On The Origin Of Satan

The comment was made:

"I,the illustrious me, and some other members of my ward were bombarded by emails recently from a duo of inactive members of the ward, among others things. I answered one or two and then asked them a litany of questions none of which were answered. The claim was that Jesus and Satan were or are brothers (I have been attending Church for over 30 years now, never ONCE heard anything like that) but where do other faiths think or believe that Satan came from? Is he from some other world, some mystical evil force, some human gone terribly bad or what is the story?"

To which I responded:

Though I am not an expert, it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of non-LDS Christian have little if any explanation for who Satan is or where he came from. I myself am skeptical about whether Satan even exists, and think it is more likely that Satan is man's personification of evil, and the doctrine of Satan has historically been used to create fear sufficient to induce obedience, and also to end discussion about authority and doctrine.

But in any event, whether or not you believe in Satan, it seems to me that the threshold question we should ask, before we ask whether Satan and Jesus are brothers, is, "Why would it matter?" It seems to me that the critics of the LDS belief of Jesus and Satan being brothers (usually evangelical Christians) have two primary concerns: first, because they make no distinction between Jesus (Jehova in LDS terms) and God the Father (a.k.a. Elohim in LDS terms), it is blasphemous to suggest that Jesus could have a brother at all, because such would imply that Jesus had a finite beginning when he was created by parents; second, there tends to be an assumption of "evil by association," in that a familial bond between Jesus and Satan somehow necessarily would imply that Jesus is partly evil or that Satan is partly good, and such a conclusion would contradict fundamental Christian beliefs about Jesus being perfectly good. My own opinion is that it does not matter whether Jesus and Satan (if he exists) are or were brothers. Jesus can still be just and righteous, and Satan can still be evil, just as blood siblings among mortal beings can be like night and day in their differences in character. As for Jesus having a beginning, I don't have a problem with that, either. Traditional Christian doctrine sadly evolved to hold too many absolutes (i.e., omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.). Such absolutes create too many problems when we try to think them through. I have decided to settle on much less dogmatic notions of God, and living with a little uncertainty is much more comfortable for me than trying to have all the answers.

Addendum to prior post regarding tithing and financial help from the LDS Church

The person responded:

"I don't want you all to think I find tithing easy. far from it. I went years only paying token tithing which was not really a true tithe. My spouse actually is a stickler for exactness and pays thites in full. I must admit our finances are better now than they were when I was not faithful in my donations.

I would like to point out that the Bishop didn't pay my medical fees out of his own pocket, it was out of the Fast offering fund. which I try to pay into each month.

It may seem to some to be "Corporate in nature" but it is a good system in my view. everyone contributing and everyone being helped when in need.
Not depending on the state or other agencies is a plus, is it not?"

To which I responded:

A good system would be for those who are reasonably in the position to help to help those who need it. It makes little sense, in my opinion, to consider anyone entitled to help from fast offering funds because they contributed some amount to the fund at some point, even though that amount is dwarfed by the amount the fund contributes to them. One might say something like, "Well, they are only deserving if they are willing to do their part and contribute." If a person's financial need clearly outweighs any reasonable ability to contribute, wouldn't it make more sense to say to the needy person, "Use your funds to help yourself so that the fast offering/tithe funds do not need to help you as much."?

I think that in principle, it is a very good thing to have tithes and fast offerings in order to help people in financial need. It also has the potential to be distributed more efficiently than a government program would. The problem, as I see it, is the power that bishops and the church have to make help contingent upon the perceived religious devotion or deservingness of the recipient of the help. That system can lead to what I call religious or spiritual coercion, and it has potential for great abuses. People who choose to contribute and then later need help may find themselves in a position where they are not entitled to a refund and that if they want help, they will have to do religiously oriented work to prove that they are deserving (for example, "Are you reading your scriptures everyday? Are you living the law of chastity, etc.). That is totally improper. I do think it would be proper for a bishop to refuse to write out a check to someone who would be likely to blow it on illegal drugs or alcohol, or someone who was beating their spouse or children. But I do not believe that a person in need ought to be subjected to some sort of temple worthiness lecture every time a bishop wonders whether they are deserving of need. In that sense, government welfare programs have their own advantage, namely that assistance may be distributed without discrimination or the danger of religious or spiritual coercion.

On Entitlement To Financial Help From The Church

(From October 2004)

I commented:

I would like your perspectives on the concept of tithing.

All present and former active LDS members are aware of the law of tithing. There exist, however, many different perspectives on it. I would like to raise one question:

Assuming that the law of tithing is in fact a god-given principle, in what circumstances, if any, would the duty to pay tithing be excused?

(Let's leave aside for now the issue of whether to obey the law, the tithing must be payed to an LDS bishop. I think it could be just as well donated to a charitable cause, since "when you are in the service of your fellow being, you are only in the service of your God.")

Life has many duties and responsibilities. I believe we should, for example, love our neighbor as we love ourselves. We should also look after the welfare of our families and be responsible citizens. The difficulty comes in sorting out priorities, given limited resources of time, energy, and money. Being responsible citizens, in my view, entails paying our debts to those we have made promises to repay. We should also live within our means as much as is reasonably possible.

But suppose that a family member who is dependent upon you financially has major health issues. In order to treat them, you have to incur great debt, because your health insurance, through no fault of your own, sucks. Your income is such that in order to pay tithing, despite all of your fiscally responsible choices, you would have to go into more debt or fail to pay off existing debt. The question is, would God have you pay tithing, or would God have you take care of your family's present financial obligations first.

Members of the Church are bombarded with the idea that if they pay their tithing, they will always have enough for everything else they need. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." There are frequent citations to the scripture in Malachi which says something like, "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me, in tithes and offerings. . . . Prove me herewith, if I will not pour you out a blessing from heaven that will be so great you will not have enough room to receive it." Members are taught that tithing must always come first.

In my view, God would expect people to take care of their families and their basic needs before a charitable duty to tithe arises. In Mosiah, King Benjamin teaches the people that it is OK not to give to the needy, as long as the reason is that the would-be giver does not have a surplus to give. Only those who could reasonably give but do not are condemned. On the other hand, we read of the story of the widow in the new testament who gave a very small amount, even though she was apparently impoverished herself. I, however, view the widow's behavior as extraordinary, and exceeding the standard that is normally expected of moral beings. (presumably, however, an old widow was not neglecting duties to dependents by donating funds, and was merely making a personal sacrifice)

Since I view tithing as an act of charity, I believe people who "have not", are justified in not paying it. In particular, I think that people who have pre-existing financial obligations generally ought to pay those obligations off before donating money (with minor exceptions). Many people, however, view tithing as primarily an act of faith (rather than an act of charity which is subject to reasonable ability to pay. When finances are tight, they say, it is just as important to exercise your faith by paying tithing, in order to show God that you trust in him to provide for your needs. Tithing is therefore more of a piety/faith concept than a charity concept, they say.

I think it is important to note that the law of tithing appears to have originated in a time when few or no social programs existed to take care of the needy, the sick, and the orphans. Today, though, we pay heavy taxes, which do much to fund social welfare (of course, they don't generally fund church activities).

For those that believe in the concept of tithing, please tell me when, if ever, you think the duty to pay is excused. For those who don't believe in "tithing" per se, but who do believe in charity, please tell me when you think our duty to contribute financially to charitable causes is excused.



To which one person responded:

"The law of tithing as we know it in the LDS faith, is one tenth of your increase. I think we all agree on that so far.

Now You asked about situations like hardship and other difficult situations. Obedience to the law we say, does bring blessings. If I have paid my tithing and get by without difficulty that is fine. What then in the week where I have a massive unexpected bill or medical emergency?: As I have experience in my life, these things definitely do happen. The Lords programme allows for this in a good way.

All I did in the 2 occasions where I was in dire need, was approach( confidentially ) my Bishop and he actually paid my medical bill for me on one occasion and on another he paid some bills for me. I was asked to do some chores in the chapel as a repayment when I was on my feet.

The lord looks after people who trust in him. one way or another.( and those who dont most of the time)"

To which I responded:

"I appreciate your willingness to express your opinion and your perspective, which you have formed based upon your personal experiences. But I do have some difficulties with what you said.

First, while I think it was extremely kind of your bishop to offer to pay your medical bills, people cannot expect those kinds of favors all the time. What if your Bishop was struggling financially himself and was in no position to offer such assistance? Would you not be faced with a very difficult choice? Would God have you neglect your obligations toward another, a doctor who provided such a necessary service to your family, just so that you could pay your tithing?

Secondly, if we are to credit God with all that we have been given, would we not also be justified in attributing to Him the circumstances which caused us to incur certain debts such as medical expenses? Would we not therefore be justified in subtracting such expenses from our "increase" so that our tithing obligations were truly based upon our financial solvency and ability to pay?

Although the law has in the past been worded as "increase", it has traditionally been interpreted as "income" in the church today. This poses some great difficulty. A person might have a lot of income but have no "increase" because of unavoidable expenses. (for that matter, I personally consider food, clothing, and shelter also to be unavoidable expenses to stay alive).

The LDS Church, by perpetuating the erroneous (in my opinion) view that a person is required to pay tithing every time they have "income", regardless of their circumstances, forces people into either unnecessary financial hardship, or to neglect their financial obligations to others, and forces many people into unjustified guilt. This is especially true because paying a full tithe is a requirement to attend the temple, and "temple blessings" are constantly lauded as the highest and most ideal thing we can achieve in this life. I personally believe in a God who is pleased when we exercise faith in making good choices, even when it requires some personal sacrifice on our part, but I also believe in a God who is just and who takes all circumstances into account before he condemns us for failing to obey a rule as interpreted by the Church. In my opinion, the Church ought to transform its view of tithing and preach that some people will not be reasonably able to pay tithing, and that individuals must make that choice on their own, and that a person who makes a good-faith judgment that they are unable to reasonably pay tithing is on the same moral ground as someone who can and does pay it. The Church ought to quit asking people whether they pay a full tithe as part of "worthiness interviews."

(one personal note: the last time I had a "tithing settlement" with a bishop, he printed out my tithing contributions year-to-date. He made me feel like he was going to judge whether that amount could reasonably be considered a "full tithe". I did not feel at liberty to say that I paid a full tithe when I knew that he knew just how much I paid, and that he probably had a general idea about how much I earned. Therefore, I made an additional payment at the tithing settlement so that the total amount contributed would be more acceptable. I did not feel comfortable getting into a debate about whether my circumstances (having a family member with a serious chronic disease) justified paying less than 10% of my income. This kind of coercion, however subtle, is totally unacceptable, in my opinion.)"

On The Claim That Antagonism Towards The LDS Church Proves Its Truth

(From October 2004)

The comment was made:

"Human beings are as tempormental as the weather--they sway in and out of what they think they know and want in life and beyond. When we find anything solid; anything that can not be challenged or changed, it is easy to indentify the unchallengable thing because it immediately affects our conscience and causes a lot of heat. It is a state of denial that we fall into when we find that God's truth can not be fit into our own desires.

Throughout history, the topic that has caused the most termoil is religion. It affects all people, even today, and the most interesting issue is that because it is identified by the heat it causes, it is more certainly seen at the heat of the battle. As I have searched religions throughout the world, I have come to find that there is no religion that has more antagonism that does the Mormon religion. Why does it cause so many people to desire its destruction? Further, why is it that those who once were members become so hostile afterward. I know many of other religions that just leave it alone one they depart from their particular religion.

The more people who fight this thing, the mormon beliefs, the more I am convinced that it must be true because of human nature to resist those things that can not be changed, such as God and his truth. In fact, after reading the things on this site and many like it, I have seen a perfect display of what I just wrote. People make excuses, based on the idea that they believe in themselves and in a God other than in the Mormon religion. I challenge anti-mormons to not respond to this message; I have come to the realisation that a message like this will make anti-mormons boil because they know they can't change the fact that this church must have something true about it. If it didn't, it wouldn't cause so much negative attention. Sorry."

To which I responded:

Although I appreciate your willingness to express your opinion, I do believe that it has been erroneously formed. To start, lest I be accused, I am still a Mormon and do attend church regularly (at least for now). I would never describe myself as an "anti-Mormon". I would describe myself as "anti-error". Regardless of your belief or lack thereof that the LDS church is the "one and only true and living church on the face of the earth," any reasonable person would have to admit that there is at least some error, either in the past, present, or both.

Have you thought about the fact that BOTH truth and error may stir up controversy and antagonism? By your reasoning, a white person from the South in pre-Civil War days might have concluded, "Well, there are so many of these abolitionist groups who oppose slavery. Many include blacks. Those blacks are simply unwilling to accept that God made them inferior and subservient to us whites, because accepting that places hardship on them that goes against their desires to be free. Since people tend to reject truth in favor of their own desires, it makes sense that slavery is in fact a true and correct principle because so many people oppose it."

Anyone, including you, can see how ridiculous that would be! In case you did not already know, it appears that Ezra Taft Benson was against the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Have you read Apostle Mark E. Peterson's talk about how God separated the whites from the negro and that God commands us not to intermarry? That position is now utterly rejected by the LDS church (thank goodness). Surely you are also aware that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God? That doctrinal position is also completely rejected in modern mormonism.

These errors do not in themselves disprove the truth of the LDS church. The church recognizes that people, even prophets, are imperfect, and that "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such." The question, though, in my opinion, is what leads to these kinds of errors, and how can we tell the truth from the error? The cause of the errors, in my opinion, is the very kinds of erroneous logic which you are advancing. Fear of questioning and critically challenging doctrinal positions is, I think, the biggest single contributor to existing and continuing errors in contemporary LDS doctrine. The culture within the church perpetuates the fear of questioning by attacking people with accusations of lack of faith and threats of church sanctions. This is the most unhealthy environment I can imagine for preventing and correcting errors.

So, why is it that ex-mormons and others have so much antagonism towards the church? Apart from doctrinal disagreements, I think that the dissenters have so much antagonism because the church does not provide adequate and peaceful means for them to express their views and questions in an open and non-threatening environment, where those views and opinions will actually be considered. People within the church, including leaders, fear that faith would be destroyed if error would be admitted. So they choose the path of not admitting the error and allowing it to persist. It is not difficult to see how these actions and attitudes displayed by the church stir up so much animosity.

God gave us brains, and he gave us reason. Faith, I believe, is a true principle, but it must not replace reason, and faith must be based upon the truth. The church, to the extent that it asks its members to believe in doctrine which is patently unreasonable by the standards of logic, asks its members to be unreasonable and to deny the intellect God has given them.

Exercising faith and curbing our own desires for righteousness' sake is always difficult. The difficulty alone is not a sufficient ground to say that the law is wrong. However, we must look at the reasons behind any laws. I do not believe that God expects us to live any laws just because he says so. Since God wants people to be truly happy, all of his laws are given to us for that purpose. If it appears clear, by the reason with which God has endowed us, that a law that purportedly comes from God does not have the effect of making people happier, then I believe it is logical to assume that the law either did not in fact come from God, or else it has not been adequately expressed or qualified to be correct.

In conclusion, the church, true or not, is imperfect, not only in its inevitably imperfect human membership, but in its current and incomplete doctrine. A loving God would not demand from people that they discard their reason and accept error. He would have those people debate and fight the error. Truth is arrived at not only by revelation, but by inquiry, study, and debate. When the church, or any other powerful entity, denies its members the opportunity to freely question and debate in order to arrive at the truth, people naturally get angry. Anti-mormons and ex-mormons are often so antagonistic because they are branded by the church as evil on account of their questioning. They feel the need to defend themselves- thus the antagonism.

On LDS Women Using Sexually-Oriented Media

The comment was made:

"The only time porn is brought up is in the Priesthood session. I’m positive a lot of girls grow up not even realizing that some of what they’re engaging in is wrong because it’s never brought to the attention of women, particularly when they’re young girls and teenagers. The YW manuals never once mention any such problems; the only chastity lessons they get are how to keep boys at arm’s length. Why is no one addressing this issue? Why do women have to wait until they’re already addicted before anyone will help them not be addicted? Why is it that when women see their bishops they’re often treated as freaks of nature because “that’s a man problem, not a woman problem”? Why isn’t the church educating bishops and stake presidents about the possibilities of this being a large problem for women as well and how to help them like they help the males in their congregations?

I agree with you that the church addresses this problem largely among the priesthood members. And, to their credit, it is a problem that affects more men than women. However, I also agree with you that it is not addressed among the sisters of our church. Here are some reasons that I believe might contribute to this:
•It’s impossible for the Church to address every problem that arises for its members. I believe that they do their best to follow major trends and try to address these as they come up. There are so many different problems that surround the area of sexuality, I’m sure it’s difficult to address.
•A major trend that has been a very real issue for the women of the Church of late is the rising frequency of clinical depression. I have noticed that the talks directed towards the sisters focus more on self-acceptance, not running faster than we have strength, self-esteem, etc. I’m sure that although the leaders recognize that there are inappropriate behaviors that women are engaging in, they would rather not add one more thing to the “guilt tank” LDS women are already dealing with.
•I agree with you that in our culture in general (not just LDS) we tend to think of men as being more sexual than women. This is actually not the case at all. Our sexual templates (what turns us on) and drives may differ, but all human beings are sexual. I also agree that because of these perceptions, we tend to be surprised or excessively judgemental when we hear that a woman could be a sex addict or enjoys looking at pornography. Even women who have a higher libido than their husbands can be left feeling “weird” or inadequate. This is an area we need to become more comfortable addressing.

It’s important to remember that pornographic use does not automatically translate into pornographic addiction. Those who struggle with sex or pornographic addiction have a high likelihood of sexual trauma in their past. Remembering this can help us as members be more empathetic and understanding when these issues come up.

It is also important to be aware that some women who look at pornography do so because they feel pressured to so by their spouses as a way to liven up their sexual lives or legitimately enjoy seeing their spouses excited by the pornography. Therefore for these people, the use of pornography has more to do with the spouse than with their own desires. My findings have been that although this can create a sense of false intimacy at first, it is exactly that: false intimacy. And it then becomes a harder task to go back and recreate the true intimacy that couples want in their sexual relationships.

It is paramount for us as members to become educated about our sexual & cultural surroundings, relevant statistics, and negative trends so that we are better able to educate our children and react appropriately to friends and other members within our stakes and wards. We cannot always rely on the Church to do all of this for us.

MM readers:

What is your take on this question? Should the church be addressing pornography use and women?

Do you agree with me that pornography use between couples results in false intimacy or not?

If a couple want to engage in watching pornography together should this be considered as part of their sexual repertoire and only their business – in other words, not needing a confession to a priesthood authority?

How would you respond if you knew of a woman who was a pornography and/or sex addict? Would that surprise you?

If you are a woman, what perceptions do you have or have you felt regarding this issue?

I realize that this could be a sensitive topic with varying opinions, so please keep it civil."

To which I responded:

I feel so terrible to hear all these women feel guilty about their so-called porn addictions. I think they would feel much better about themselves if they would realize that they are normal and and that porn is usually just an extension of our god-given tendency to enjoy sexual fantasies. Unless your porn use is causing objective problems (i.e., you cannot function responsibly in daily life), then I do not believe it can or should be considered an "addiction" and you should just embrace it as part of you. For that matter, you should consider the huge benefit it could be to your current or future husband that you are tolerant about it and could enhance your sexual relationship with him by virtue of your interest in it. Consider for a moment the millions of LDS men who are feeling guilty about it because they assume their wives are not OK with it. Caveat: there are some forms of porn which truly are harmful, like child pornography, porn which glorifies non-consensual sexual encounters, and the like. But as for porn which depicts consensual sex between adults, and is produced in humane and consensual ways, let us shed this ridiculous guilt. I say to you women porn users, and particularly LDS women porn users, "YOU GO, GIRLS!" Feel good about yourself and relax. Embrace your sexuality and stop the self-loathing! Also, watch the following testimonial video:


http://www.iamanexmormon.com/cycle-of-guilt/


To say that the solution is for church leaders to give equal treatment to men and women in inciting guilt about sexuality, I could not disagree more strenuously. Let's stop making EITHER of them feel guilty about it.

Once Again On Modesty

I commented:

Modesty as a means of curtailing or eliminating male sexual fantasies about pretty females is futile, in my view. I believe that this goal is the primary motivator behind the Church's emphasis on modesty. There are, however, other bases for principles of modesty which in my view are rational, worthwhile, and described below, but which do not justify the application of modesty as presently taught in the Church.


Any normal, post-pubescent, pre-male-menapausal, healthy male will naturally have his brain flash erotic thoughts in his mind, consciously or subconsciously, when he sees an attractive woman. Granted, the fantasy is often more pleasurable or intense when the woman is dressed or made up in a way as to highlight her physical beauty (this is NOT just about clothes or showing skin- it includes things like hairdo, makeup, etc.). But cultural experimentation in extreme forms of modesty (women being forced to wear burkas comes to mind) have not at all yielded the desired results in reduced illicit sex. In fact, it seems they have made things worse- turning the view of a woman's body into a kind of forbidden fruit seems to increase the likelihood of non-consensual sexual encounters, i.e., rape, which tends to be more prevalent in cultures with stricter cultural/religious standards of modesty. Compulsory modesty (whether enforced via cultural norms or religious dogma) also tends to have a disproportionately negative effect on women's liberty and self expression. If it is for the protection of the woman, then why not let the woman choose what level of "protection" she desires.


We must re-evaluate modesty by first tossing out the notion that sexual fantasizing about someone you're not married to is sinful or wrong in and of itself. Why toss it out? For one thing, "illicit" sexual fantasies are extremely common, even among people who in real life have the discipline to refrain from having a real-life sexual encounter. (I happen to fit in that camp, so I can vouch for this on personal experience.) From this, we should learn that people have an often underestimated ability to separate fantasy from reality. Secondly, we must recognize the historical origins of American and LDS standards of modesty, which are largely derived from Puritanism- a religious philosophy which tends to shun physical pleasure as a bad thing in and of itself. I do not believe that a loving God would create our bodies and brains with a physiology so programmed for sexual pleasure, and particularly sexual arousal triggered by even non-sexual ordinary encounters with the opposite sex, while condemning us for having sexual fantasies and relieving the tension from those fantasies through masturbation. If you want to go ahead and believe that a loving god would so condemn us, go ahead, but I cannot in good conscience find that such a position is in the slightest bit reasonable.


Once we have ditched the idea that modesty must be practiced for the sake of eliminating sexual fantasizing, we can begin to have a rational dialogue about what are the right principles to consider in formulating a doctrine or standard on appropriate modesty. Here is, in my view, a non-exhaustive list of reasonable justifications for modesty in certain situations:


1. To temporarily avoid distractions (i.e., it would probably not be too workable for everyone to show up to sacrament meeting naked- I for one would likely have some difficulty concentrating on the ritual);


2. To temporarily set a mood or focus on something less sexual (this is very similar to #1, and would include things like dressing professionally for a professional type of job, or military service);


3. To send an unspoken message regarding a woman's lack of interest in attracting men's sexual interest;


4. To reduce the likelihood that some wacko (who is unable to separate fantasy from reality and unable to reasonably control himself) will be so attracted to a woman that he can't help himself and sexually assaults her. Note: this circumstance tends to be rather rare in a more sexually-liberal society, because the would-be-assailants generally have other outlets to relieve themselves- i.e., masturbation, pornography, voluntary prostitution, etc., and also because the sight of flesh is not so unusual as to provoke an uncontrolable response;


5. To maintain some barrier to sexual relations in order to preserve the uniqueness and special-ness of sexual relations.


6. To resist social pressures for young girls to become sexually-oriented before they are ready.


These, however, are not the only things to bear in mind when determining modesty standards. We must also consider: (1) that pleasure is in and of itself a worthwhile pursuit, and that while it must necessarily be constrained by bounds of reasonableness, we should not count it as nothing in the equation; (2) women should have the right to decide what amount of modesty is right for themselves; (3) too much emphasis on modesty, particularly when it is based upon Puritanical notions about sex and pleasure, can be highly damaging to self-esteem, and can send an improper message about bodies being evil or shameful.


Based upon the foregoing principles, I personally do not consider it a problem if teenage girls, whether LDS or not, are wearing short shorts at a non-Sunday church activity, or wearing tops which show shoulders, a belly, or a low neckline. Let's just accept from the outset that we men are going to get turned on, like it or not (for that matter, with or without modesty), but let's have a little faith in our own self-discipline. If girls are concerned about the occasional wacko who might assault them, they can dress differently, and more importantly, make sure to associate with people they trust and stay out of dangerous situations. Frankly, I doubt we can reasonably blame the occasional sexual assault on manner of dress. For my own part, I tend to think that thongs should only be worn by women who are at least 18 years old. And I also deplore the idea of pre-pubescent girls wearing clothing with language like, "booty call," and things of that nature. That is disgusting. But in the post-pubescent world, we have to carefully balance the need to reasonably protect a girl until she is mature enough to do so herself, and the likewise important need to avoid stifling sexuality and inducing self-hate.

On Gender Egalitarianism, The Economics Of Sex, And The Law Of Chastity

The comment was made:

"A fundamental principle of sexual economics is that “sexual activity by females has exchange value, whereas male sexuality does not,” Mr. Baumeister and Ms. Vohs wrote in their 2004 paper. Thus, women have the power to influence sexual norms were they to use it, Mr. Regnerus said. “When women collude to restrict men’s sexual access to women, all women tend to benefit,” he said, noting that “if women were more in charge of how their romantic relationships transpired … we would be seeing greater male investment in relationships, more impressive wooing efforts, fewer hookups, fewer premarital sexual partners … shorter cohabitations, more marrying … and more marrying at a slightly earlier age. In other words, the price of sex would be higher. It would cost men more to access it." However, he said, “none of these things are occurring today. Not one. The price of sex is pretty low.”

Economy of sex: It’s cheap these days. Men tend to rule marriage market.'

Thoughts? A good way to reason about "free milk and a cow"?"

To which I responded:

It is a fascinating topic to consider chastity in the context of sexual economics. In general, with some exceptions, we can reasonably assume that a healthy young man will almost always be up for sex if it is offered to him by a reasonably attractive woman (this does not mean that his level of enjoyment is always the same, or that he would pursue it if he perceives that the female is not interested). Women, by contrast, seem to have far less of a biological need for sex, on average. Because non-consensual sexual encounters are forbidden (and rightly so), this naturally puts women in a position of power over men- if they choose to exploit it, but only to the extent that there are obstacles to a man's comparable alternative outlets (such as masturbation, affairs, etc.). Some people assume that it is a good thing for men in a marriage to be at the complete mercy of their wives for the satisfaction of men's biological needs, because such an arrangement would theoretically force men to be so courting and fantastic to their wives in order to induce/seduce the wives into giving the husbands sex. As a committed gender egalitarian, I believe that such a notion is degrading to human dignity and to men. Just as I believe that wives are not to be treated as objects only good for sex and housework, I likewise believe that men should not be dehumanized to beg for sex. As for my own part, sex which is not freely given, or which arises from duty, compulsion, or guilt, is somewhat sad and pathetic. I would like to live in a world where both husbands and wives treat one another with respect and dignity, and where they let their mutual love and attraction for one another be their natural motivation for sex. Perhaps it is inevitable that there will be times where one spouse is not especially in the mood, and gives in to satisfy the other in the spirit of loving accommodation, and I suppose it is better to have some compromises than to demand the absolutely spontaneous "fireworks" sex every time. But to the extent that there are naturally occurring circumstances which justify one or both spouses in not engaging in sex with each other (examples could include illness, travel, children, particularly busy schedules, professional stress, biologically-based lack of desire, etc.), there must be an available solution to avoid the misery of longing and unsatisfied physiological and psychological urges for sex (people who have experienced this, particularly males, ought to understand the magnitude of frustration I am talking about). This is one reason why I believe masturbation and some forms of sexually-oriented media are perfectly morally justified. In general, so long as they do not result in the rejection of a spouse's sexual advances, or a refusal to make reasonable efforts to satisfy one's spouse sexually, they are an acceptable outlet which can accomplish several worthy goals, among which are: (1) reducing sexual frustration; (2) reducing resentment and anger towards a sexually unavailable/uninterested spouse; (3) leveling the playing field in the dynamic of sexual economics, so that sex is much less likely to be used as a tool of manipulation towards the more physiologically desperate spouse; (4) reducing the likelihood that physiological compulsion will influence a premature or irrational decision to get married in the first place to someone who is a poor marriage choice; (5) reduce the guilt felt by a spouse who is justifiedly not in the mood to satisfy the other spouse's sexual needs; (6) reduce the likelihood that one spouse will succumb to the temptation to have an affair; (7) reduce the likelihood that a husband will, out of frustration, force sex upon his wife either via physical constraint or psychological manipulation (i.e., guilt trips, etc.). Oddly, there exists a prevailing puritannical view in the LDS Church today that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media must be condemned, as they inherently destroy marital intimacy; the aformentioned marital benefits of these practices are completely ignored, overshadowed instead by the underlying unspoken and even subconscious assumption that sexual pleasure is automatically "suspect" because it is deemed to be "of the flesh" rather than spiritual, and that the only way to get over the guilt is by reminding ourselves that God commands sex within a marriage. This phenomenon has also been termed, "erotophobia," or fear of sex. As for the claim that masturbation and all sexually-oriented media inherently destroy marital intimacy, this does not seem to necessarily be true. The fact, that millions of men (and probably hundreds of thousands of LDS men) seem to have relatively happy marriages though they continue to conceal their masturbation and use of sexually-oriented media from their wives, suggests that the bigger culprit is NOT the masturbation and sexually-oriented media, but rather puritannically-backed anger felt by wives upon discovery, because they have been conditioned to imagine that their husbands are sinful or of low moral character or do not love them if they engage in these practices.

True gender egalitarianism demands that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot, on the one hand, tell men that egalitarianism demands that they refrain from any compulsion towards their wives to get sex, and on the other hand, forbid men from taking care of their own needs when those needs are not met by their wives. Of course, some people will resolve the problem by throwing out egalitarianism and rolling time back to the good old 1950s, where men could force sex on their wives whether they wanted it or not, and society did not frown upon the practice. Puritans, if that is your position, I think you are horribly wrong, but at least you are taking a view which is on its face internally consistent. At least this corrupt view takes natural male sex drive into account. But TBMs, if you want to claim that men have to lick their wives feet and make themselves subservient to their wives just to get sex in the "correlation-committee-approved" fashion, and that husbands have no right to otherwise take care of their own sexual needs, then at least don't pretend to hold that men and women have equal dignity before God, or that the Church has an egalitarian view of the sexes!

I believe that true principles of gender egalitarianism, if preached with more vigor, would do more to improve and increase the number of stable committed relationships in our society, and would improve the mutual happiness and satisfaction of both husbands and wives.

Sorry for the rant, everyone. My greatest desire is not to complain, but rather for the Church to wake up and realize how inconsistent its doctrines on so-called chastity are with the human nature God gave us. Viewing church history through the objective lens of empirical human nature ought to make it plain to see how powerful the male sex drive is. Instead of coming to grips with this fact, all kinds of excuses and apologetic arguments have been invented to reconcile empirical facts with puritannical doctrines on sexuality. Spiritually coerced polygyny, for example, instead of being taken as proof that even the most spiritual of men like Joseph Smith could be influenced by their sex drives, instead gets used as evidence for Joseph's devotion to God by having plural wives even though he loved Emma so much, because "God commanded it." If Joseph were alive today, there is little doubt in my mind that he would be excommunicated from the LDS Church and branded an apostate. Point of clarification: I still have faith that he was a prophet, but believe that he erred in many respects and was just as human as the rest of us. Many apologists (and even TBMs) even have a similar view. But what bothers me is that many of these same people continue to insist that Thomas S. Monson's official teachings are automatically immune from criticism or legitimate disagreement because he is a prophet. If we take the reasonable step of admitting that Joseph erred in his teachings and revelations, then then I do not see any reason why we must assume that Thomas S. Monson's teachings are error-free.