Men & Modesty

Adapted from a comment I made on Facebook.

Modesty is always aimed toward women, and I do see why that is: it's fashionable for women to show more skin than men.  If you look at fashion throughout history, men stay covered up and women alter how much skin they show and in what areas.

However, another reason is that men are assumed to just have these voracious sex drives and be incredibly visual—more so than women.  I think no one objects to this because it sounds scientific and because, mainly, no woman wants to be frank about her own sex drive to a Sunday School class.

Women have sex drives too and we can be just as visual as men. True, men's fashions do not reveal as much skin.  But to a certain extent, that's irrelevant.  I'm going to be frank because people tip toe around specifics and it just confuses things: It honestly makes no difference what a man is wearing—I can have sexual thoughts about him regardless. You could say that showing more skin makes these thoughts easier, but still—you can be doing everything you possibly can to not make people think sexual thoughts about you, and you will fail because you do not have control over the minds of others. You just don't. You could be wearing a burqa and men (or women if, for some reason, a man is wearing the burqa) could fantasize about taking it off because it's like a challenge.

I am a visual person; I remember things more when I see them.  But still, like I said, a man can be completely covered up and I can fantasize about him.  Saying this might make readers uncomfortable, but I think it needs to be said because no one else says it.  I don't want to be treated like I'm this innocent creature who just doesn't comprehend or think about sex.  I don't think that such a person should even be placed on a pedestal, because that implies that sexual thoughts are inherently bad.

A gross self-deception

Quentin L. Cook:

"When it comes to morality, some adults believe that adherence to a single, overriding humanitarian project or principle nullifies the need to comply with the Savior’s teachings. They say to themselves that sexual misconduct is 'a small thing … [if I am] a kind and charitable person.^'  Such thinking is a gross self-deception."

Who cares if you're kind!  You cares if you have charity!  The Book of Mormon says, "[I]f ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth."  Apparently, that really doesn't matter if you're having extra-marital sex.  It's fine if you're a nasty, misanthropic jerk as long as you're celibate.

I have hated hearing people categorize the "sexually immoral" only by their sexual conduct--as if that's all that matters about them.  Often it seems people lump all "sinners" together—people having sex in a loving, committed relationship that isn't a marriage are in the same category as pedophiles and murderers.  I have spoken up to say that someone could be having sex outside of marriage, but think about how they could also be a really kind, honest person with a love of others.  That must count for something.

I'm sure Elder Cook would argue that it does count for something, but not as much as I think it does.  I hate that this statement makes it seem like any positive qualities a person may have are overshadowed by the fact that s/he is having sex with someone Elder Cook thinks s/he shouldn't be having it with.

Where Are Our Priorities?

Subtitle: Yet Another Sex Post

This is heavily inspired by this video, which I am assigning as required viewing:

I have been on a "police procedural" TV kick.  Despite the violence (both actual and suggested), these shows somehow increase my faith in humanity: There are people out there who devote their lives to catching killers and saving lives.  It is a nice reminder to not take the police, the FBI, etc. for granted.

That being said,  the amount of violence does disturb me on some level—and sometimes how little it disturbs me actually disturbs me more.  People killing and torturing each other is normal fare for TV, but language and sex are censored, at least far more than violence is.  (I admit that the violence that is on day-time and prime time TV could be worse—after all there are subscription-only channels that have more violent content).  But out of those three—swearing, sex, and violence—which one seems to be the worst for society? 

Certain swear words (like racial slurs) can represent hate, true; but those aren't the kind of words that I'm talking about getting censored.  When does sex hurt anyone?  The case I can think of is rape—but that crosses over into violence. 

The out-of-whack priorities particularly struck me yesterday when watching some episodes of Criminal Minds that had been recorded in the afternoon.  All of the swears had been edited out (we're talking words like 'ass').  But they could still go into detail about murder. 

I see this even inside of the church.  Sources like For the Strength of Youth do caution against viewing anything that is vulgar, pornographic, or violent.  But in other cases, I see the threat of violence taken less seriously.  Regarding standards that members of the church have, I hear things like not drinking coffee, not spending money on Sundays, not swearing, and not having pre-marital sex.  But I don't think I've ever heard "not getting into fights" or even "not being hateful."  How many times was I lectured to in youth about not having sex?  More times than I can remember.  But I don't remember hearing about not physically hurting someone—I'm guessing it was mentioned, but it wasn't memorable enough for me to recall; on the other hand, the principle of not having sex was severely stressed and mentioned often.  Pornography is a frequently-mentioned issue too.  It would be one thing if it was stressed that pornography that was violent or that subjugated women was (especially) dangerous, but that isn't the case.  It's pornography in general that is bad because of the sexual component alone.

This just doesn't make sense, especially relating to the belief that, even if it is next to, extra-marital sex isn't as bad on the sin scale as murder.  Judging by the movies that are popular with LDS YSA, I can see that movies with a certain amount of violence are tolerated, but a movie that showed a bare bottom or had a sex scene would be totally off limits.  Why is sex more taboo than murder, especially when murder is considered worse?

You could say that youth and young adults are more likely to engage in sexual activity than murder, which is probably true.  But let's extend violence to hate, which causes it.  Personally, I'd much rather have a teenager fornicating than calling a gay classmate a f--.  A large component of the chastity talks were preventing sin by controlling the factors (like thoughts) that lead up to them.  But factors that lead to violence—like intolerance, hate, judgment, and self-righteousness—are not stressed very much in my experience.  BYU wards usually have a chastity talk at the beginning of the semester, but where is the anti-intolerance talk?  

I think it's a huge reflection of our society—violence is just far more acceptable than sex for some reason.  I can offer guesses for why that is, like the fact that the U.S. has a huge Puritan influence and the Puritans were tight-lipped about sex but saw no problem putting people in the stocks to be ridiculed.  I don't know the exact reason why our society has its priorities so out of whack.  What I do know is that this needs to change.

Love Vs. Lust

Subtitle: Kimball's Pet Peeves

After reading a quote that apparently came from a 1965 speech delivered at BYU by Spencer W. Kimball, I decided to listen to the address on the BYU Speeches site to find out if that quote was really in it (it wasn't...but I admit that it could have been edited out [it was about homosexuality]).  I did hear some other interesting teachings though.

The main point of the talk was on the difference between love and lust.  As you may know from previous posts, one of the most problematic things about the Law of Chastity to me is how it sets up a dichotomy between sex and anything good, holy, wholesome, etc., which just can't be beneficial in the long run.  Kimball says, "The beautiful holy word of love they have defiled until it is degenerated and has become a bedfellow with lust, its antithesis."  So, lust is the antithesis of love? (By the way, this talk is also the source of a lust vs. love quote I heard all the time in Young Women's: "At the hour of indulgence, pure love is pushed out one door while lust sneaks in the other.")

But...what about lust within marriage?  Can't someone lust after his or her spouse?  Is that OK?  I can see where lust without any love could be condemnable, but what about lust with love?  He sets this up as being impossible.  If he means that lust is purely sexual self-interest (only the desire for gratification, unmotivated by affection for the other person), then I guess that makes sense.  But without more clearly defining it, it seems as though lust just means sexual desire.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines lust as "usually intense or unbridled sexual desire" or "an intense longing," neither of which seem condemnable as long as they're used within marriage.  He treats any sex outside of marriage as being impossible to represent love, but I just can't agree.  Especially when you apply the principle that people ignorant of commandments they break are not condemned.  It's such an unfair blanket statement to say that if you're not married, your sex can't possibly be an expression of love.

Another of Kimball's pet peeves—so to speak ;)— is petting.  He calls the practice a "terrible vicious habit of youth" and a "deep sin."  For the millionth time I ask, What about if it's within marriage?  Isn't it OK then?  You can't just brand petting itself evil and vicious and not expect people to get complexes that will affect them even after they get married.

Another problematic principle in this talk is the idea that chastity is the most valuable thing one can possess, yet it can be taken by force.  Kimball quotes the scripture from the Book of Mormon (Moroni 9:9-10):

"For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue—and after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner...."

 How is that just?  How can a part of a person that is "most dear and precious above all things" be taken without approval?  I think the mistake is that chastity is being equated to virginity.  And again, what about within marriage?  Doesn't each spouse take the other one's chastity?  But within marriage, it (i.e. not being chaste) is beautiful and holy.  These definitions just don't match up.  Yes, the LoC includes being faithful to a spouse after marriage, which is how someone can break the law while still being married; however, it does not take into account that even within marriage, you're still apparently losing that "most dear and precious" part of you. 

It is also unjust that such an integral part of you, even if taken by force, can never be regained:

"The eighth of the Ten Commandments says thou shall not steal yet the immoral act is robbery in its worst expressions.  It’s taking with or without permission the most priceless, the most unrecoverable, the most unreturnable possession of an individual —chastity and virtue.  In one dark unglorious hour lives can be taken or shattered.  But in a long lifetime total restoration is impossible.  Health lost may possibly be regained.  Wealth lost may be accumulated again, freedom lost might be fought for and regained, but virtue stolen is gone.  Is not this one of the prime reasons why this forbidden thing is so heinous like murder for neither can everbe wholly compensated nor wholly returned or undone.  Thou shall not kill came from Mount Sinai and in the same breath, Thou shall not commit adultery—or fornication, we could add for they are the same.  Same act.  One can take a life easily but return it—never."

Live can be taken or shattered?  OK, let's totally ignore and neglect the Atonement.  That sounds good.  It's just like the object lesson that girls used to get: A hammer struck a nail into a piece of wood, but even when the nail was pulled out, the hole still remained.  (Disgusting.)  Also, I suggest that fornication and adultery are not the same thing.  Again, I turn to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Fornication is "consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other" while adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband."  There is a difference!  He seems to try to make them the same thing as a way of increasing the apparent rascality of premarital sex—premarital sex is apparently forbidden by the Ten Commandments, the 10 Big No-Nos.  But it's not.  By calling fornication and adultery the same act, you're basically decreasing the severity of adultery.  Adultery involves violating sacred marriage vows, which seems worse than having premarital sex.

One distinction Kimball makes between love and lust is this: "Proper sex functions bring posterity.  Illicit relations are always intended to avoid posterity."  So...what about "proper sex function" that also is intended to avoid posterity?  What about birth control?  A married couple won't even necessarily conceive every time they have sex.  Again, a false dichotomy is presented: Sex that produces children is good, sex that is not supposed to produce children is bad.  

There is so much more about this talk that I find wrong and damaging, but I will cease my criticism for now.

Second Only to Murder

I have puzzled over the question of sin: Is an action inherently sinful, or is it ascribed that meaning by God?  It seems to be the latter, because the same action can be either laudable or a sin depending on the circumstance (e.g. Nephi was justified in killing Laban because God told him to, yet God told Moses that killing is a sin; sex outside of marriage is wicked and filthy but in marriage is beautiful; polygamy was once a commandment but now you can be excommunicated for it).  If that is the case, why does God ascribe that meaning to it?  It seems that the consequences (either feeling happy or sad) of either abstaining from or committing the sin only come because of the value God ascribes to the action (e.g., Nephi didn't feel enormous guilt and spiritual darkness after killing Laban).  So why ascribe negative values to these actions in the first place?  Are they just arbitrary and used as a test?  Is sex not inherently bad outside of marriage but God created the confines of marriage to create separate circumstances to test us?  This larger issue is a topic for another day; right now I want to focus on the Law of Chastity in all of its glory.

Implications

Often it's not the exact utterance that someone speaks in church that is problematic—it's what it implies.  Thinking and pondering are good, encouraged qualities.  If you ponder something, you will naturally extrapolate and think of the different sides; then you will see the implications.  If we want people thinking (which we should want), we have the be prepared for them to poke holes in arguments when they see the implications of said arguments.

I understand that people usually don't mean what they're implying.  But the problem is that they don't say otherwise. 

Let's talk examples, because I like concrete evidence.  The teacher of a temple prep class, a member of the bishopric, was talking about the Law of Chastity (my favorite subject!!!!).  He admitted that he thought that his wife was beautiful, but "beauty is from the shoulders up."  He also said some things that were obviously outlandish and false (i.e. they completely contradicted well-known scriptures) which I won't mention here (right now), because they, not just their implications, were just plain wrong.

I talked to him after class about it, and I mentioned how what's taught about the LoC seems to teach people to hate their bodies.  He angrily objected, "I never told you to hate your bodies!"  I know that.  He didn't say those exact words or anything like them.  But everything he did say backs up that conclusion.  

What I'm advocating is acknowledging the other side.  You may say, "There's nothing wrong with wearing blue."  But unless you mention that there's nothing wrong with wearing any other color, someone might think that you're implying that.  If you say that it's dangerous to be prideful, mention that it's also not good to be down on yourself.  Be more complete with explanations, please.

Overhaul on sex ed, please

The way morality and chastity is taught in the church is damaging and out of whack.  I think this mainly comes from leaders not putting themselves in the shoes of their audience members and trying to treat a symptom, not a disease (that's only a metaphor, and I don't mean that sex is in any way like a disease).  Instead of lecturing kids how going too far brings guilt and remorse and that you won't be pure, leaders need to think about the reasons kids choose to have sex.  They need to recognize that that desire isn't bad, and not all kids are just bundles of hormones who decide to have sex just because everyone else is doing it.  They try to claim that "those feelings" are "normal" and "natural," but in the same breath say that they need to be squashed.

Regardless of whether some church leaders' stances on homosexuality is even correct, it needs to be taught and discussed a different way.  If you are gay, it is not helpful to hear that your desires are perverted and that you need to change again and again.  In a church where marriage and family is so often stressed, kids who are gay who do want these same things but just aren't attracted to the opposite sex will feel like there is no path for them.  Sure, they want to get married, but it's impossible because they won't marry someone of the opposite gender; so they're trapped.

Elder Boyd K. Packer made some disastrous assertions during a General Conference talk, which are no doubt results of his age and sexual orientation.

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural.  Not so.  Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?  Remember, He is our father.  Paul promised, 'God will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able.  But will with the temptation also make a way to escape that ye may be able to bear it.'  You can if you will break the habits and conquer the addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the church.

I am trying to prove that this statement is wrong even under the paradigm that homosexuality is immoral.  Bear that in mind.

By saying that someone is not "preset" and that God would not do that, what exactly is he saying is the alternative?  That it's your fault?  You're giving into the temptation to think that way?  He tries to be comforting by saying that God wouldn't do that, but the implication that you weren't born that way and that you can totally stop it is even worse.  I believe everyone has a predisposition toward things which are considered "immoral" that have to do with his/her personality and struggles.  To some, doing drugs is a huge temptation; to others, it's not but being dishonest is.  It's ridiculous to tell those people that God didn't make them predisposed to want to do drugs and that it's their fault for being tempted.

I don't know if God "tempts" us like some people say anyway.  That scripture from Corinthians that Elder Packer quoted  makes it sound like God sends us temptations, which doesn't seem right.  Plus, it's an overgeneralization that you will always be overcome temptation.  Mainly because people label too many things as "temptation," like being depressed.  I don't think we can always overcome our circumstances—what about all those pioneers that died en route to Utah??  They would have made it if they had had more faith?

Elder Packer makes being predisposed to liking the same gender sound like a stupid excuse.  God wouldn't do that?  So what's the alternative?  Now telling someone that being gay is an "addiction" and that their feelings are completely "impure and unnatural"—that's something Heavenly Father would never do.  Remember, He is our father.