Peter Vs. Molly: Are we inadvertently pitting the sexes against one another?

 

Being an “older” and never married Mormon, I have had a LOT of time to observe Mormons in their dating interactions. Over that time I have noticed trends, patterns, and themes that seem to run deeply and specifically through the LDS culture when it comes to gender relations. Some of these trends are humorous, others annoying, but the one I want to talk about today is down right disturbing.

 

Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe that the church or the good people in it have set out to purposely cause this phenomenon. I also do not believe that those caught in this paradigm are doing so consciously. We are all a combination of both Nature and Nurture, but by in large, the way that we are taught to view ourselves and the way we view and interact with those around is generally the direct result of our programming. This programming comes from a variety of places, and depending on where you grow up, the message you receive is going to be different. Just how different depends on where you happened to be born and raised. So when we talk about this phenomenon, it is important to remember that the point in doing is not to cast blame on anyone or any practice, but rather to acknowledge a potential issue so that it can be addressed.

 

Enough exposition.

 

The disturbing trend that I have observed is one that, at first blush, is going to seem entirely counter-intuitive to the doctrine of the LDS church. To put it another way, you would never expect that a religion that focuses so much on the family, and on eternal relationships specifically and exclusively between a man and a woman, would in reality end up turning the two genders against one another.

 

I know everyone is big on Lists these days, (thank you short attention spans) so I am going to lay this out in nice clean bullet points.

1. From the time of our youth, women of the church are taught that our virtue (meaning our virginity and sexuality) are sacred and that any man who truly loves and respects us will never attempt to take that virtue away. If he does, it means…

 

A. He doesn’t respect you

 

Which automatically means that….

 

B. He can’t possibly Love or care about you

 

After all, what is Love without respect?

2. From the time young boys are young boys, they are taught that a truly devoted daughter of God will keep herself pure and unsullied in anticipation for the day when she will meet (him) and marry in the temple. He is taught that any girl who is willing to give up her virtue is NOT the kind of girl that would make a suitable eternal companion, never mind what is says about her ability to raise righteous children.

Is she really going to kiss her children with the same mouth she kissed like…5!! other guys with?????

 

3. When it comes to their own sexuality, little girls are taught (and you have to read between the lines for sure) little girls are taught that they are the keepers/defenders of their virtue. They are taught that men have nearly uncontrollable sexual drives that if they provoke by doing things like..

Wearing tank tops or shorts that come above the knee….

 

Sitting too close to him on the couch….

Holding a kiss for longer than you would with your father….

 

Then it is simply going to be too much for these poor sex crazed boys to handle and whatever happens after that is to be fully expected. Not that we blame the girls per say, but if not for her getting him all riled up, he never would have been put in the position to be helpless against the powers of his own sex drive.

 

4.  Conversely, when it comes to their own sexuality, boys are taught that their sexual appetite and drive are simply part of what it means to be human, but critical to what it means to be a man. At the same time, boys are taught that these feelings are largely a result of their “natural man” and as such, need to be controlled the same way you might control your urge to eat an entire Costco 7-layer Chocolate Cake. This extends not only to their interactions with the opposite sex, but also to their interactions with themselves and their own bodies.

 

Side Note: I might be a special case, but I can honestly say that throughout all of my years of primary, Sunday school, seminary, and the like, I never once heard a lesson on masturbation. It makes me wonder if they figure that little girls have no inclination towards such things. But again, therein lies the problem. We don’t teach about it because the underlying theme here is that woman are not suppose to explore, cultivate, or express their sexuality until they are married. In essences we telling women that they are not sexual creatures by nature the way that men are. With men however, it is just sort of understood that they are human and as such have sexual needs and drives and desires and so naturally are going to want to explore their sexuality often and early. This is just trouble waiting to happen. Where men are taught to embrace (and control) their sexuality, women are taught to treat it like a game of capture the flag with the entirety of the male population making up the opposing team. Woman aren’t taught to Embrace sexuality, they are taught to Defend sexuality…..that is of course up until the very moment they are married and then the expectation is that the 20 odd years of sexual repression are just going to what? …melt away in the bliss of a party and some wedding cake? But I digress.

 

So here is where the trouble hits the real world.

 

If a good little LDS girl and a good little LDS boy happen to find themselves in a situation where things perhaps get a little heated (which for some could be as simple as they became horizontal while kissing), their years of programming will kick in and even if both parties wanted it, and even if there were/are/could be genuine feelings there, the programing will inform Molly and Peter that because the other was willing to participate in such a vile act, that they obviously are not the kind of person that they “should” want to be with in the long run. If she is willing to “give it up” that easy, and if he is willing to so haphazardly throw away his priesthood responsibility, then they are not Celestial Kingdom martial, and for a genuinely good and faithful latter-day saint, only the Celestial Kingdom will do.

 

Nice theory right? But are we actually observing this demonetization of the sexes taking place? All I can offer is anecdotal evidence, but from where I am sitting, I observe this issue taking place over and over again between well-intentioned LDS singles.

 

I see good LDS guys feeling like they have to be two people. They have to go and do naughty things with girls that they wouldn’t marry, and only “respect” girls that they deem “worthy” of a celestial marriage. But if for some reason that girl they once held in such high esteem happens to allow (or heaven forbid request) him to push the sexual boundaries, he will dismiss her as a women with no virtue and cast her aside.

 

Conversely, I see good LDS girls believing that she must becomes hyper vigilant about protecting her virtue (which has a demonetization effect towards men in general…if you have an offense that means that there must needs be a defense from whom you are defending). Subsequently if a guy (who in reality might well be a solid card carrying priesthood holder who treats her like gold and makes her feel loved and appreciated) happens to push that sexual boundary, this good little LDS girl is going to assume that this means that he in fact does not care about her, or his priesthood to boot, and therefore is unfit for marriage and for the kingdom of heaven.

 

So what is the solution? I wish I had a perfect simple answer, but as with most dating relationships…

 

It’s complicated.

 

We as a broader culture have long recognized the classic double standard when it comes to the sexuality of men and women. We are also witnessing much in the way of gender wars in the media, and even within our own religion. The point here is not that we must stop doing what we are doing in regards to teaching our youth about sexuality, but rather, we perhaps need to find a different angle.

 

Ideally one that has a less demonizing effect from one gender to another, but also from an individual towards their own sexuality.