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.