Sexual Development In a Fishbowl - The Mormon Problem with Sex

Over the last month, three articles regarding modesty or sex addiction have come to my attention.  One was the Children's Friend article on modesty. The second was brought to my attention by my friend Thad and was linked in PostMormon.org.  The article appeared on KSL.com and describes a mother's reasons for banning Barbie dolls from her home.  The third article was this gem written by a marriage and family therapist from St. George.

It is well known that I consume and digest many things in the Mormon Culture of Utah.  It is also well known that I am an open critic of the LDS Church's policies on sex and sexuality and the harm I perceive they do.  This post is no exception.

First I will address briefly the Children's friend article.  The mother has a four year old who is worried about modesty.... and the mother furthers the neurosis by giving her an undershirt to cover the bare shoulders under her sun dress.  The mother then celebrates her four year-old's modesty.  First of all there is no such thing as four year-old modesty.  This is a self concept that has been imposed on the child and is not natural and circumvents the natural development of the child.  As many posters have written already on this topic... shoulders and four year-olds are not sexy.  However, when we engage in a practice of covering every inch of flesh; the net result is, we sexualize those portions of the body which normally wouldn't be sexy.

The next article was written by a mother who had taken the bold step of banning Barbie from her home. Not because of the unrealistic body image that Barbie represents for her daughters but because of the thoughts a naked pink silhouette would give to her sons.

Then one day my oldest son (a big second-grader at the time) came up to me with a half-naked Barbie doll in his hands and said to me sternly, "Mom, I don't think this is an appropriate toy." He had just had a fatherly talk with my husband about what is "appropriate" and what is "a poison worse than the black plague of death itself and should be avoided at all costs, lest it rot your mind like an unstoppable rebel force."

So first of all why would you be giving your 7/8 year old boy a talk about pornography?  Why would you start him on the path of self flagellant guilt.  Making him aware of his sexuality and giving shame to his natural development is not the sign of healthy family... it is the sign of a family who engages in cultish behavior.

I know for families of girls, Barbies are a lifeline, an institution even. But that is not my family. My daughters are surrounded by brothers. Hot-blooded, American boys who should not be put into tough, compromising spots every time they're rooting around the playroom on a quest to find that one LEGO piece to complete their set.

Again, it is the neurosis developed inside of the family that puts boys in the compromising position.  Is it appropriate to make the female form responsible for the boys behavior?  I believe we are sending the message that our daughters are objects and men are unable to control themselves.

And then there was this comment left on the now closed comment board:

Mickelle W.
posted 1 day ago
i personally hate seeing a naked barbie or ken doll laying on the floor of my house. but don't feel like it is fair to allow my son to have his boy toys if i am not going to allow my little girl to have hers. so when the dolls are purchased they become mine long enough to color on a leotard, or boxers depending on the sex of the doll. now who cares if my 7 year old son and all his macho boy friends take off the doll clothes in a front to get sisters goat. barbie remains modest, and mom remains un-bugged that their is a naked toy lying on the floor.

This brand of craziness does not breed children with healthy sexual identities.   Is not the Barbie the appropriate metaphor for the Mormon view of women?  She looks good without any capacity of enjoying sex.  That is where this programming leads and culture is replete with examples.

The final article and the one that really spawned this post was the one written by Geoff Steurer.  He discusses the talk he had with his father-in-law, 15 years ago, when he asked for his wife's hand in marriage.  He said, now the internet is more prevalent, he believes father-in-laws should be asking their potential son-in-laws about potentially sexually addictive behavior.

I have no doubt that if I were to go through that same interview today, her father would more than likely include one more line of questioning. I imagine it would sound something like this:
“Pornography is such a common struggle for so many young men these days. Naturally, I worry that this is something you have struggled with as a teenager or young adult. Will you please describe your experience with pornography and how you’ve handled it?”

Geoff, is a therapist.  They don't mind telling you that in the article.  However what they don't tell you is that pornography addiction and sexual addiction are not recognized by the APA.  He also does not tell you that masturbation is a normal sexual behavior.  Use of pornography for that purpose is considered normal.  Sexual addiction and pornography use at all, in LDS communities, is immediately assigned to addiction status even if the use is occasional and does not interfere with daily functioning.

If there isn’t a father in the home, then I still think it’s a good idea for the mother to have this conversation with the boyfriend. As awkward as it may seem to bring up this topic, I believe it’s even more awkward to deal with the potential aftermath if this issue surfaces later in marriage. 

Please note that if you are personally struggling with an unresolved pornography problem, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to counsel a future son-in-law about your concerns. You will feel like a phony and will either avoid the conversation all together, or minimize the seriousness of it as a way to protect yourself from the reality of your own struggles. If you have struggled with pornography and haven’t fully repented and recovered from the impact on your life, make sure that you’re actively working the same recovery process you would expect from this young man.

Does anyone see this as a boundary issue?

Discussion Points:

• Tell me about your experience with pornography over your lifetime.

• Is there a history of pornography use in your immediate or extended family?

• How do you define pornography?

• How have you healed from the impact of pornography on your life?

• Who helped you overcome your problems with pornography?

• How do you currently protect yourself from pornography?

• Have you ever wanted to stop viewing pornography, but couldn’t?

I know what I would have and would still tell my father-in-law if this came up... 'it is none of your business!'

Under his bullet point red flags the author says to worry if:

He insists that he’s never even seen pornography and appears “too perfect” in his responses. Recognize that even though he may not have seen hardcore pornography, we live in a culture saturated with pornographic images. If he acts like he doesn’t notice or isn’t affected by those, you need to be concerned. Every man should acknowledge the occasional pull from images that are designed to draw our attention and entice us.

The author is turning windmills into dragons.  He has to convince you that your normal sexual feelings and compulsions are abnormal.  So if you are looking at the Victoria Secret Catalogue  or the underwear section of the JcPenny Catalogue you are on the "slippery slope."  The problem with the author's stance here; is it is out of sync with contemporary thought on the issues of sexual development.  The migration to pornography may be more normal than the dogmatic abstinence of everything sexual.

It occurred to me, as I read the last article, growing up Mormon, especially in Utah, that you develop sexually in a fishbowl.  From the beginning, we have over protective and ill informed mothers inserting themselves into our sexuality.  If it is not the constant and unhealthy messages of modesty, it is interest in what we do in our private exploration.  We have Bishops, Stake Presidents and now future father-in-laws, asking us about our sexual habits as if they had a personal investment in it.  Mormons like to create distance between the practices of the FLDS and find the recent revelations that Jeffs engaged in sex in the temple with his brides in front of the witnesses disturbing.  Are they really that far removed from engaging in that type of voyeurism when they insert themselves into every aspect of, not only their children's, but every member's sexual practices?  Not just every member but also members of the unaffiliated community.

I have seen appropriately dressed females chastised for wearing clothing, that covers all of the appropriate regions, because they might be provocative or the are wearing fishnets and shorts.  I have had mother's assert that they would not allow their son's to engage in a stage kiss; because, they wanted their son's first kiss to be with the woman he was going to marry.  I have heard lectures of modesty given to unaffiliated girls who were also prepubescent and I have seen third parties put into a position of monitoring adult behavior to prevent any potential for adultery.

The Mormon obsession with sex is not healthy.  I have seen it cripple marriages and more importantly the healthy development of sexual attitudes and identities in children.  Instead of the fishbowl mentality it is time members tell everyone outside of their marriage "it is none of your business".  It is also time that we allow our children to develop sexually and to explore their bodies in a safe and nurturing environment that acknowledges that sex and sexual development are deeply personal and you are allowed to get aroused and deal with that arousal in a healthy, private, and pro-social way.  It is time we tell those loud and uniformed voices that what they are doing with their children is abusive and needs to stop.

Tribal Vs Family Values

There is not a term that grates on me more than "Family Values" Not because I have anything against the family unit nor do I fail to value the family unit (I do come from one and have created one) but because it is a code word for hate, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and self righteousness.

Indeed "family values" represents the doctrine of conservatism, and in this country the doctrine of Christian conservatism. It comes about under the sheep's clothing of providing public policy that supports and protects the family unit. It is against pornography, nudity, immodesty, vulgarity, evolution, global warming, and a myriad of other conservatives causes.

The "Family Values" caucus is responsible for absurd practices like covering legally distributed magazines in the local grocery stores because someone might become aroused by cleavage. Frankly, I think this brings more attention to the periodical and increases the likelihood that little Johnny with become titillated by the airbrushed bombshell on the cover. I find it concerning that we allow any group determine what is potentially offensive to others and the exert their brand of control on that stimulus. I personally think that if you cover the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit Edition or the Women's Fitness magazines because it sexualizes women; we should also cover Modern Bride...after all you know what they are about to do?

In addition to censorship they are also the ones who have lobbied against advertisements of The Gardasil Vaccine, open discussion in public school health classes of the use of condoms as a way to prevent disease and pregnancy to our teens even with our permission. They are first to push capitalism even as it leads to the demise of the family unit through increased work hours and reduced benefits for the parents charged with providing for the family and ultimately a meager retirement for the elderly. They are also the first to push out family members who have been born gay and are foolish enough to acknowledge it and to warn us against social justice.

On its face the "Family Values" unit appears to represent the "Values of Christ" but under the banter of family values celebrities Like Rush, Glen Beck, Dr. Laura, and Sean Hannity, the values of Jesus look more like this....




Unfortunately the family is not really well served by rigid doctrine. It allows no room for mistake, growth or progress. While engaged in pulpit pounding demanding that Americans engage in personal responsibility they fail to acknowledge that everyone is dealt a hand that is somewhat random and not everything is in your control. When those who are poor, liberal, or non-Christian make mistakes, or are dealt with an overwhelming hand, the family values caucus is the first to eviscerate the sinner. However when a man like Rush admits he is addicted to drugs, or like Kevin Garn admits he had an illegal sexual encounter...they are first to circle the wagons. They cannot even give the opposing side credit when they say something that makes sense. Ultimately this is not family values it is Tribal values and is not meant to benefit humanity but to defend the ways of tribe no matter how dysfunctional...

This video was brought to my attention by Leah Elliot of The Whore of All the Earth. It discuss how we are wired as humans in our decisions about what is moral:



I think it is interesting How Jonathon Haidt identifies the the characteristics that form the conservative and liberal moral identities. The two of the five assigned to liberals is Harm(protection) and Fairness. The two assigned to conservatives is Respect for Authority and In group Loyalty. The conservatives "family values", it would seem are about the tribe and keeping control. The liberal values are about valuing humanity and I think are a better fit for my family.