Is Female Purity...

[Jenamarie]

"Is female purity b*llsh**?"

Please don't judge the blog post by it's title! This was actually a rather thought-provoking read posted by one of my Catholic friends on FB. The blogger here is exploring the idea of chastity and purity from a Catholic perspective, and how he sees people of faith often missing the mark on what chastity actually *is* and *isn't*. I found it very insightful. :) (and no, the blogger is not trying to justify promiscuity or anything like that)

(also, as a heads-up, in the post the blogger include pictures of women breastfeeding, as well as a waist-up picture of a young African woman in traditional attire, which includes bare breasts with body paint)

[pam]

Here is an article written by one of our writers from MGF that talks about the worlds devaluing of sexual purity as well:

Christ’s Apostle Speaks to Sexual Morality | Mormon Family

[Still_Small_Voice]

Pulling a few thoughts from what Pam posted:

Everywhere I turn I see premarital sex accepted and embraced, so much so that youth growing up in today’s Westernized culture hardly know what it means to be chaste, much less know that chastity is vital to our spiritual well-being.

Elder Bednar acknowledges that “the doctrine I have described will seem to be archaic and outdated to many people. . . . But the Lord’s truth is not altered by fads, popularity, or public opinion polls.”

When we were engaged, my husband and I did not find sexual morality an easy route. In fact, it was a very difficult commandment to keep. (Lest you think that Mormons have an easy go of chastity, our bodies work the same way that yours do!) Now that I’m past that phase in our relationship, I’m immensely grateful that we both waited to be intimate. Our intimacy means more to me knowing that we cherish it and guarded it.

My own thoughts

Those who choose to disregard chastity will never know the hidden treasure found in following the commandments of God unless they repent. I think you value your marriage and intimacy so much more if you live the law of chastity.

[Vort]

The blog entry is bullcrap. Of course a virtue can be defined by a lack; it's virtuous not to be a murderer or someone who curses. The writer can go ahead and impose her stupid feminist ideals on actions, but the fact is that sex outside of marriage is not of God and is wrong. Her arguing against this idea does not make a particle of difference. She is wrong, no matter how much she talks.

[selek]

There's a lot of double-talk, special-pleading, and "I'm-going-to-use-my-own-definitions-to-prove-I'm-a-special-snowflake" in that post; far more than I would normally tolerate in something I am not required to read.

Having sifted through all of the nonsense and breast-beating (pun intended), however, I found a single nugget of genuine wisdom: namely that chastity is not merely the absence of sexual misconduct, but requires a genuine respect for, understanding of, and gratitude for the sacred nature and awesome responsibility of the power of procreation.

Stripped of the posturing, the blogger is arguing that simply "abstaining from sex" is not enough; to fully embrace chastity, one must also genuinely understand why and respect the parameters, limitations, and power of the gift we have been given.

It is a twist on the old saying that "virtue enforced is no virtue at all."

One must choose to be chaste for the right reasons, not merely obey an arnitrary definition by rote.

Edited May 11, 2013 by selek

[Just_A_Guy]

I only skimmed the article, but it seemed the author was defining chastity as being true to one's self, rather than any objective respect for the power of procreation and the sanctity of the body per se.

That would seem potentially problematic (what if I view my "true self" as a porn star?) and a bit of a divergence from standard LDS teaching (ie that we conform our morals to God's/the Church's, rather than vice versa).

[Jenamarie]

The blog entry is bullcrap. Of course a virtue can be defined by a lack; it's virtuous not to be a murderer or someone who curses. The writer can go ahead and impose her stupid feminist ideals on actions, but the fact is that sex outside of marriage is not of God and is wrong. Her arguing against this idea does not make a particle of difference. She is wrong, no matter how much she talks.

Did we read the same article? HE wasn't arguing in favor of sex outside of marriage at all.

Chastity is free of duplicity because in practicing it, who a man is — a being for whom sexuality is a wonderful part, but not a whole — is not distorted by dishonest actions, like posing for a body-wash commercial that reduces the whole man to a lathered set of abs. The true absence, the true lack, is in unchastity, evidenced by the fact that it’s just chastity with an un. Unchastity is dishonesty about who you are. The reason the Church says its “unchaste” to have a multitude of sexual partners or to display yourself as sexually-arousing profile picture is not because she’s “slut-shaming” her children, but because she understands that such behavior is a reduction of the intricate, infinite, terrifying subjectivity of a unique human self into a single, poorly-represented characteristic.

There is only one way to be chaste, for every human has but one self to be. There are an infinite number of ways to be unchaste, for there are an infinite number of ways to avoid being the self one is, or, as Kierkegaard would have it, to live in despair. If I am addicted to pornography, I am not being my true self, for pornography is my master, whereas my true self is free. If I live a life going through an endless supply of sexual partners to cover up the unspeakable pain of being molested, raped, or abused, I am not being my true self, nor is my sexuality integrated into my whole person. Rather, I am acting out of the very absence of my true self, acting out of pain, of brokenness, as a reaction to evil. If I am having sex with another because “she’d leave me otherwise,” I am not being my true self, I am acting on behalf of another, out of a feeling of necessity.

Unchastity in dress is to dress like you are primarily an erect penis or an aroused vagina, that is, in a manner which highlights your sexual nature at the expense of the entirety of your person. On the other hand, chastity in dress is to dress precisely as yourself. In my case, it is to dress as a son, a brother, a boyfriend, a student, and a unique self who finds himself existing, standing before Eternity and rapidly approaching death.

[Jenamarie]

There's a lot of double-talk, special-pleading, and "I'm-going-to-use-my-own-definitions-to-prove-I'm-a-special-snowflake" in that post; far more than I would normally tolerate in something I am not required to read.

Having sifted through all of the nonsense and breast-beating (pun intended), however, I found a single nugget of genuine wisdom: namely that chastity is not merely the absence of sexual misconduct, but requires a genuine respect for, understanding of, and gratitude for the sacred nature and awesome responsibility of the power of procreation.

Stripped of the posturing, the blogger is arguing that simply "abstaining from sex" is not enough; to fully embrace chastity, one must also genuinely understand why and respect the parameters, limitations, and power of the gift we have been given.

It is a twist on the old saying that "virtue enforced is no virtue at all."

One must choose to be chaste for the right reasons, not merely obey an arnitrary definition by rote.

Thank you. This was my main take from the article, and why I shared it here. :) I always find it interesting to see how persons of other faiths (in this instance, a Catholic) define and act out similar religious beliefs (in this case: chastity).

[Jenamarie]

I only skimmed the article, but it seemed the author was defining chastity as being true to one's self, rather than any objective respect for the power of procreation and the sanctity of the body per se.

That would seem potentially problematic (what if I view my "true self" as a porn star?) and a bit of a divergence from standard LDS teaching (ie that we conform our morals to God's/the Church's, rather than vice versa).

The author is Catholic, so it won't be based on LDS teachings. And part of his post which I quoted above gives the idea that he wouldn't expect ones "true self" to include being a porn star (reducing yourself to being just ONE part of your whole self)

[Just_A_Guy]

And part of his post which I quoted above gives the idea that he wouldn't expect ones "true self" to include being a porn star (reducing yourself to being just ONE part of your whole self)

If your point is that chastity is basically a manifestation of how we view our divine nature, I agree with that and think it an excellent point.

The question is, going back to the author's terminology--who, if not a god or a church, determines what our "true self" is? In a secular, hyper-sexualized society like ours, I fear the article (perhaps quite inadvertently) serves merely to weaken the basis for truly chaste behavior and encourage each person to become a law to him or herself. The natural man wants sex, and lots of it; and in the absence of divine law he will come up with all kinds of intellectual arguments to justify his getting exactly what he wants.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

what if I view my "true self" as a porn star?

Is being a porn star inherently evil? Is it allowable to be a "porn star" as long as you are married to your co-star and all of your "porn star sex" stays between you and your co-star?

The main point I took from the article in the OP was that we need to learn how to embrace our sexuality as a part of who we are. Sometimes in our conservative religion we give the impression that the only good Mormon is an asexual Mormon, which, of course, is false. Catholics probably have a harder time of this because of the way that their history and theology has implied that a celibate life, whenever possible, is preferable to married life. I think their is an important lesson here about learning to accept our sexuality and learn how to integrate into our lives within the bounds set by the Lord in scripture.

[Anddenex]

Is being a porn star inherently evil?

Yes, being a porn star is inherently evil.

Is it allowable to be a "porn star" as long as you are married to your co-star and all of your "porn star sex" stays between you and your co-star?

No, being a porn star is inherently evil. A couple that enjoys their sexuality, within their companionship, wouldn't be considered "porn star sex."

There is nothing beautiful or chaste about being a "porn star."

[selek]

I only skimmed the article, but it seemed the author was defining chastity as being true to one's self, rather than any objective respect for the power of procreation and the sanctity of the body per se.

Hence my "special snowflake" and "private definitions" crack.

It is beyond dispute that the author is deeply in love with the sound of his/her own voice ( I speak as a sufferer of the condition) and believes he/she is offering something profound; it is only when you discard the self-important twaddle that the nugget of truth emerges.

That would seem potentially problematic (what if I view my "true self" as a porn star?) and a bit of a divergence from standard LDS teaching (ie that we conform our morals to God's/the Church's, rather than vice versa).

Amen and amen.

[selek]

Is being a porn star inherently evil? Is it allowable to be a "porn star" as long as you are married to your co-star and all of your "porn star sex" stays between you and your co-star?

Speaking strictly as an ex-sailor, I have to back Annedex on this one.

"Porn", by definition, is about titilation, not intimacy, novelty, rather than commitment, voyuerism, not sanctity, and exhibitionism, rather than a demonstration of genuine love and affection.

Those who equate being a good, attentive lover with "porn-star sex" are not only missing the point, they are degrading the very notion of genuine intimacy. They are buying into Babylon's lie.

To be blunt, porn sex has no more to do with genuine love than two curs rutting in the street (and the dogs generally more honest and thoughtful about it).

The main point I took from the article in the OP was that we need to learn how to embrace our sexuality as a part of who we are. Sometimes in our conservative religion we give the impression that the only good Mormon is an asexual Mormon, which, of course, is false. Catholics probably have a harder time of this because of the way that their history and theology has implied that a celibate life, whenever possible, is preferable to married life. I think their is an important lesson here about learning to accept our sexuality and learn how to integrate into our lives within the bounds set by the Lord in scripture.

I agree.

The danger, however, in our current society is that "embracing" our sexuality is all too often an excuse for allowing it to define us (as with the homosexual lobby).

Twenty-years ago, the self-indulgent used the words "going to find myself" to justify their carnality and fecklessness.

Today, the same type of individuals proclaim, "I'm just embracing the nature God gave me."

[Bensalem]

"Is female purity b*llsh**?"

No more than male purity is!

The law of chastity in the LDS Church is taught in equal portions to both males and females in the Church. So too do nature's demands tug equally. And the spiritual consequences of impurity by either sex remains the same; namely, we become separated from God as the Holy Ghost can no longer abide in us.

The remedy for lack of chastity is also the same for either of the sexes. Repentance through Christ.

The only difference that I see is that in the natural world the women carries the larger burden of condemnation by society. And that the woman is less able to claim purity if her actions result in pregnancy.

In an increasingly promiscuous world, the advent of female birth-control, availability of abortion, and DNA paternity testing has only leveled the field of plausible denial of impure sexual conduct by both male and female participants.

It use to be that impure acts would lead to the corrective act of marriage, but even this is becoming more scarce.

The bottom line is that God holds us all equally accountable for such impure acts.

[Guest]

I find it highly idiotic to write a blog about Chastity using unchaste words gathered from the rubbish bin. Catholic, eh? Sorry, he may have a really great point, but he should not be representing Catholics with that amount of trash language. Chastity is your entire person. Language is part of it.

[mordorbund]

Maybe you should blog about it Anatess. Here's your title: "Kissing a potty mouth is like drinking from the toilet"