13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[DrumNFeather]

6. Root out references to the myth of male weakness. Emphasize that men can control themselves.

The assumption here (that raging male teen hormones are difficult for YM to deal with is a "myth") is a huge one, I think, and I don't buy it. And sure, men can control themselves, but that doesn't mean YM should feel free to give YM frequent opportunities to test their self-control.

I don't know L.A., this one rings pretty true to me. Anyone who has attended a priesthood meeting in the last, oh, forever knows that all the leaders do is throw their hands up and say "bretheren, nothing we can do here, none of us can control ourselves, we're all totally off the hook!"

[woot]

Yes, great argument. Perhaps we should go back to the way things were long before marriage was invented.

Or we can accept the social progress we've made since man was apeish.
Calling an argument stupid because it can't be proven is all fine and dandy until you throw out an argument that is equally impossible to prove. Like, say, that humans had fewer emotional difficulties when "fucking everything in sight" was the norm.

Either way, the correct answer is "yes". You're completely making that stuff up. You'd like to believe it's true because it would support your scientific beliefs, the same way it would be great if the satisfaction of people in healthy monogamous relationships would erode, but the facts are stubborn that way.

You've missed the point. My only argument here is that the burden of evidence lies with the one making the outlandish claims. I'm not saying anything regarding wanting to go back to a previous state (I generally make fun of others for constantly wanting that sort of thing), or regarding the previous state being desirable. It wouldn't have been pleasant, for many reasons. The sole point is that he was making a claim without any evidence to back it up, and it can therefore be dismissed out of hand.

Edit: I might as well add I am currently in a healthy monogamous relationship. My concern here is the truth, not the protection of baseless beliefs.

[shoganai]

Either way, the correct answer is "yes". You're completely making that stuff up. You'd like to believe it's true because it would support your religious beliefs, the same way it would be great if the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption would go away, but the facts are stubborn that way.

Pot, meet kettle.

[woot]

Pot, meet kettle.

The null hypothesis is that normal sexual behavior does not cause emotional pathologies. You have asserted otherwise, based on your religious beliefs. Without evidence to back up your assertion, there is no reason to consider it. You seem to be asserting that I have done something similar. Care to elaborate?

[shoganai]

The null hypothesis is that normal sexual behavior does not cause emotional pathologies. You have asserted otherwise, based on your religious beliefs. Without evidence to back up your assertion, there is no reason to consider it. You seem to be asserting that I have done something similar. Care to elaborate?

Horse, meet stick. I couldn't care less whether you consider my assertion or not.

[TripletDaddy]

Utter nonsense. You're going to have to explain how I am doing that.

I don't need to explain. You can continue to be unknowingly sexist, I suppose. That none of the women agree with you in this thread should give you some pause to reconsider your position.

I wonder why more rapists don't defend themselves on the stand by stating, "she was tempting me because she was wearing shorts that were not modest." It isn't a great defense and it certainly is what you are advocating when you blame YW for making life more difficult for YM and their hormones.

[UtahDan]

The null hypothesis is that normal sexual behavior does not cause emotional pathologies. You have asserted otherwise, based on your religious beliefs. Without evidence to back up your assertion, there is no reason to consider it. You seem to be asserting that I have done something similar. Care to elaborate?

I think shogun is asserting a pretty commonly held belief in the LDS community, and really I think most religious communities, that promiscuity and multiple sexual partners is not a social good. Societies, for the most part, have evolved to value marriage and monogamy for various reasons. Of course, that evolution took place in an environment without condoms and without much of our modern thinking. Still, I think what he is saying is in the ether of at least American society so I don't think it is absurd or without support, which is not to say I necessarily agree with it.

It is not any different than a traditional marriage debate where you tell someone that there is simply no evidence hetero-marriage is better than gay marriage. In a sense you are right, but you are also overlooking thousands of years of experience. Which again, is not to say that all the experience is right, but it is to say that if you don't recognize the legitimacy of forming a belief based on that experience and based on the culture you are in you are just going to talk past people. If you want to persuade them that what most people have believed for a long time is not right, in a sense the burden really is on you. Even if what they believe is that the earth is flat.

It is sometimes emotionally satisfying to give someone the intellectually dismissive back hand but it doesn't advance the discussion.

[RobinFinderson]

I'm the ref, and here is how I rule on the woot/shogani standoff:

shogani makes a good point that sex can affect people emotionally. For better or worse, our culture has loaded sex with a lot of emotional baggage, to the point that 'casual sex' is often not nearly as 'casual' as all of the participants might think. It is like I always tell Little Robin, "If you want to have sex with someone, make very sure that you both understand what that means to each other, and that you are not taking advantage of someone who is looking for a sexual affirmation of their self-worth." There are people out there for whom casual sex is truly casual, but there are more people who claim that it is casual, when in reality it comes with many emotional strings attached.

That said, woot wins the round, because the emotional impact of consensual sex that doesn't result in the emotional nourishment the participants were hoping for is NOT that big of a deal.

[The_Tick]

My wife actually quit her calling in YW's because she was unwilling and unable to continue to teach the lessons that weren't practical and did nothing but place blame on the YW.

And my oldest pretty much hated the YW lessons from about the age 15 on. She felt they were off-putting and that the YW were blamed for any mistakes YM made.

I didn't agree with her or my wife...but after seeing the Sisters in this thread...I see that I need to revisit my position on this. The youngest turns 13 next week and we are heading into round 2.

[SoonerCoug]

I think shogun is asserting a pretty commonly held belief in the LDS community, and really I think most religious communities, that promiscuity and multiple sexual partners is not a social good.

I love considering this issue and its origin in a biological context.

There is no doubt that it is evolutionary advantageous to spread one's seed. On the other hand, there is a distinct advantage to being involved in your children's lives and making sure they succeed. Many males including leaders in the bible and early leaders of our church were prolific reproducers with many wives and concubines, and polygamy was a limited practice--only for those called by God (or those who were most prominent).

There are many good reasons for monogamy: fewer diseases, stable environment, providing opportunities for a few offspring to succeed. But there are also great evolutionary advantages to having hundreds of children.

Why do those in authority teach against promiscuity? I'm wondering how much of the argument for chastity has biological origins and how much of it is purely a social construct. Certainly it is advantageous for females to keep a male in check, and this is also playing a role.

Male acting on his male courtship pattern: Joseph was marrying multiple women, etc. Joseph was engaging in a behavior that would theoretically have increased his biological fitness had he not used sheepskin condoms or whatever it is he did.

Female attempting to limit the male courtship pattern: Emma was mad and wanted Joseph to stop marrying other women.

Male in authority teaching his society: Joseph: I am practicing polygamy, but God told me to do it, and I can call some of you to do it too. However, only certain men will be called. (From a competitive perspective, he is limiting the opportunities of other males--as well as the competition. This is not unlike kicking out the lost boys in the FLDS clan--eliminating competition.)

People don't give enough credit to instincts and basic biology when considering the origins of behaviors and rules. Fascinating issue when considered in a purely biological context.

[Pheidippides]

You just don't get it. That you consider the girls "setting traps," is putting the blame on them for the boys' thoughts or behavior. At what point do you say, OK girls, you're covered enough so if the boys are still thinking about sex, it's their fault and you're off the hook. In some parts of the world where women are completely covered in burqas, a bare ankle can be scandalous and sexy and can lead a man to sin.

Maybe because you are a Ute, you haven't read some of the crazy letters that get sent to the Daily Universe regarding modesty and the effect it can have on the minds of men. Apparently one-strap backpacks can lead men to sinful thoughts. Really? If a woman chooses to wear her purse diagonally across her chest, she is setting a "trap" for a young man? What if her shoulders are exposed--she's wearing something sleeveless--just another boy trap? Where does the female's responsibility end and the male's responsibility start?

I'm with soup on this one as long as we are not assuming that a rapist hides in every YM.

Edit: I see several people beat me to the punch here.

[LA Ute]

I don't need to explain. You can continue to be unknowingly sexist, I suppose. That none of the women agree with you in this thread should give you some pause to reconsider your position.

I wonder why more rapists don't defend themselves on the stand by stating, "she was tempting me because she was wearing shorts that were not modest." It isn't a great defense and it certainly is what you are advocating when you blame YW for making life more difficult for YM and their hormones.

[marsupial]

You still don't get it. DDD's assessment was dead on.

[SoonerCoug]

I love considering this issue and its origin in a biological context.

There is no doubt that it is evolutionary advantageous to spread one's seed. On the other hand, there is a distinct advantage to being involved in your children's lives and making sure they succeed. Many males including leaders in the bible and early leaders of our church were prolific reproducers with many wives and concubines, and polygamy was a limited practice--only for those called by God (or those who were most prominent).

There are many good reasons for monogamy: fewer diseases, stable environment, providing opportunities for a few offspring to succeed. But there are also great evolutionary advantages to having hundreds of children.

Why do those in authority teach against promiscuity? I'm wondering how much of the argument for chastity has biological origins and how much of it is purely a social construct. Certainly it is advantageous for females to keep a male in check, and this is also playing a role.

Male acting on his male courtship pattern: Joseph was marrying multiple women, etc. Joseph was engaging in a behavior that would theoretically have increased his biological fitness had he not used sheepskin condoms or whatever it is he did.

Female attempting to limit the male courtship pattern: Emma was mad and wanted Joseph to stop marrying other women.

Male in authority teaching his society: Joseph: I am practicing polygamy, but God told me to do it, and I can call some of you to do it too. However, only certain men will be called. (From a competitive perspective, he is limiting the opportunities of other males--as well as the competition. This is not unlike kicking out the lost boys in the FLDS clan--eliminating competition.)

People don't give enough credit to instincts and basic biology when considering the origins of behaviors and rules. Fascinating issue when considered in a purely biological context.

I just realized that I am a Jew.

(1) Biological context

(2) Evolutionary advantages

(3) Many wives

(4) Those who were most prominent

(4-1) Those in authority

(3-1) Multiple women

(2-1) Biological fitness

(1-1) Biological context

[Sleeping in EQ]

Good points, RF. My understanding is that most researchers would side with woot here. Psychologists don't call thoughts "evil," and may even suggest that the religious tendency to do so is unhealthy. Anthropologists and biologists will note that noticing someone is attractive, and wanting to be attractive, is natural.

Promiscuity has social, psychological, and health consequences, and some of these are good or bad not because of their intrinsic qualites but because of the way society is structured and what people are taught.