First of all, let me say how much I resent that this is a thing I need to know about.
For anyone who is not familiar, I am linking to one article out of several options. I am choosing this one because it is not behind a paywall and because it mentions that evangelical Christians are doing it too. If you are seeing people talk about it on the internet, they are talking about Mormons. Or, maybe that's just what I see because that's what I am.
https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/mormon-soak-soaking-derfing-sex-virginity
(Actually, from the example given, that girl was more likely evangelical than LDS, unless we're doing purity rings now.)
The downside of this article is that it doesn't explain "jump humping". Suffice it to say, if the loophole is no movement, and movement is part of the satisfaction, having someone jump on the bed becomes the second loophole, making for an unholy threesome.
Perhaps they heard that it wasn't the size of the boat that counted, but the motion of the ocean. Are waterbeds popular in Provo?
When I first heard of it, I thought it had to be a joke. I know sometimes we talk about the letter and the spirit of the law, but I don't recall those conversations ever going in a direction that encouraged you to look for loopholes.
I don't see how anyone could think that the line between virginity and not virginity, between chastity and not chastity, is whether the penis inside the vagina is moving. How does that not automatically sound so ridiculous that the train of thought screeches to a halt right there?
Of course, they are probably asking the wrong questions, but would they be able to get good answers from their available resources?
One of the big issues for the fascist school board candidates was being against comprehensive sex education. I believe their main purpose for that was making sure that no one came away respecting the rights of gay and transgender people. However, another important part of that aversion appears to be the fear of giving kids "ideas".
Ideas like soaking?
We do have a story from President Kimball about a missionary candidate who had done many sexual things, and when asked where he got the idea to do those things, replied from his bishop.
There are bishops who don't trust the "yes/no" answers and will ask follow-up questions (which is generally unrighteous dominion). Hearing about new acts from a church leader with a forbidden air to them might give an extra weight and allure to them that they would not have in a class, where only education is being offered.
It's not a guarantee. Powered by hormones, even fairly innocuous things can lead to sexual ideas. So even in the fantasy world where you home school and only watch BYU-TV, sexual thoughts are going to happen. However, if we are teaching the value of chastity, and how that can help with spirituality, these teachings should not result in quests for loopholes.
Those searches are not new. When I was on my mission, most of my companions had gone to BYU. At the time I heard that the thing -- not that my companions did it, but that they knew other people did -- was going to Las Vegas and having a quickie wedding and divorce, with a weekend of sex in between.
I have seen commercials for a show, "Teachers", where someone having trouble waiting is advised by her priest that the butt isn't a loophole; it is just a hole. I know there are teens who say that anal and oral don't count for virginity.
Well, they don't result in pregnancy, but they can still result in diseases and other bad experiences, and for chastity they absolutely count, so it seems worthwhile to have that conversation.
Arousal is real. It is potent. It does not mean you need to act on it every time you are aroused, or even any time before you are married. We can have honest conversations around that. In fact, those conversations are necessary.
I am currently reading Unbound by Tarana Burke, founder of #MeToo. In talking about being sexually assaulted at the ages of 7 and 9, she mentions being taught not to let anyone touch her private parts, but not being taught why. Therefore, when that was done to her, she thought she had broken the rule and she had failed.
Sex education needs to be age-appropriate, but it also needs to be specific enough and reasoned enough that there is a sufficient level of understanding to protect oneself, and to get help when that is needed.
Laws that require schools to teach comprehensive sex education are usually inspired by cases of sexually abused children who needed tools to get help.
Technically, comprehensive sexual education does promote abstinence as the safest choice, but because it teaches about more, that becomes a real choice, and not a fear.
If you lean towards the domination of fascism, teaching mutual respect and bodily autonomy creates a less ideal environment for abuse. That may be a downside for some people, but we do not have to accept their lies about it.
Occasionally I have questions that I can't answer, so I just make a note of them in my journal. One of those is "What does chastity look like without patriarchy?|
Currently so much of sex is entrenched in patriarchy that I can't even imagine how things would change. I still believe in chastity, and I still live it, but I know that it can be better and more beautiful. The world is holding it back.
It is fitting that I address this topic on Halloween, because it was a conference talk that kept taking shots at Halloween that let me really see how we were letting evangelicals infect the church. That's still an issue. Or maybe evangelicals got soaking from us, but it is not making anyone holier.
It is also not making sex any better, which I think is worth noting.
I will also note that a young person who believes in chastity and tries but slips will be better-positioned for repentance than one who cynically tries to get around the rules while pretending that it counts as righteousness.
We are all sinners, but there is a plan for that. We don't have to be hypocrites.
Also of interest:
No comments:
Post a Comment