0 likes

   0 likes

Please, let’s keep porn naughty

when it falls into the wrong hands porn can be a bore, a horrible screed.

Gosh, When Jettboy is flooding the Bloggernacle with Mormon Viagra why can’t the church titillate itself just a bit. “Can’t we just agree to keep porn naughty. Isn’t that part of the appeal?”
Jettboy’s Google search: Mormon Viagra
Under images or text he is there hiding his sacred screed of Mormon Decorum cloaked under Mormon Viagra,
be sure to: Show more results from http://www.bloggerofjared.com
and go further: Show all results from http://www.bloggerofjared.com »

The ultimate Mormon Porn-man is Jettboy of the newly minted
straight and narrow blog: http://jettboy.blogspot.com/
With Juvenile Instructors like Jettboy who needs any more instruction
in the “religion making business.”
Robert Millet would be pleased, http://www.scari.org/Mormons.Reconstructed.html

gok

   0 likes

   0 likes

That’s roughly my sense of what the (brief) outright ban on oral sex was about. It seems that “the Brethren” heard stories of the horrible things Mormon husbands were making their wives do (i.e., fellatio), and they decided to help the wives by making it clear that oral sex is evil. (They were trying to do a kindness in their own way, I think.) What they didn’t realize, apparently, is that plenty of wives actually like fellatio (or at least don’t mind it), and perhaps they also failed to realize that there’s this little thing called cunnilingus that lots of wives (and husbands) like a whole lot.

Anyway, it’s an interesting case of a bottom-up backlash leading to the reversal of a top-down directive over the course of just a few years. I don’t think there are many cases of that in the church.

   0 likes

I think the church assumes a depraved view of man — assuming the worst possible outcomes: “We’d better not let them have ANY alcohol or they won’t know how to stop” “We’d better not let them view ANY porn or they’ll become obsessed with it” — and that justifies its abstinence approach.

Meanwhile, I’m excited by research like this. Thanks for sharing! Look forward to hearing more about your own studies, profxm.

   0 likes

   0 likes

— older Mormons seem to think of oral sex as indecent, and as something that lustful men coerce their wives into doing.

Here’s my theory: if you’re coming out of an era where sex is only about reproduction, and women’s main role is to be a housewife, then oral sex is always gonna be about fellatio, and therefore rude to the woman. Cunnilingus isn’t even imagined, because (a) women are taught to be not desirous, (b) men are not taught to be sexually giving.

Similarly, anal sex is considered rude to the woman (even more so), because “pegging” one’s husband is not imagined. In some places, it’s still illegal to sell dildos because the state is still in your bedroom (even after Lawrence v Texas, the right to sell sex toys fails in some courts in this country). What you’re saying, Kuri, about the change in feelings of privacy in the bedroom is something that is happening nationwide. But when sexual discourse focuses the body foremost on reproduction, oral sex will always be, at best, naughty and anal sex abnormal or wrong.

   0 likes

Anyway, from what I know of personally, in the late 70s – early 80s, the church was briefly officially against oral sex even in marriage. People were even asked about it — usually euphemistically, of course — in temple recommend interviews. This provoked a backlash, and bishops were instructed not to ask about married couples’ sex lives anymore.

So the church isn’t officially against oral sex in marriage anymore, but from online and offline conversations with devout Mormons — and this is strictly anecdotal in nature, of course — older Mormons seem to think of oral sex as indecent, and as something that lustful men coerce their wives into doing. (But how different is that from other older Americans?)

Younger Mormons, even devout ones, seem more open to the idea. Rumor even has it that it’s popular among Mormon singles at BYU and elsewhere as a way to “have sex without having sex,” although that sounds like urban legend territory to me. (But how different is that from other younger Americans?)

As for anal, when I was still a believer and sex occasionally came up for discussion in internet forums, my set piece on oral sex was, “It’s an individual matter. If it makes both members of the couple feel good, happy, and closer to each other, it’s fine. If it doesn’t, then they should probably refrain.” A common riposte to that was “What about anal sex?!” the idea apparently being that anal sex is something that couldn’t possibly be “fine” under any circumstances. My answer to that was always “Same answer as for oral,” but it never convinced any of those people who think that oral and/or anal sex is obviously wrong under any circumstances.

   0 likes

I use Chrome as a backup browser (on Linux) and just tested it. It seems to be working fine. Try refreshing or clearing your cache.

Alan, I like the way you think about this. I wonder if we could get the readers of some Mormon-focused blog to comment on this issue (a.k.a. bread-and-butter Mormons). Anyone have any connections?

   0 likes