but boys are animals and should be ashamed. Yet, at the same time men such as Joseph Bishop are given a free pass to whatever they want.

TLDR; there is a lot of just plain craziness about sexual things. SWK was part of the larger craiziness.
I agree there is total craziness going on with the LDS position on sex, and it reflects to a degree the larger social problems. Men and women are NOT chaperones on each other--they need to "gate keep" on themselves. For some reason, male sexuality is allowed and condoned, and female sexuality is shunned and disparaged. Its really sad.

I think the LDS church, to a degree, capitalizes on victorian and other influences, and then takes it to a new level, like faith on steroids.

For example, the Christian world believes that Jesus is the savior of this world. Along comes the LDS church and makes Jesus the savior of the whole universe!

For example, the Christian world believes that Jesus took on himself the pains of our sins. Along comes the LDS church and sais Jesus not only did that, he took upon himself all of our sicknesses, injuries, and everything else!

There is no end.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:57 pm

FGM was to make the woman so she cannot experience climax, thus keeping her pure? Supposedly it would keep her from ever wanting sex with anyone except her husband and I suppose they don’t care that she doesn’t want it with him either. So, it as a way of controlling her sexuality that was supposed to keep her faithful. But it shows a lack of understanding of women’s sexual motivation. I know of women who have never experienced orgasm and they have affairs because the desire is still there. Climax isn’t the motivation to have sex, more like the reward. So, it is ineffective anyway.

But the Saudi laws about prohibiting women from driving or going any where without a male relative are also all about controlling a woman’s sexual behavior.

The pill was developed to give women control over pregnancy. Other methods just had too much failure. And because it s primarily women who bare the cost of pregnancy, it is easy to see why women need control of this aspect of their lives.

A man can be blamed for the divorce, that is not the issue. The issue was that the woman was no longer pure and virginal. She was bumped over into the whore category of the virgin/whore dichotomy. Just because she had been married. She had had sex, so she was not virgin, but her husband wasn’t dead, so that makes her a whore that she is willing to get married again, even if she is not willing to get married again. It was kind of crazy thinking, and of course, not everyone thought that way, but enough did that the prejudice was real.

Widows were not treated the same way. And while there was prejudice against divorced men too, it was the virgin/whore thing in play. So, a divorced man could be an adulterer or an alcoholic, or a wife beater. But he wasn’t a whore, while the divorced woman was because she had lost her purity.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:26 pm

Oh, yes, conjugal rights. I worked for a while at Catholic Family Services. One couple the priest I was working with got married and after a week, he wanted no sex. The priest gave them an annulment because the husband was not honoring HER conjugal rights. So, it isn’t just Jews that see it that way. But, a Mormon couple, same thing and she had a hell of a time divorcing him, because her religious leaders saw no problem with it. :shock:

I totally agree that men can be raped by women. I worked for a while as a rape counselor. One man had been terribly sexually abused as a boy, so as an adult he got into a “seduction” situation that he didn’t want and he emotionally shut down. He couldn’t fight her “seduction” because his old trauma got triggered. Was it rape? I thought so, but his Bishop sure didn’t. So, same thing only this guy was a 45 year old. But society has a hard time seeing it. That is why I am glad now that society prosecutes female teachers who have sex with underage students. It is still sexual abuse, even if he is a “willing” participant.

The only examples I know of a divorced woman being denied a TR are just anecdotal, but they are not THAT old either, but they all involve women who divorced over domestic violence and the Bishop didn’t think that was a valid reason to divorce. But in every case, her ex had a TR and she was denied one just for being divorced. But from stories I have heard, it used to be more or less policy to not give divorced women TR, but I don’t for sure know if it is true or rumor.

And it was ONLY divorced women who were seen as sexual, all other women are asexual virgins doncha know.

I am with you in wondering if some of these men ever had much sex, except for it isn’t that easy to get a woman pregnant six or seven times. But some of them TALK like they didn’t have much sex, or maybe didn’t enjoy it??? Or maybe they talk like gay men married to women. Oaks for example, but I can think of other comments that have made me scratch my head.

But the one about never having seen his wife naked, means only that he didn’t see her bathe because some of these men kept garments ON during sex. My grandparents did. My grandmother bragged about it. :shock: But she had 12 kids. And my grandfather never saw her naked either.

But never taking your TGs off is another whole thread. But my grandmother thought kids were only sealed to you if conceived through the TGs

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:31 am

alas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:26 pm
But never taking your TGs off is another whole thread. But my grandmother thought kids were only sealed to you if conceived through the TGs
I'm picking up on everything you said above. Your work with crisis centers gives you significant experience Alas. You, like me, probably know a LOT of people.

This quote I pulled above actually is on-topic with this thread IMHO. I know additional people who also did this.

Do you think this is something that came through from the beginning, or just something during your grandmother's days? Where did your grandmother live, and when were her children born? I ask because I want to put a timeframe on this and see what administration was in power at the time.

Also,...one other comment on some of these GAs. I've heard stories that Bednar treats his wife like crap. I also use to wonder about women like Sister McConkie, or even how Aunt Wendy gets along. These people spout off this moral instruction, and they themselves, to the average person, would probably look dysfunctional if their lifestyles in this area were known.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by 2bizE » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:00 pm

With as many wives as Brigham Young had I have some questions.
1) Did he or his wives ever get sexually transmitted diseases?
2) If you had sex every night with a different woman would your penis get raw or painful?
~2bizE

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:43 pm

2bizE wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:00 pm
With as many wives as Brigham Young had I have some questions.
1) Did he or his wives ever get sexually transmitted diseases?
2) If you had sex every night with a different woman would your penis get raw or painful?
I really don’t want to contemplate either of your questions.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:01 pm

2bizE wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:00 pm
With as many wives as Brigham Young had I have some questions.
1) Did he or his wives ever get sexually transmitted diseases?
2) If you had sex every night with a different woman would your penis get raw or painful?
1) I'm not aware of any of this.
2) I'm not aware of any of this either.

I'm assuming your question is serious. I make that assumption because of the utter heartbreak some of these women endured in this horrible arrangement. As far as how much sex BY had, I don't think he necessarily had any more than a healthy in-love and amorous couple would have now. I do know, however, that many of his wives were forsaken and thrown aside, even those who were considered attractive and powerful, like Zina Huntington.

She dealt with crushing loneliness through most of her later adult life. And from things I've read about BY's life, he micromanaged EVERYTHING!!!!!!! He had little time for his children, who he almost never associated with or interacted with, and often less for his wives. Some he never saw save for maybe a few times a year.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:13 pm

Alas,


There is a dynamic I've heard and, through personal experience, actually understand now. Its call the 80/20 rule, and how it applies to sexuality. Let me explain it with an example:

1. Suppose you and your spouse were having a wonderfully amourous time together as lovers. If someone were to ask you what percentage of your relationship you would attributed to that part of your lives, it is likely you would say around 20%.

2. Suppose you and your spouse were having serious problems functioning as lovers. In this case, if someone were to ask you what percentage this problem was contributing you relationship difficulties, you would say around 80%.

These conclusions I have seen quoted in Brotherson's book, as well as at least 2 other books written from clinicians. The point is, when things are going well in this area, the sex side takes more of a background position. When things are going poorly here, however, sex problems come upfront and become quite large.

I once heard a bishop say to a younger couple: "What's the big deal? Its just sex."

How could he say that? It was devastating to the couple involved. I believe he said that because he had a good relationship with his wife, and so in his case, sex wasn't that big of a deal--it was in place and accessible. So, it was in the background.

Now,...I want to swing this full circle and talk about this polygamy deal. These men had lots of wives. Some of the wives wanted children, sure. But most were probably just hungry for a little time and possibly affection if any was available. Did they compete for their husband's attention? .... some did. But what position did this put the husband in?

It made sex available to him, and slanted him toward the 20%. In fact, with the possible (I'm speculating here) supply of sexuality available to him, he probably even wanted less. BY was a busy man....VERY busy. He fathered children,...yes. But, was he out there all the time doing that? NO! We already know that monogomous couples produce more children, per female, than polygamous couples do. So.....since BY was probably satiated in this area, what about his wives?

The more I think about this Alas, the more I see the point of 'power' being the motivation. It might have started as wanting more sex (I happen to think JS was into that with Fanny Alger), but I think it moved to power. Also, property was TAKEN from those poor women, so lust for possessions and money played a role.

The more I think about this whole polygamy deal, the more I find I hate it. And the more I feel contempt for JS, BY and the rest.

To think that this is how Heaven is?.......disgusting!

User avatar
græy
Posts: 274
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:52 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by græy » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:24 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 4:31 pm
Divorcees are looked down on and not trusted because there is this assumption that a divorcee has been married so she has learned to enjoy sex, so f course she now can’t live without it, so of course she will try to steal your husband or sleep with any willing male. There was a time in the church that a divorced woman could not get a temple recommend, but a divorced man could, no matter who caused the divorce. It was because of the assumption in most of American culture that a woman who had been married would hop into bed with any male because she just can’t live without sex. Why this didn’t apply to divorced men or widows is a mystery. But it was only divorced women who now couldn’t live without sex. Their *purity* was gone because they were divorced. Same thing with a woman who was raped. Her purity was gone, so of course she would be hopping into bed with anyone who was willing.
I have heard about denying these temple recommends before and I do not doubt it. Does anyone have a source on this? Older copy of the handbooks, etc.?
I'm better than dirt... well most dirt. Not that fancy store bought stuff, I can't compete with that... full of nutrients and everything. -Moe Sizlack

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:45 pm

Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:31 am
alas wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:26 pm
But never taking your TGs off is another whole thread. But my grandmother thought kids were only sealed to you if conceived through the TGs
I'm picking up on everything you said above. Your work with crisis centers gives you significant experience Alas. You, like me, probably know a LOT of people.

This quote I pulled above actually is on-topic with this thread IMHO. I know additional people who also did this.

Do you think this is something that came through from the beginning, or just something during your grandmother's days? Where did your grandmother live, and when were her children born? I ask because I want to put a timeframe on this and see what administration was in power at the time.

Also,...one other comment on some of these GAs. I've heard stories that Bednar treats his wife like crap. I also use to wonder about women like Sister McConkie, or even how Aunt Wendy gets along. These people spout off this moral instruction, and they themselves, to the average person, would probably look dysfunctional if their lifestyles in this area were known.
My Dad was born 100 years ago this May. He was a middle child of 12, with about a 20 year time spread. My husband’s grandmother was younger and was exactly the same way. So, we are looking at early 1900’s. Both grandmothers were born about 1880-1890. My dad was raised in a small town in Cash county, but his mother was raised in the Payson area and so was my husbands grandmother. Younger still, my maternal grandmother was born 1910, and she thought keeping them on that way was rubbish. So, I have no idea when the idea started, but by the 1920’s the idea was dying out.

It probably started with Mormons trying to out righteous each other, kind of like movie drift in the 1970-1980s where someone would say how they don’t let their kids watch R rated movies and the other bragging about how he doesn’t even let his kids watch PG, and the next saying how he and his wife won’t even watch anything not rated G. Can’t you marine some old guys sitting in the cafe with their cups of coffee, saying, well I don’t take mine off even to bathe, and the next ol guy saying as how he doesn’t even take his off for sex.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:18 pm

Rob4Hope wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:13 pm
Alas,


There is a dynamic I've heard and, through personal experience, actually understand now. Its call the 80/20 rule, and how it applies to sexuality. Let me explain it with an example:

1. Suppose you and your spouse were having a wonderfully amourous time together as lovers. If someone were to ask you what percentage of your relationship you would attributed to that part of your lives, it is likely you would say around 20%.

2. Suppose you and your spouse were having serious problems functioning as lovers. In this case, if someone were to ask you what percentage this problem was contributing you relationship difficulties, you would say around 80%.

These conclusions I have seen quoted in Brotherson's book, as well as at least 2 other books written from clinicians. The point is, when things are going well in this area, the sex side takes more of a background position. When things are going poorly here, however, sex problems come upfront and become quite large.

I once heard a bishop say to a younger couple: "What's the big deal? Its just sex."

How could he say that? It was devastating to the couple involved. I believe he said that because he had a good relationship with his wife, and so in his case, sex wasn't that big of a deal--it was in place and accessible. So, it was in the background.

Now,...I want to swing this full circle and talk about this polygamy deal. These men had lots of wives. Some of the wives wanted children, sure. But most were probably just hungry for a little time and possibly affection if any was available. Did they compete for their husband's attention? .... some did. But what position did this put the husband in?

It made sex available to him, and slanted him toward the 20%. In fact, with the possible (I'm speculating here) supply of sexuality available to him, he probably even wanted less. BY was a busy man....VERY busy. He fathered children,...yes. But, was he out there all the time doing that? NO! We already know that monogomous couples produce more children, per female, than polygamous couples do. So.....since BY was probably satiated in this area, what about his wives?

The more I think about this Alas, the more I see the point of 'power' being the motivation. It might have started as wanting more sex (I happen to think JS was into that with Fanny Alger), but I think it moved to power. Also, property was TAKEN from those poor women, so lust for possessions and money played a role.

The more I think about this whole polygamy deal, the more I find I hate it. And the more I feel contempt for JS, BY and the rest.

To think that this is how Heaven is?.......disgusting!
It wasn’t just with the sexual dynamic. Everything was skewed. Power, financial, affection, position in the community.

With the sexual dynamic, I totally agree that if the woman wanted sex, or even children, they had to bend over backwards to get the man interested. I have read things where the wife was preparing for her one night a month, really staging the seduction scene. It was really sad, so I agree that for the man it would be 20, only divided by the number of wives, so .012 or so. Or to simplify, if he had 20 wives, he would consider sex with her as 1, where she would still be up at 80.

Then there was the financial. When they married, he took possession of all her money or land, as per the law that the man owned all the property, even if it was the wife’s property before marriage. Then he could dump her, leaving her destitute. He had no obligation to support his wives, unlike in societies where polygamy has been well established for generations, the men are limited to 3 wives and have to prove they have the ability to support them and all children. So, the men could be like BY and his income is all his and his wives’ incomes were also his. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine. So, we have Joseph Smith marrying his foster daughters who had an nheritance from their wealthy father. After her money is all spent, Joseph could move on to the next young orphan with an inheritance.

User avatar
jfro18
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:41 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by jfro18 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:35 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:18 pm
Then there was the financial. When they married, he took possession of all her money or land, as per the law that the man owned all the property, even if it was the wife’s property before marriage. Then he could dump her, leaving her destitute. He had no obligation to support his wives, unlike in societies where polygamy has been well established for generations, the men are limited to 3 wives and have to prove they have the ability to support them and all children. So, the men could be like BY and his income is all his and his wives’ incomes were also his. What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine. So, we have Joseph Smith marrying his foster daughters who had an nheritance from their wealthy father. After her money is all spent, Joseph could move on to the next young orphan with an inheritance.
This is something I never thought of - especially considering that Joseph had a real talent for hooking up with the 'foster children' of his house.

They might have very well given their property to him if he had just asked them, but this is quite a stunning way to grab property under the premise of eternal salvation through marrying him as a polygamous wife.

Of course to believe that you have to believe that Joseph was constantly plotting and conspiring to advance his own needs, which I do... but good luck getting a TBM to concede the financial impact of polygamy.

User avatar
2bizE
Posts: 1145
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by 2bizE » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:24 pm

alas wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:43 pm
2bizE wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:00 pm
With as many wives as Brigham Young had I have some questions.
1) Did he or his wives ever get sexually transmitted diseases?
2) If you had sex every night with a different woman would your penis get raw or painful?
I really don’t want to contemplate either of your questions.
I can understand that. My question is serious though, not the normal wiseass cracks I make.
~2bizE

User avatar
moksha
Posts: 2174
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:22 am

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by moksha » Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:29 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:00 am
One of Brigham’s teachings was that there has to be polygamy because without it the men will have to use prostitutes.
Polygamy most likely increased the frequenting of prostitutes because it took many eligible women out of circulation. There was even a designated block in SLC for prostitution. Suspect Brigham got a cut of that action (in money and just for time, not eternity).
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:25 am

moksha wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 4:29 am
Rob4Hope wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:00 am
One of Brigham’s teachings was that there has to be polygamy because without it the men will have to use prostitutes.
Polygamy most likely increased the frequenting of prostitutes because it took many eligible women out of circulation. There was even a designated block in SLC for prostitution. Suspect Brigham got a cut of that action (in money and just for time, not eternity).
I would be shocked if I wasn't aware of this Moksha. Yep, there were some brothels that old BY had a hand in keeping around. He also was the proprietor of the Valley Tan(?) Utah Whiskey. He earned money by promoting and handling vices he decried over the pulpit. A true "spiritual" man <sarcasm galore>.

When I was a teen, I worked with my family on cleaning out and renovation of an old Ice Cream building up in Ogden. It was a 3 story deal or something and had a kitchen and dining type area, but was dilapidated and almost falling down. In the basement of the place, there was a wall knocked out that had tunnels down there. We looked around a bit and found some really old junk, including a horse bridle that was almost disintegrated, and old trinkets and things. The tunnel went back a ways as well.

We asked some of the older realtor people about the place and the tunnels, and they explained that those tunnels were used to bring in prostitutes off the train years ago and get them into the city. That tunnel was one that was used for the activity.

I was young and totally TBM, so this type of thing happening inside of Utah was absolutely shocking. But, there it was.

Interesting history this state has when all is said and done.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:15 pm

Presendia Huntington, Buell, Smith, Kimball. (She ended up going to Heber Kimball). Just finished this chapter, and she, like her sister, had a lonely trying life. Heber moved her housing around over 20 times, and it took its toll on her.

What I want to mention, though off topic, is these ladies VERY OFTEN administered to the sick--as in washed, anointed and blessed them--for the purpose of healing!

It was really very common. Heber approved of it. How interesting that later on, shoring up the priesthood and subjecting the women to being controlled (as probably a pre-correlational step), women being allowed to continue in this activity was stopped.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests