posted
LaurenZ, I agree with maybe one half of your first post. A lot of that is true for the Ender series. But BlainN's (welcome!) point #2 is spot on. These kids are unique. They endured difficult childhoods, specifically Enders' tragic sibling dynamics and Bean's homelessness. They were the top minds of their generation who were expected to save Humanity as children, the heaviest ethical burden imagineable. And they went through Battle school Any one of these is enough to transform people or make them unstable. Geniuses make their own rules regarding sex and relationships, as Heinlein pointed out 30+ years ago and confirmed by many sociosexual researchers.
quote: Most of his stable characters get married. Most of the unstable characters stay single Synesthesia
Simply reflects reality. Are you looking for an unstable mate? Or would you want your son or daughter to marry someone unstable?
As far as the whole marriage discussion, have you read Treasure Box? If that book doesn't convince you to stay single nothing will. Madeline takes deceit to an entirely new level. Plus, the ending scared me more than almost any horror fiction I can think of. I don't want to read it again but will sadly be compelled to because it's so well written. Possibly OSC's most overlooked book.
quote: Amka--One, if you are a woman there are several ages at which fertility statistically reduces. The first of these ages is around 27, and then in your early 30s, maybe even around 30. Statistically, fertility goes down even more at those ages if no children have been born by those times.
One could make a case for that, particuarly if you want a large family. However, children born to mothers over 30 tend to be more intelligent. And at least in the US,older mothers are better able to care for the child. But I agree with you're second psych point, which makes a conflict. ::sigh:: Morbo's weirdest stat: sub-Saharan Africa has both the highest fertility and highest infertility of any region on Earth of comparable size. tt&t, killer alias
posted
I think this is hilarious. Remember when Heinlein got criticized by feminists because all of his female characters - tough, smart, and world-class talented in their firelds, every one - all wanted to get married and have babies?
I think you're falling into the "bubble" trap. The people in your immediate social bubble (which includes the people in the media you watch) all think the same way, so it becomes easy to think that "most" people do.
An awful lot of people thnk about marriage, even when very young. An awful lot of people marry in their teens (although according to the Census, that number is decreasing).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do Mormons actually recommend marrying early, or do they just recommend abstinence before marriage? American society pushes people to have sex while they are young, hence if Mormons are to have sex they have to marry young. I know that was my problem. Not such a problem. I'm 33 now and still married (to the same guy)
I don't think we should consider the Shadow series since Bean is chronologically a minor when he and Petra marry, I believe. I could be wrong. The philotic web timeline ends with Achilles in Russia. Bean and Petra are a total aberration.
Look at Enchantment and Alvin Maker, though. Ivan is late 20's. Alvin is possibly younger but the woman he is marrying is late 20's or later.
quote: Chris I think this is hilarious. Remember when Heinlein got criticized by feminists because all of his female characters - tough, smart, and world-class talented in their firelds, every one - all wanted to get married and have babies?
Volescu is apparently gay but decided to get married to a woman who already had children because he wanted to pass on cultural heritage. I knew man who wasn't gay but believed ardently in zero population. He became a teacher, I think because he felt he would still be passing on a part of himself that way. If I ever write a book I'll probably dedicate it too him.
posted
Laurenzo -- Knowing people who identify themselves as Rebels doesn't give you the Rosetta Stone for understanding every person who might have a rebellious streak and how they think. It looks to me that you are projecting yourself and your experiences on those of the character, finding the character doing things you don't think you'd do, and rejecting the characterization because of that. That's certainly your right. However, there are more people in the world than you will ever meet, and it is unwise to decide how all of them will behave ahead of time, sight unseen.
For example, Petra has, by the time Shadow Puppets begins, studied advanced math, physics, history and military strategy. She has functioned in a highly competetive environment with the best minds of her generation and risen to the top. She is perhaps the third best mind in her environment -- the highest performing female. She has led troops into mock battle and real battle. She has made decisions that have caused many deaths, she has seen death face-to-face, and faced the risk of it herself on an ongoing basis. She is not your garden-variety nonconformist. She has seen the value of following the rules and knowing when to break them.
She isn't choosing marriage because someone has told her to get married. She is choosing marriage for her own reasons. She is rebelling against the evil she has seen which threatens her entire world -- the evil that would consolidate the military power she and her friends represent and use them to rule the world for their own personal gains.
That she's not putting on a leather jacket, piercing her eye-brow, getting a tattoo and giving a cop the finger doesn't mean she's no longer a rebel. She's a rebel with a cause. She knows who and what she's fighting.
Again, I do not personally recommend marriage to pre-30s as a rule. I resist marriage after 25 less, but don't recommend it. However, many people have married as teens and had it work. We can share distrust of the practice carried out in our current culture, but looking down your nose at it is to show contempt prior to investigation, which isn't wise.
Scott's the one who formed her as a character. Her choices come out of his understanding of who she is, and certainly his beliefs impact her choices. It is always thus for an author. Once again, I challenge the notion that he *must* require his characters to say thing you agree with and do things you agree with or he is accused of having a closed mind. I'm afraid, that sounds like a pot and a kettle. Scott has doubtless considered your point of view longer than you have, and I'm not seeing much sign that you are considering his.
Syn -- If you want to go with 25 instead of 30, I'd prefer that to 19. If I say 30, and people settle for 25, that works for me. If I say 25, they'll settle for 22, and that's not as good for me. As it is, mentioning being single until 25 in a Mormon environment can bring similar response as accusing the Prophet of cross-dressing. And then, when I recommend long courtships and long engagements, people freak.
Rebel, rebel....
More response later, but I've gotta run.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*still trying to figure out why that web of life thing bothered me* For example, in the book before Shadow Puppets Peter's mother gave a speech that simply irratated me. I couldn't help thinking that that attitude contributes to a lot of problems, this desire to just continue the norm, the status quo, without question, even if there are problems engrained in it. An example would be a family with a history of abuse continuing to have children, to continue this chain without question, without realizing that there is something wrong... Or maybe it just bothers me when people have children because they feel they have to and they don't think of the consiquences. They just do it because everyone else is doing it, they don't take into consideration whether or not they have issues, they just blindly have kid after kid passing on whatever was passed to them without thought. I hate that so much. Then you get a great deal of broken people wandering around like wraiths in the world. Or maybe {spoiler} I agreed with Bean not wanting to have children with his disease. I could understand how he didn't want them to have to suffer the way he did and believed that he had every right not to have children if he didn't want to. I didn't care about the web of life. It's not just about continuing life. There has to be a quality of life, like only having children when you know you are mentally, financially and physically able to take care of them. To do otherwise is cruel... What do you think of that?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
With Petra and Bean, there is also the fact that they were forced, by genetics and circumstance, to mature much, much faster than the average teen. Maturity, to me, implies understanding of mortality and acceptance of responsibility, and that can lead to thoughts of carrying on life.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo: Thanks! Right back at ya. I see we haven't managed to figure out who you are yet. Sneaky.
Chris Bridges:
quote: With Petra and Bean, there is also the fact that they were forced, by genetics and circumstance, to mature much, much faster than the average teen. Maturity, to me, implies understanding of mortality and acceptance of responsibility, and that can lead to thoughts of carrying on life.
I agree. I don't think there is any particular age that can be said to be the right age to get married. I think it's all to do with when each individual is ready. Card's characters are generally more mature than us at a similar age.
Nb: by "us" I don't claim to speak for the entire human race... Posts: 1111 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't completely agree with waiting to have children. There are arguments for and against but how many of us will ever be completely mentally healthy, financially, etc? Having children can help to face some things that we would not face otherwise. As well as being married would do the same. The idea is that relationships help us to grow, they do not hinder us. To put off these relationships is to slow our own personal growth because we can never really know ourselves completely until we see ourselves as part of the relationships around us. I, too, will have to reread the book.
Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blaine, I wasn't looking down my nose at it before investigation. I already pointed out why I think purposefully waiting until 30 is unwise. In fact, I really don't recommend putting an age on it. There is no hard an fast rule for everyone about when a good time is to marry.
For you, obviously, it is older. However, I'd also like to point out that some of the experience you gained in that marriage gone bad contributed to your maturity and readiness for marriage. Who is to say that if you got married again and it succeeded that it would not have succeeded if you hadn't of learned from your mistakes in the first marriage? (Don't know if you divorced in your first marriage, got married again, or what, just throwing out speculation.)
I got married when I was barely 20 years old. I've been married for twelve years now, and it is better than I ever imagined marriage would be, and I come from a good family. You just can't know it until you experience it, I guess. My husband, however, is 5 years older than me, and we both know he wouldn't have been ready at 20.
I have a cousin who was married when she was 17 (been married now for 7 or 8 years), and one when she was 18 (been married 18 years), and they are both happily married. I have a sister who got married last year at 18, and we've all been freaked out, but they are still very much in love despite financial difficulties and even a community that is working against them (They are deaf. The deaf community is small and isolated, and where they live it is fairly amoral, so they are moving.)
And yet I know people who have been 30 and not been mature enough to get married. Unfortunately, unless something remarkable happens, I doubt they ever could pull off a successful marriage.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I just want to go back to the topic at hand for a minute, and then I'll be done.
OSC doesn't have a closed mind, he just writes with a specific purpose. Calling OSC close-minded for your reasons is like calling a writer of an instruction manual to a garage door opener close-minded because he didn't include other ways to put it together besides the specified way.
A close-minded reader mistakes the author for his own fallbacks all the time.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka -- my "contempt prior to investigation" comment was referring to Laurenzo's blanket rejection of marriage prior to 20. It wasn't in regard to your comment in any fashion.
I recognize marriages to pre-30s, pre-25s and even pre-20s can still work. That's great when it works. Mine didn't. The stats on second marriages are far worse than the stats on first marriages. Since mine broke up, I've had one relationship that was headed for marriage that was unhealthy.
And I'm not about passing laws or stopping people from marrying prior to 30. I'm not condemning or criticizing those who have married prior to 30. I'm holding out a different idea about making marriage decisions that validates the notion that one can survive being single and 25 without being a pariah, that one can know someone for a year or two before marrying them, that one can learn how to be independent before deciding to be married. There's this attitude that the only thing that's important is to "find someone," and there's a lot more to it than that.
So I'm not insisting that anybody do what I'm suggesting. I'm just offering my idea as something to think about in the midst of all the pressure to marry young and quick that's present in my community.
Take care, Blain
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be "mormon" and unmarried after 25 implies, to people, that you think there are things in life more important than sex. Kind of ironic, then, that people look down on it. Okay, I'm saying I'm smarter than people who look down on it. ::goes to time out::
There's also the aspect that a person staying single implicitly criticizes everyone who married young, you know, like with homeschoolers. Of course, a larger percent of homeschoolers are doing it by choice than LDS folks staying single.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- Yes, in fact it does. And that's a difficult thing in as sexually obsessed a culture as Mormon culture is (or American popular culture, for that matter). To say that people can live without sex and have good lives is very challenging to those who don't believe such a thing is possible.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: An example would be a family with a history of abuse continuing to have children, to continue this chain without question, without realizing that there is something wrong...
I dunno . . . my family was dysfunctional and abusive, but I'm still glad they had me . . .
posted
I wouldn't presume to make sweeping generalities about Mormon culture, but I do believe that Christian culture in general is obsessed with sex.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott -- Then consider yourself news-ed. Mormon culture is obsessed with sex. First, we're obsessed with the "we don't have sex outside of marriage" thing (although quite a few Mormons do, in fact, have sex outside of marriage). Put into a greater culture which is obsessed with sex (I've seen sex used to sell everything short of diapers and incontinance supplies), and we have a lot of sexually frustrated young people.
So we see lots of them getting married at young ages (discussed earlier) so they can get to "legitimized" sex, or getting involved in sex outside of marriage and leaving the Church for a few years or more. We see lots (and lots) of problems with pornography and masturbation in the Church for men and women, married and unmarried. It seems that Pres. Hinckley can't get within six feet of a microphone without talking about the dangers of pornography -- he wouldn't be spending that much time on the matter if it weren't a problem, and it's not just a problem for the youth.
And then there's the matter of family size, the spacing in time of pregnancies and birth control. The Church has shifted its policy position on that matter remarkably -- it now acknowledges that sex is not just about procreation, and that the choice of family size, spacing of pregnancies and birth control are choices we are to make for ourselves, and that nobody should speculate on someone else's choices in that regard. But the expectation remains that one should have as many children as possible (regardless of circumstance) as quickly as possible ("don't postpone having a family") and we end up with families that are pretty huge messes. Mind you, not all or most families are messes who have lots of children or have them right away, but I don't think anybody reading this will have a hard time thinking of one that is.
For the most part, we don't talk about those things, though. We just talk about the wickedness of the world and worldliness, the dangers of pornography (in a very general sense), and the importance of dressing modestly and avoiding R-rated movies. And then we shake our heads when some girl in the ward turns up pregnant.
So, yeah, Mormon culture is obsessed with sex.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it depends on what is meant by "obsessed." I'd like to venture the hypothesis that it would mean, in the case of "Mormons" (By which I mean members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) that it would mean the efforts to alleviate the problem have become the problem itself.
I think there are individual cases where this is a problem. People who didn't know there was porn on the internet hear about it from a talk warning against it. But there are also people who didn't think of what they were viewing as porn, and the same talk caused them to repent of that.
It's an interesting question of free will. Can the prophet really receive guidance on what to say, knowing exactly how it will affect everyone who hears? That's not even taking into account each individual's quantum decision to enter the forum where they were to hear said inspired talk.
On the subject of family size, the advice goes back and forth between not alienating potential converts and not being absorbed by them. The church as a whole rides this harmonic, and I think the individuals within it do as well.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes the more people talk against sex and issues that are related to sex the more they are obsessed. Especially when people talk against sex.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to try to push this thing a bit back toward topic from where I'd like to go. We'll see if I can hold me in check.
I don't think the proposed solutions need to contribute to the problem for the Mormon culture to be obsessed with sex. Just note that I'm discussing the Mormon culture, rather than Mormon doctrine or the Church. The Mormon culture is a sloppy subset of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not every member participates in it, and not everyone who participates in it is a member of the Church.
I think the obsession probably dates back to the days of plural marriage, which wasn't (and was) about sex (depending on who you are talking about). That duplicity has trickled up until now.
Personally, I think a good solution is to put the subject on the table and have some relatively frank conversations about what is really going on, what its consequences are, and what can realistically be done about it. That won't make everything all better, but it will be a place where more good can be done IMO than in hiding and pretending.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is sort of true of the whole of American culture. It's better to be honest and straight forward about sex, masturbation, homosexuality rather than hiding behind some sort of doctrine as a lense to look through when it comes to such a personal and powerful force as sex. An embarassment over sex in my opinion leads to more problems.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But my definition of obsession on anything is that efforts to address it only makes matters worse. cf. How not to be a bigot
Granted, we do not have the data to determine whether "mormon cultures" obsession with sex is such. Especially given the amorphous definition of Mormon culture. But I'm willing to discuss it.
But I would like to point out that research has not unequivocally shown Members of LDS to have a higher rate of mental illness, including OCD, than American population in general.
If your definition of mormon culture is that group of people who seem weird as a consequence of being LDS, than it may be that a lot of *them* have OCD concentered around sex issues. Not to disinclude myself from your definition.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- That's an interesting definition. I'll think about that aspect. However, at least up until this moment, I don't require that aspect in my definition. To me, obsession is simply an unhealthy fixation. I would ask that you review my comments with that in mind.
Also, my discussion is one of opinion and perspective. My points will either be self-evident for you on first or subsequent exposures, or they won't. It doesn't hurt my feelings if we disagree.
I'm not aware that being LDS made anybody weird, although I am aware of some common Mormon experiences that can help train an otherwise normal person on how to be weird (like whoever wrote the word "biffy" on the girls-camp list).
My discussion is not one of mental illness -- one can be obsessive without being OCD. The former can be a matter of behavior, while the latter is a brain disorder.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does one get from OSC has a closed mind to the subset of Mormon culture being obsessed with sex? Posts: 58 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Absoloutly, but i'm not biased against mormons, I just know they marry early. And, I retracted my statements about him being biased on the merriage thing, just a bit unrealistic.
Sorry this is back on page one, but I was scrolling through the dialogue and I just had to respond to "I just know they (Mormons) marry early. OK, well, I was 29 and my husband was 28 when we got married. I know a lot of young men and women that wait until they are 23 and 24 (after missions). Do you maybe have some misconceptions?
Posts: 277 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not sure what the "biffy" comment is about. Does "biffy" have some colloquial meaning I'm not aware of? One aspect of Mormon culture I will not deny is a tendency toward odd names.
I was thinking that Victorian society and 50's American suburbia are always accused of a hidden fixation with sex (along with so called Mormon culture).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been sleeping with one for over 30 years, but my point is comparison. I think the question is relative?
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Utah -- Yeah, I do say things like this, and it's based on observation that you're free to agree with or disagree with. I've explained elsewhere some of what I base that comment on. Do you still have those questions?
I think it's cool when folks wait until they are older to get married. I didn't. Others who were a bit older than I got married the same year (folks we were in YSAs with, six or seven couples I can think of, mostly in the temple, mostly one RM in the couple) of which two were still together 10 years later (and still are). Waiting doesn't guarantee success any more than not waiting guarantees failure. However, nearly everybody knows more at 25 or 30 than they do at 19 or 20, and that additional experience and understanding can help avoid bad decisions about who and when to marry, as well as how to treat someone you are married to.
Around here, most of the relatively mainstream Mormon young people marry earlier than 23 or 25. Girls marry at 17-21, and guys marry at 21-22 for the most part (the RMs, that is -- some marry younger and don't go). Have you ever seen 19 year old girls sing "I don't want to go on a mission at 21 or 22..."? I have.
Wedge -- it came from my agreeing with Laurenzo that marrying young isn't generally a good idea, while disagreeing with his specific criticism of Bean and Petra marrying young as unrealistic. From there, we got to discussing pressure on/from young Mormons to marry young, one of the driving factors of which is getting to legitimized sex. HTH
Take care, Blain
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
You say that out of 6-7 couples, out of which after 10 years only 2 have succeeded. That is far below even the average rate of first marriage failure, let alone the rate of failure for LDS temple marriages. This is based only on that information which you have told me. I acknowledge that it may simply be coincidence.
However, based on this I think that you are probably looking at this from the perspective of a smaller cultural subset within Mormonism. The one within which was a particular guy I met once. He claimed that the line of behavior between two unmarried people was set so strictly so as to prevent slipping up and actually having intercourse, but if you had enough self control, you cold go past that line. He so missed the point of what chastity really was, and he definately was obsessed with sex.
I know many LDS people who are very careful about who they choose, and don't marry the first person that hormones urges them to have sex with once they are 'of age' to marry. These people are not obsessed with sex, they are obsessed with a spouse who will be their companion and a good parent for their children.
If one gets married quick because they are hot for someone and want to do it with them, that is definately a recipe for difficulties that could spell failure in the marriage.
Having or not having sex before marriage does have an impact on your marriage. It is about your ability to control yourself and keep your covenants. Being faithful to the promises you made with God if you are religious (when you got baptized, for instance) sets a precedent for being faithful to your spouse. Keeping yourself virginal for your future spouse has an aspect of sacrifice even before you met your spouse that leads towards a greater tendancy to sacrifice for your spouse when you know them and are married to them.
And for those who aren't religious, don't tell me that there aren't the questions of 'who went before me? Do I measure up?' There is that slight insecurity that there is a rival out there who your spouse experienced sex with, even though they'd never met you. It may be as mild as a curiosity, or as damaging as a deep jealousy. It may be nothing, unless you meet them on the street while walking with your spouse and imagine that when they look at your spouse they are remembering those times. And while it is true that mature people can deal with it, if you don't have to deal with that at all, you simply have one less problem.
But beyond all that reasoning, chastity isn't about being obsessed with not having sex. It is about actually being pure of heart, mind, and actions. It goes beyond moral behavior and cultural norms and making sure you look good in front of other Mormons. You keep your thoughts and heart clean to recieve guidance and inspiration from the Spirit, to feel the love of God and the grace of Christ. And having that quality will certainly be a huge plus in a marriage.
I'm sorry that this has degenerated into LDS culture and theology, but I couldn't let Blaine's comment go unanswered.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
p.s. the people in the fifties weren't embarrassed about sex. they had tons of it. whay do you think they call it the baby boom? they just refrained from the public exhibition of it. I guess if you want to call that embarrassment, feel free.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree with you about that. The baby boom happened as a result of men who were of an age to start a family being drafted away all throughout WW2 encouraging. When WW2 was over, they and those who were now of age to begin a family all started at the same time.
But in both of the fifties culture and the victorian era there existed a kind of body embarrassment. We were more than animals, and we had science to improve ourselves. Sex was dirty and animalistic. It was only for procreation for those deeply imbedded in that culture. Breastfeeding was looked down on and replaced by the more scientifically correct 'formula' that they fed infants. This body embarrassment was definately sucked into Mormon culture, which is also fascinated by scientific development, especially that which corraborates LDS culture and belief. What a relief, we didn't have to use those immodest breasts to feed our children anymore. Science, the study of God's creation, has solved that problem.
Young girls who accidently became pregnant were hidden and forced to give their babies up. Their pain is definately part of what began the movement that made abortion legal at the expense of educating unmarried girls about the benefits of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving it up voluntarily.
I would say that there is certainly an LDS subset culture that is obsessed with sex. It is a different sort of obsession than in the fifties, and it doesn't represent all Mormons. If someone were to ask me what President Gordon B. Hinkley can't stop himself from saying everytime he gets within 6 feet of a microphone, my first response wouldn't have been pornography. It would have been tolerance, fellowship, and retaining members. I think he talks about that far more than the dangers of pornography.
posted
Let's look at this another way. Have you ever read a book (or more likely an unpublished short story) written by someone who was trying to reach outside the domain of what they are familiar with? There aren't many books of this sort because it's not very easy to do convincingly. Why are most of John Grisham's books about lawyers? Why did Dostoevsky write about wretched souls transformed by love? Why are Stephen King's books about whatever it is they are about?
Then there's the question, why can't everyone write fantasy/sci-fi equally well? OSC apparently reads a lot of mysteries (of the murder/detective sort) but does not write them. This is puzzling. But very often the things you find enjoyable are because you don't know about them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What boring arguments! Sorry, I'm new here and probably stepping on toes, but who cares if OSC has his characters get married all the time? It's his prerogative as author. When you all get to be famous authors, you can make your characters do whatever you want. And btw, authors generally create characters based on what they know and live, otherwise it doesn't feel "true"-like some sort of false skin you can't wait to shed. And what is the point of any fiction, speculative or not but to share one's view of the world with others. And just as an aside, there is really no such thing as fundamentalist mormons-either you are or you're not active. It's not Judaism where you can be orthodox or not. Sillies. Go back and read the rest of the Ender series when you get a few more years under your belt. Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: there is really no such thing as fundamentalist mormons - either you are active or you're not active. It's not Judaism where you can be orthodox or not. Sillies.
*ponders*
VV,
Ok, I'll accept the silly part of it. But, I'm a little lost on this active vs. not active thing (aside: and are you talking about sex again, or is this something different).
posted
Amka -- I don't think there's a need to limit this to any sort of subculture. Not everybody in the culture needs to have the obsession for the culture itself to be obsessed. Cultures aren't that monolithic, even one that values conformity as much as Mormon culture does.
The couples I'm referring to had nothing in particular in common, other than being approximately the same age, all Mormon, and living in the same stake. Some were married in the temple, some were not. Some were RMs, and some were not (both in and out of the temple). All were at least relatively active. But we didn't all hang out together or listen to the same music -- we didn't even all go to the same activities. Some were lifers, some were converts. All of which was true of those who made it too.
Pornography problems are not restricted to any subculture either -- they cut right across the demographics. These little boxes we're using to have this conversation on make it incredibly easy to reach with virtual anonymity. Ask your bishop or SP if this is a problem in your area, and they'll almost certainly tell you that it is (although they can't mention any names).
I can't help but think the purpose of your "smaller subculture" comment was to marginalize my experience and discredit my perspective. I am not trying to shove anybody into the labels I'm using -- I'm placing the labels on things that I see. From my time in dealing with Mormons going through divorce (I moderate three mail lists for Mormons who have been or are going through divorce), I can tell you that the problems of rushing into marriage quickly is neither localized to where I live, nor is it all that rare. I have granted that many do not do this, but that doesn't invalidate my point that many do -- too many do.
I agree that chastity isn't about being obsessed with not having sex. Your point there is well made. I will say that not everybody who's not having sex yet is doing chastity as you describe. Perhaps you've never seen people who stop coming to church between 16 and 20, but I have -- it's not even rare. I don't find them getting into doctrinal disagreements with their teachers -- I find them unwilling to accept Church guidelines for their behavior, and much of that is about sex (some what about drugs, I'll grant). If we could discuss sex with the youth in a way that acknowledges that some of them may choose to have sex before marriage, and that some of them may have done so already, and give them some information about what they can do in those instances, and that coming to Church while they aren't behaving perfectly is better than not coming to Church, we might be better able to respond to their experiences and give them a reason to keep the influence of the Church in their lives.
Before I drop the topic, there are a couple of onlineresources I strongly recommend for people who are struggling with addictive or compulsive behaviors, including sexual behaviors.
I'm sorry this has gotten off-topic, but I wouldn't say it's degenerated. I don't consider either of our points of view to be degenerate. I wasn't intending to take this this far down the track, but folks have had things to say about my comments, and that's how it goes, I guess.
Val -- of course there are fundamentalist Mormons. When you run into them, they'll tell you they're fundamentalist Mormons. They may or may not be members of record of the LDS Church. I have a thing about fundamentalism of any kind, personally.
Now, if we want to take this discussion to some other thread or forum, that's fine with me, but I think we've said what there is to say here.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And while it is true that mature people can deal with it, if you don't have to deal with that at all, you simply have one less problem."
This isn't ENTIRELY true. I'm Christy's first and only lover, and I've got to admit that I sometimes wonder if she's going to start wondering what sex with other people is like some time down the road. *laugh* So I've only replaced one immature concern with another. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
