You may have been born that way... but it was your choice!

I recently posted this article on Facebook: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/a-nun-brilliantly-exposed-pro-life-hypocrites-with-this-hard-hitting-quote/> It is an article in which a nun calls out the conservatives in this country with this quote:

"I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-
birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

 Now the article is clearly about the way we treat children who are poor and disadvantaged once they are born. The article is not about abortion. The conservatives in my feed couldn't help but make it about that.  You can read the entire thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/kqdudley/posts/10207627350105610?comment_id=10207659129900085&notif_t=feed_comment_reply 

David, a 20 something white Mormon male who lives in Provo, UT, entered into the discussion. What caught my attention was his application of Mormon theology.  I am very familiar with his mind set here.  I had just forgotten how twisted it can be.

In regards to the moral and up righteous, I was recognizing or trying to recognize that there are people of variable moral focuses.  My point when using those words was that pretty much no matter what, if a woman who is raped and impregnated, of her own choice, decides to go through the pregnancy and raise the child, no one is going to come up to her and say "You are a terrible person, how dare you do what you just did, it was morally wrong for the following reasons:" because they would have no reasons.  If you can come up with one please, go ahead and tell me.  As for fertilization and conception, that is focused primarily in both my knowledge of biological science and religious belief.  I believe that we were all spirits before we came into this mortal life.  I believe we Volunteered to come into this mortal existence because it was only through experiencing mortality and being able to choose between right and wrong that we would be able to become more like our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits.  I believe that when conception occurs, when the ova and sperm cell combine, that that new cell which is now as capable of becoming an adult human being as a baby outside of the womb, is given to one of my spirit brothers and sisters who still lies beyond the veil.  That body, though it be a single cell, is theirs, and just for us the moment it dies there goes all future chances for mortal experience in this life for them, they don't get another body.  This is why the "It would be better if they don't get born in a terrible situation" argument doesn't work with me.  I believe the(y) Volunteered, knowing full well what they were getting themselves into, to be put in that body.

Mormons believe we were all spirits in a pre-existence.  The number of bodies are finite and were all conceived by a heavenly father (god) and a heavenly mother.  It also could be a father and several mothers because polygamy is still alive and well in the afterlife. They are conceived mechanically the same way you and I were conceived by our parents.  They gestate in the same way humans do now.

If a child dies in childbirth or in the womb it is considered to have lived its life.  It has one chance to get a mortal body.  That is it.

Here is where the theology becomes concerning:  Mormons believe that we all choose to come to earth and to get a body.  We knew, in some cases we would be born into challenging situations. Those might be:

• to a mother that was raped
• it might be in desperate poverty
• that might be with a physical or mental disability
• that might be with "same sex attraction"

It matters not the plight... we chose it!  This belief disconnects your average Mormon from empathy and divorces them from any responsibility to fix anything outside of their sphere.  It also allows them to dogmatically cling to "god's law" without considering the harm or potential harm the the theology may cause. 

What Mormon's fail to see is the disconnect in believing the above and the application of "free will" in this life.  The life you chose was pre-determined.  You knew you would be born to a woman who was raped.  Therefore she had not choice but to be raped.  The male who raped her had no choice.  If they hadn't been complicit in their destiny you wouldn't be able to realize your own. They fail to see how it leads to "this life must be endured" mentality instead of "this life should be lived."

It is easy for David to regurgitate these teachings.  It is much more difficult for him to think critically about what they really mean.  This is the pernicious nature of Mormonism.  It divorces the believer from critical thought... because that is the only way it can survive.  It does that at the expense of the human condition and ultimately harms our humanity.  

Media Messages, Cultural Misogyny, and the Lie of Modesty

This video was making the rounds on my Facebook page this morning.  Here is the longer version ( http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2349117563337 ) I agree in part with the trailer's premise; I also think they are missing the mark here.  I have long said that our girls need strong role models and the writer and I agree here.  However I don't think the media is responsible for the objectification of our girls and women.  I think the media represents or reflects our societal image of the role of women but they didn't create the image.  Are they guilty of perpetuating the stereo type... sure but culturally we accept it.  


In the early 1970's the series All in the Family aired an episode which portrayed our prejudices regarding male homosexuality.  If we were to produce that same episode today it would not only be a flop but an outrage because our society has morphed.  The fact that less than 30% of high power media positions are held by women has more to do with the persistent messages we give to our daughters in our homes than what we show on TV and in magazines.  In fact I would postulate, as a whole, the objectification of women is born and nurtured in the misogyny of the conservative movement.  


There is this morsel from the 2011 LDS Church's general relief society meeting:

I know that each of us has a vital and essential role as a daughter of God. He has bestowed upon His daughters divine attributes for the purpose of forwarding His work. God has entrusted women with the sacred work of bearing and rearing children. No other work is more important. It is a holy calling. 

Our daughters have reached their potential when they have babies?  There is no a call for them to be scientists, lawyers, or even doctors.  In addition we give them more and more pressure to be modest; to cover their bodies; and to avoid being a "licked cupcake".  It is that same line of thought that denigrates the female form to an object.  We don't value the women for their potential we value them for the conditions of their bodies.  

The above image was circulating on Facebook as well.  If further illustrates the distorted view we have about what modesty and chastity means.  I fully believe they are artificial markers by which we measure American women.  

I think we need to acknowledge a couple of things.  First, humans are sexual beings. Second, we will always find a way to sexualize each other. Third, when you cover breasts, put the curves of women under  loose fitting clothing we will find a way to sexualize non sexual parts.

We will find ways to eroticize shoulders, ears, eyes, or hair length.  The strong sexual drive we have is what propagates our species.  It is natural.  

What is unnatural is to assign rigid gender roles based upon contrived religious or social dogma.  I am going to confess.... of all the women appearing in the above trailer, the one that I find most attractive is Rachael Maddow.  Not because she is super sexy, not because she is a lesbian and I think lesbian sex is hot; but, because she is smart, articulate, educated, and accomplished.  Sure, I find the images of the scantily clad women that are paraded on the trailer, out of context,  titillating.  Why would I not?  I am a sexual being.  However, I cannot say that I am attracted to any of the women.  Our contemporary culture is replete with icons like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears who appear to be attractive until you hear them speak.  

Unfortunately, we perpetuate the myth that the media operates independent of our culture.  We assume the media tells us what is normal.  If we want to change the context in which our daughter's are developing their identities we need to do it from the very core.  Abandon the idea that their lot is to be mothers.  Motherhood is a choice; in as much, as going to medical school is.  Stop placing artificial emphasis on modesty of dress.  In cultures where women wear nothing but a loin cloth their body ceases to be an object of sexualization.  We need to form our ideas of success in accomplishment not in puritanical ideals based upon a bronze age text.  Our daughters are not the condition of their bodies but the condition of their minds.  If that is what the whole film says... I agree... if not, it is another Bowling for Columbine.  

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.

Sex Ed...Health Issue or Moral Issue?

KSL, had an artice on it's website today that I found interesting. Syphilis rates are up dramtically in Utah. Whenever we see this as a trend it opens up a debate as to whether we give more sex education to our children or we push abstinence. One method reduces infection the other has proven to not. The following comment was posted with the article and I found it disturbing:

No, this is NOT a health issue, it IS a MORALITY issue. And those who choose to use their agency incorrectly will suffer both the spiritual consequences and in this case many times the physical consequences. People can try to ignore the consequences of sin, but they can not change them. Many people have become so far desensitized they are almost "past feeling" and no longer remember what it felt like to be pure and clean and have almost fully adopted their fallen state of being as "normal" reality. To them, the world is dark and to them it seems normal. These are the voices who usualy speak loudest agains purity and righteousness because they can no longer see or feel it and to them it is as if it no longer exists. They find their daily feed in the media which helps them to reinforce in thier minds thier fallen state as a normal reality, which keeps them from coming to the Lord and repenting so they might be healed. Indeed, as Paul said, "of such, turn away..."

Really? I am not sure how you can use your agency incorrectly...you either use it or you don't. I wonder what the conversation will be at the poster's kitchen table when this poster's child comes down with syphilis or worse...HIV? Darling child you have a disease that was delivered to you by god because you ignored his teachings. Sorry you need to suffer because you were unclean.

COME ON PEOPLE! What are you thinking. Humans are sexual beings. It is in our DNA to have sex. Kids make decisions based upon emotion and desire. There is rarely any thought given to going to hell but tell them they could get sick....They will think twice about the method if nothing else.

Utah needs to pull its collective head out of the sand. Parents do not teach sex ed. They fail in that regard in every way in this state. When you combine religious voodoo with an ineffective policy you write a recipe for disaster. I believe the argument for comprehensive sex ed is the fact that your son might date my daughter!