There is plenty of opinions on this subject so I'll put mine out there as well. I think Joe was repressed like anyone else. He was a ladies man, loved talking to girls and garnering their attention. He even may have gone to bed with some, but I don't think he was intimate. Emma had at least 8 kids but no other women has tangible evidence of having kids. So evidently he was repressed and restrained as well.
Mormon's are repressed intimately because it's part of our American Victorian Heritage. This is what was taught in the protestant churches of the day, not like now where every where you look the churches seek to flatter those with itching ears, and entertaining sexual confusion.
macaRomney Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is plenty of opinions on this subject so > I'll put mine out there as well. I think Joe was > repressed like anyone else. He was a ladies man, > loved talking to girls and garnering their > attention. He even may have gone to bed with some, > but I don't think he was intimate. Emma had at > least 8 kids but no other women has tangible > evidence of having kids. So evidently he was > repressed and restrained as well.
So all those women were lying? The ones who left journals, the ones who offered sworn depositions for the Temple Lot case? And what about all those men, BY and HCK and the others? What about the temple marriage records?
That was all made up? All a great conspiracy to inculpate poor Joseph?
----------------------- > Mormon's are repressed intimately because it's > part of our American Victorian Heritage. This is > what was taught in the protestant churches of the > day,
I hope you realize that the Victoria didn't ascend the throne until 1837, years after JS had started banging young women other than Emma. There was no "Victorian heritage" until decades after JS was dead and buried. It didn't inhibit him.
------------------- > not like now where every where you look the > churches seek to flatter those with itching ears, > and entertaining sexual confusion.
Sexual confusion? Is there something you want to tell us?
macaRomney Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is > what was taught in the protestant churches of the > day, not like now where every where you look the > churches seek to flatter those with itching ears, > and entertaining sexual confusion.
I think he is trying to scratch a sexually repressed itch? Phobia runs strong in this one...
I want to submit that absence of offspring isn't absence of intercourse. Moderately effective contraception and herbal abortifacients were available at the time. Malthusian thought was known and debated at the time, so the more liberated idea of sex just for fun wasn't entirely off limits.
There are many situations where a person can be highly sexually active but not have a lot of offspring to show for it. There are STDs that can result in partial, intermittent or complete sterility and there are certain immunogenic blood factors (Kell group and Rhesus incompatibility) that can result in fetal and early infant death. King Henry VIII was documented to have multiple partners but comparatively few kids. Historians think he may have been Kell+, leading to failed pregnancies.
We weren't flies on the wall, but I have to ask you...would the guy who conned thousands of people with the golden plates story lie down with someone he wasn't married to for just a kiss and a cuddle? Ann Eliza Webb outright states in Wife #19 that JS loved brothels.
Mormons of the founding years really don't seem all that repressed to me. They seemed to be exploring new ways of justifying extramarital relations with the polyandry/polygamy and were pretty in-your-face with the "gentiles" about doing whatever they thought God had okayed. Free love ideas were afloat in America at the time...the imho freakyfreaky Oneida Community was founded somewhat contemporarily in 1848...people must've been questioning traditional sexual mores alone or in groups for some time.
Today's Mobots...different story, because post-polygamy Mo'ism is when the cult got Victorian and went deep conservative. It was expedient to do so. "Nothing to see here, folks. We are bastions of chaste moral conduct and we police the bodies and minds of our flock. We're just as uptight about sex as anyone...even more so! We'll outdo everyone in our prudery!"
And that message has been legitimized into the sincere and decent followers. They have been led to believe that there is no place the church may not intrude, even the bedroom. This guilt exploiting authority keeps the money coming in. Then there are the hypocrites who give lip service to the official stance and go get up to all sorts of libidinous stuff in private.
Controlling someones penis or vagina is one of the best ways in controlling a person in my opinion. I'm still messed up from being asked about my penis constantly like it was a bad guy just for doing what nature intended. I'm so amazed they didn't ask me if i named my penis and what his name was. Those interviews were so ridiculous and sickening now that i think about it. If i were to ask a 12 year old these questions myself i would be disgusted with myself.
stillangry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whoever thought of the interview program > should be brought up on federal child abuse > charges.
Why exactly hasn't it been? Why aren't there at least class actions, documentaries and public outcry like how the Catholic institution is being called out?
I am not sure but people are under the impression that catholics are so much worse when it comes to child predators. I don't think there is much difference. Both operations cover up child abuse and the child abused kid gets left in the dirt and everyone acts like nothing happened.
Yes. Asserting control over something so intimate as sexuality obliterates all personal boundaries or, in the case of children, prevents the establishment of such boundaries in the first place.
The establishment of unnatural standards then ensures that virtually everyone feels guilty, damned, and requires forgiveness. Since the church, third, insists that only it can mediate divine mercy, the church has complete control over the individual. That is precisely how it works.
Where does the system break down? It breaks down when study convinces the individual that the church lacks either the authority to define proper sexuality or the authority to dispense divine forgiveness. Once that has happened, the individual is free to go back and try to reconstruct healthy personal boundaries.
That, in a nutshell, is the process of recovery from Mormonism.
I knew I could never talk to an older man about sex. I'd have to commit suicide if I ever did anything, so I think I suppressed any sexual feelings. I really didn't acknowledge them to myself. Those interviews were torture. I didn't even know that women could masturbate. I thought it meant ever touching yourself even to scratch an itch or wash yourself was masturbating. I learned more about sex in the bishop's office than I ever did anywhere else.
They took a totally naive mormon virgin and told her she should do what she could to get her gay boyfriend turned on. Are you fucking kidding me??? And on and on and on and I kept telling them 2 wrongs don't make a right, but the bishop kept trying to convince me otherwise. Here I was discussing sex with an older male when I had done everything in my power to never find myself in this position.
And so now I'm an adulteress. It is a statement, my personal truth after what they did to me.
You should never as an adolescent have to discuss sexual things with an older strange man. That in itself can mess with your head about sex more than anything else.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2019 07:30PM by cl2.
It definitely messes you up. I am still very sensitive over sexual subjects. I was trained that sex was evil from a young age and it has been hell to turn that thinking around that sex is to be wanted and desired.
There is a deeper agenda to sexual repression in Mormonism. One of the most beautiful and deeply emotional acts that two human beings cam perform together has been relegated to an act of lust and perversion. It has been modified to represent a degenerate and dirty act instead of a beautiful expression of the love and caring of one human being for another. Human beings are genetically programmed to reproduce. Yet in order to exercise unrighteous dominion people in power have denigrated this act of love into something base and dirty. The purpose of this is to subject the mind will, and needs of the membership to the agenda of the hierarchy without consideration of the needs and wants of the member. Ultimately this will led to the disintegration of the organization and its' demise
Its truly impressive how they can make the act of sex seem so repulsive to be even be desired. Even the thought of lusting after a woman is a sin. You can't win in an organization like that no matter what you do.