Ms. Smart has been getting a lot of press this week for some remarks she made at Johns Hopkins regarding human trafficking. I read many comments and summaries in various places about her remarks which left me feeling a little bit confused about what her actual message was. I was grateful to finally listen to the bulk of her speech this morning and get some clarification.
Before listening I was under the impression that Ms. Smart was fiercely advocating against abstinence education, and that she had cited a particular and terrible incident at church (the gum chewing chastity analogy) as her reason for not running from her captors when she had the chance. She felt worthless and dirty and to blame and therefore did not want to go home. This left me sad and confused.
However, just as the Internet will give you a thousand opinions on even seemingly mundane events, it will also allow you to go to the source. In her speech, Ms. Smart was blunt about what had happened to her. These are facts I have heard before, but coming from her in measured, soft-spoken and perfect diction, her story became very real. She speaks without emotion about her experience, but it is clear that what happened to her for those terrible nine months has given her vast stores of strength.
Here are my take-aways, for what it is worth. Again, my opinion here, though I'm hoping I'm more fairly representing what she was really trying to say rather than cherry-pick what I wanted her to say.
1. She is advocating for a more balanced approach to sex education. She thinks that we should be more blunt with people at an earlier age about the very real dangers in life. She also indicates that at least some of this training should take place in school. At age 14 she had some skewed idea that sex only happened between people who loved one another; she didn't really understand the ugly side. She is advocating that children should be appropriately educated about dangers that exist.
2. I don't have any impression that she has rejected the importance of chastity as a law of God. She spoke respectfully of the beliefs she was raised with, and has made the choice to stay active in the Church and even marry in the temple. Rejecting abstinence-only sex education is not the same as rejecting your belief system.
3. The chewing gum analogy was given to her as young teenager; however, she indicated that this teaching came from a teacher at school during abstinence-only sex education. It was Salt Lake City so the odds of that teacher being LDS were probably pretty good, but she did not say the incident happened at church. Yes, you might have had this taught to you at church (I'm sorry), but Ms. Smart seems more critical of the push to water-down school curriculum than values teaching at church. Because of this type of teaching, she did feel like garbage when she was raped; she wondered at times if she would ever be worthy of being loved again. However, even to girls who have not heard the chewing gum analogy, these feelings are often prevalent after being raped, or even being manipulated into having sex. The rapist's whole point is to degrade and assume power; rape is only marginally about sex.
4. Ms. Smart said firmly that her primary reason for not running was fear. After all, her captors had managed to do all this stuff to her, it seemed perfectly logical that they could make good on their threats to further harm her family. She loved her family. She made a decision from the very beginning that she would do whatever they told her if it meant she might one day get away and return to the family she so dearly missed. Fighting them continually or trying to escape might have just gotten her killed, and the world would have lost a very, very bright light. Elizabeth's decision took courage; perhaps even inspiration to make. It was only when a police officer had the idea to interview her alone that she would admit to who she was; she never openly defied her captors in front of them for fear of further harm to those she loved.
5. My final impression from her remarks is that people should be made to feel valuable regardless of their sexuality or virginity or however you want to term this. Perhaps, just perhaps, if she had felt more confidence in people's willingness to look beyond what had happened to her, she might have had more courage to speak up when she first had a chance.
JoAnna Brooks wrote a piece for Religion Dispatch in which she indicated that the primary reason for Elizabeth not running is that she felt like trash because of what she'd been taught at Church about the importance of chastity. That somehow all LDS people (women) collectively held their breath when others asked why Elizabeth didn't run because we really understood that is was all the fault of our culture. I think this is a rather gross misrepresentation of Ms. Smart's actual remarks, and Brooks opened the forum for plenty of angry people to dismiss God's laws as ridiculous, as if such feeling would somehow have prevented Ms. Smart from ending up in the situation she did. One Internet comment-er indicated that Elizabeth's religious training had forced her to feel like she had sinned and needed to repent. This person trashed religion (and specifically the atonement) for turning victims into sinners. This frustrated me deeply. LDS doctrine on the atonement is clear--it is for everyone. While Ms. Smart was clearly not in need of repentance related to her time in captivity, she was then and now in need of the strengthening and enabling power of Christ to move forward with her life. She is a perfect example of how the atonement heals even the most innocent.
I like Ms. Smart's actual comments very much, and I hope they give many teachers of youth (in and out of the Church) something to think about. I think our children need to be smart; they don't really live in world anymore where we can extol naivete. Innocence is lovely and good; ignorance is not. We should teach our values, but also teach children about their own inherent value. Nemesis, Desmama and I had a conversation not long ago about the problematic use of a scripture found in Mormon. It is used because it indicates "virtue" (one of only a few places that particular word is even found in relation to chastity) is the most precious thing; however, it does so in the context of talking about male warriors raping the women of the opposing side. The wording of the scripture clearly states that the rapists took the virtue of their victims.
We have concluded that we sort of hate this scripture. What the rapists take is their victim's innocence and their virginity. They don't take their virtue. Virtue is a less tangible quality than, in Nem's words, "an intact hymen." Virtue is something that is your own to give away through deliberate acts . . . only one of which might be sex. I am not sorry that the 8th value has been added; but I do wish that it was more clearly defined. This difficult scripture, again as one of very few places "virtue" is used in relation to sexuality, comes up time and time again in talks and in the study YW are meant to do for a virtue value experience. By this scripture's direct reading, it does indicate that Ms. Smart was less than virtuous when she was stripped and thrown down on the floor of a dirty tent, less than five miles from her girlhood bed and treated like garbage. That is a load of hooey. We need to be very careful what we teach our kids.
Her real take home message is that while schools need to work harder to educate, it is familial love and proper teaching about a person's true worth that can save.
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Monday, March 07, 2011
Relief
I did it.
I had THE TALK with Jedi Knight.
Two different events in the last week convinced me that it was time, and finally after months of thought and prayer (really, I'm pretty uptight when it comes to finding JUST THE RIGHT WORDS), the exact words and approach I needed finally came.
Ideally, I would have naturally answered questions as they arose, but there weren't enough questions asked in proportion to what he needed to know.
It was great. Uplifting. Science, spirit and love-based. He came away with a hug and smile, and the knowledge that he can ask his mother about anything. Piece of cake.
*whew*
Onto the next major challenge.
I had THE TALK with Jedi Knight.
Two different events in the last week convinced me that it was time, and finally after months of thought and prayer (really, I'm pretty uptight when it comes to finding JUST THE RIGHT WORDS), the exact words and approach I needed finally came.
Ideally, I would have naturally answered questions as they arose, but there weren't enough questions asked in proportion to what he needed to know.
It was great. Uplifting. Science, spirit and love-based. He came away with a hug and smile, and the knowledge that he can ask his mother about anything. Piece of cake.
*whew*
Onto the next major challenge.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Sex and Power and the LDS Woman
I find myself singing to my kids often--snippets of songs, really. I think I do this because my mother did. And just like her I sing in snippets because I can't remember all the words and when I am on my own with no music I'm usually off key. One of my earliest mom-song-memories is Helen Reddy singing the great feminist anthem:
I am woman hear me roar
In numbers too big too ignore
And I know too much to go back and pretend
'Cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna' keep me down again.
It is funny, really, that this song, a huge hit the year I was born, should have so permeated my childhood. My mom did not, and definitely does not now, consider herself a feminist. And yet, she represented all that the movement wanted--she rose up from a difficult family life to attend college, told her boyfriend she wouldn't be married until she finished college (marrying in 1969), insisted on going back to work part time after her children were born, managed her own money and bank account for her whole adult life, had four children spaced exactly as she chose them to be. Growing up, it never occurred to me that there might be places in America where men and women weren't treated as equals. In my family, the women always had equal say with the men. Always.
And yet I don't consider myself a feminist either. It is ironic really, because I also completely recognize that my lifestyle, choices and self-actualization are a direct outgrowth from that time. I am not a feminist because for all the good the movement did for women in my generation, there were also heavy costs. A huge part of the movement, and the 1960's in general, was an exploration of sexual "freedom." Instead of helping to create a world where men were held to the same high standard that women had always been judged against, they advocated the freedom for women to act to the lowest common denominator. Empowering women became so wrapped up in sex that all the good work the feminists did ended up resulting in some pretty terrible unintended consequences. Women may now exhibit all kinds of lewd behavior without the consequences of a generation or two ago, but in the process these same women cause men to further objectify them. So much for the sexual revolution being anything more than huge step in the wrong direction.
A few months ago, Kathryn Soper, one of the lovely and talented women behind Segullah, posted an incredible article at a website called "Patheos." The article is about the ways in which we miss the mark when it comes to teaching teen aged women about chastity. Her insights are fascinating, the writing engaging, and her personal experiences deeply poignant. If you haven't had a friend send you the piece yet, you really should take a few minutes to go and read it. Ever since reading it a few weeks ago, I haven't been able to quite put it out of my head, and though I won't be as eloquent, I would like to add some of my own thoughts here.
The article begins by pointing out that most teenage girls do not engage in sexual activity because of an overwhelming desire to have sex. In fact, a New Yorker article from a couple of years ago, when reviewing the Twilight books, believed the popularity of the books was due to the fact that young women want love without sex. Soper asserts the same, and quotes President Ezra Taft Benson to back her up. The teen sex itself is a symptom of a deeper problem. Or problems.
Going further, Soper focuses the rest of her piece on just one of these problems: power.
Too many young girls, maybe particularly LDS girls, feel a lack of power. In this case, power is defined as a person feeling like they have a large measure of control over what happens to them. When we talk about power at church, we most often talk about Priesthood power--exclusive to men; or the power of procreation--inaccessible without a man. It isn't that there aren't plenty of examples of female power within the Church, it is just that our terminology doesn't acknowledge it.
When a powerless feeling is coupled with a strong need for love and/or attention, sexuality is the most obvious default for a teenager. Because, let's face it, ladies, men are wired to be deeply driven by sex. Women who learn from an early age to manipulate that desire can gain a lot of power. Of course, Soper reminds us, the power is just an illusion because it isn't based on something inside the young person, it is based on others' perceptions of her. Like the other power mentioned above, such burgeoning sexual power is based on something a man gives or does or notices.
I'd like to add that the power usually only lasts as long as the object of young man's desire is unattainable. Studies show that the vast majority of teen relationships end within a month or two of a couple's first sexual encounter. Girls, of course, have the most to lose in such a break-up, because it ensures that the temporary substitute for love is now absent, and to make matters worse, she has given up the only source of power that she had. In the self-image crash that inevitably follows, needs deepen further and our powerless young teenager finds herself repeating her mistakes because this time it will be "different."
The remainder of Soper's article is in the form of a personal essay, where she bravely talks about her first encounter with the realization that sexual power was within her grasp. In my own life, I was lucky not to have such an experience when I was in my mid-teens, though I knew that many of my friends understood that power. At the time, it didn't feel lucky. Other than a brief stint during my junior year, I could count on one hand the number of dates I had until I was twenty years old.
I was so jealous of the way my many friends could flirt and tease and even manipulate to find any number of boys with which to spend a Friday night. Or to take out the garbage. Or to lift something heavy. Or to hang on their every word. Or ultimately, to spend three months salary on a diamond ring.
Yet, even as my bitterness and mild disdain for what I perceived as the weakness of men grew (along with frustration over my sisters' cruelty toward them), I was busy cultivating other sources of power: intellectual, emotional and spiritual.
Then, when I was twenty years old, something remarkable happened. After a very unusual set of circumstances that landed me in Sacramento California and hanging out with a guy I didn't really like all that well, I looked into his eyes (too) late one night and I recognized exactly what Kathryn Soper is talking about in her article: sudden approval where before there had only been indifference. Bald desire that frightened me.
I kept my power and walked away from the situation, terrified at what I was capable of, and more than a little embarrassed. Because of this person's previous role in my life, for me to suddenly have such a hold was complete reversal, and more than a little exhilarating. What I learned that night, however, without really realizing it, was that "no," was more powerful than desire. My choice, my decision, was a product of every part of my power, not just my sexuality.
In Disneyland last month I was terribly disappointed not to see more evidence of Mulan: my favorite Disney-heroine and the consummate non-Princess. At the first of that movie, right after a disastrous trip to the matchmaker, she goes to the temple of her ancestors, made up and lovely. She is the classic picture of Chinese beauty. Yet, she knows as she catches her image in the highly polished stones that the gorgeous woman she sees is not a reflection of herself. As she wipes the make-up off just one half of her face, she sings,
Who is that girl I see?
Staring straight back at me?
When will my reflection show
Who I am, inside?
I saw this movie the summer I met Plantboy. I was quite self-actualized for 23, but I understood Mulan's sentiment exactly. How many times had I asked myself the same question, though perhaps without the moving vocals. Mulan is not just a love story between a man and woman, it is also a love story of a girl and her father, a girl and her country, a girl and herself.
Some time in my early thirties, I finally looked into the mirror one day and loved the woman I saw staring straight back at me. I found the place where I ceased to see myself through others eyes, even Plantboy's, and I felt deeply empowered. Intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and sexually. A balance that had taken me half my life to finally achieve.
The question I have today is, "why did it take so long?" What can be done to speed this process for the wondering and wandering young women we know and love so that they can be the heroines in their own lives?
Just a few weeks ago, a man in our ward gave a wonderful fireside about dating, but during his remarks he noted that if you believed yourself to be "in love" in high school, then you were just being ridiculous. (Ironically, his own wife, to whom he is very close, is his high school sweetheart.) I felt impressed to drive one of my young women home and speak to her a little more closely: she is dealing with some serious empowerment issues right now, and a serious boyfriend issue. I told her that loving another person wasn't ridiculous, and that part of the nature of women was to be loving. I reiterated that it is never okay to break the commandments, but that there are plenty of appropriate ways to give and express all kinds of love, even that feeling of romantic love. I pray that she will feel the power that comes into her life by choosing to be chaste. By choosing to love. By choosing her own path and asserting what she really wants. Mostly I pray that she will find her power before she finds herself on a road where she actually is helpless.
It is a hard thing we ask of our youth and young adults; it is a hard standard the Lord holds us to while simultaneously blessing us with such powerful needs, but we weren't sent here to fail, either. Empowerment is about realizing that we can do hard things. Because I am God's daughter.
A woman.
Strong. Feminine. Empowered.
Hear me roar!
I am woman hear me roar
In numbers too big too ignore
And I know too much to go back and pretend
'Cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna' keep me down again.
It is funny, really, that this song, a huge hit the year I was born, should have so permeated my childhood. My mom did not, and definitely does not now, consider herself a feminist. And yet, she represented all that the movement wanted--she rose up from a difficult family life to attend college, told her boyfriend she wouldn't be married until she finished college (marrying in 1969), insisted on going back to work part time after her children were born, managed her own money and bank account for her whole adult life, had four children spaced exactly as she chose them to be. Growing up, it never occurred to me that there might be places in America where men and women weren't treated as equals. In my family, the women always had equal say with the men. Always.
And yet I don't consider myself a feminist either. It is ironic really, because I also completely recognize that my lifestyle, choices and self-actualization are a direct outgrowth from that time. I am not a feminist because for all the good the movement did for women in my generation, there were also heavy costs. A huge part of the movement, and the 1960's in general, was an exploration of sexual "freedom." Instead of helping to create a world where men were held to the same high standard that women had always been judged against, they advocated the freedom for women to act to the lowest common denominator. Empowering women became so wrapped up in sex that all the good work the feminists did ended up resulting in some pretty terrible unintended consequences. Women may now exhibit all kinds of lewd behavior without the consequences of a generation or two ago, but in the process these same women cause men to further objectify them. So much for the sexual revolution being anything more than huge step in the wrong direction.
A few months ago, Kathryn Soper, one of the lovely and talented women behind Segullah, posted an incredible article at a website called "Patheos." The article is about the ways in which we miss the mark when it comes to teaching teen aged women about chastity. Her insights are fascinating, the writing engaging, and her personal experiences deeply poignant. If you haven't had a friend send you the piece yet, you really should take a few minutes to go and read it. Ever since reading it a few weeks ago, I haven't been able to quite put it out of my head, and though I won't be as eloquent, I would like to add some of my own thoughts here.
The article begins by pointing out that most teenage girls do not engage in sexual activity because of an overwhelming desire to have sex. In fact, a New Yorker article from a couple of years ago, when reviewing the Twilight books, believed the popularity of the books was due to the fact that young women want love without sex. Soper asserts the same, and quotes President Ezra Taft Benson to back her up. The teen sex itself is a symptom of a deeper problem. Or problems.
Going further, Soper focuses the rest of her piece on just one of these problems: power.
Too many young girls, maybe particularly LDS girls, feel a lack of power. In this case, power is defined as a person feeling like they have a large measure of control over what happens to them. When we talk about power at church, we most often talk about Priesthood power--exclusive to men; or the power of procreation--inaccessible without a man. It isn't that there aren't plenty of examples of female power within the Church, it is just that our terminology doesn't acknowledge it.
When a powerless feeling is coupled with a strong need for love and/or attention, sexuality is the most obvious default for a teenager. Because, let's face it, ladies, men are wired to be deeply driven by sex. Women who learn from an early age to manipulate that desire can gain a lot of power. Of course, Soper reminds us, the power is just an illusion because it isn't based on something inside the young person, it is based on others' perceptions of her. Like the other power mentioned above, such burgeoning sexual power is based on something a man gives or does or notices.
I'd like to add that the power usually only lasts as long as the object of young man's desire is unattainable. Studies show that the vast majority of teen relationships end within a month or two of a couple's first sexual encounter. Girls, of course, have the most to lose in such a break-up, because it ensures that the temporary substitute for love is now absent, and to make matters worse, she has given up the only source of power that she had. In the self-image crash that inevitably follows, needs deepen further and our powerless young teenager finds herself repeating her mistakes because this time it will be "different."
The remainder of Soper's article is in the form of a personal essay, where she bravely talks about her first encounter with the realization that sexual power was within her grasp. In my own life, I was lucky not to have such an experience when I was in my mid-teens, though I knew that many of my friends understood that power. At the time, it didn't feel lucky. Other than a brief stint during my junior year, I could count on one hand the number of dates I had until I was twenty years old.
I was so jealous of the way my many friends could flirt and tease and even manipulate to find any number of boys with which to spend a Friday night. Or to take out the garbage. Or to lift something heavy. Or to hang on their every word. Or ultimately, to spend three months salary on a diamond ring.
Yet, even as my bitterness and mild disdain for what I perceived as the weakness of men grew (along with frustration over my sisters' cruelty toward them), I was busy cultivating other sources of power: intellectual, emotional and spiritual.
Then, when I was twenty years old, something remarkable happened. After a very unusual set of circumstances that landed me in Sacramento California and hanging out with a guy I didn't really like all that well, I looked into his eyes (too) late one night and I recognized exactly what Kathryn Soper is talking about in her article: sudden approval where before there had only been indifference. Bald desire that frightened me.
I kept my power and walked away from the situation, terrified at what I was capable of, and more than a little embarrassed. Because of this person's previous role in my life, for me to suddenly have such a hold was complete reversal, and more than a little exhilarating. What I learned that night, however, without really realizing it, was that "no," was more powerful than desire. My choice, my decision, was a product of every part of my power, not just my sexuality.
In Disneyland last month I was terribly disappointed not to see more evidence of Mulan: my favorite Disney-heroine and the consummate non-Princess. At the first of that movie, right after a disastrous trip to the matchmaker, she goes to the temple of her ancestors, made up and lovely. She is the classic picture of Chinese beauty. Yet, she knows as she catches her image in the highly polished stones that the gorgeous woman she sees is not a reflection of herself. As she wipes the make-up off just one half of her face, she sings,
Who is that girl I see?
Staring straight back at me?
When will my reflection show
Who I am, inside?
I saw this movie the summer I met Plantboy. I was quite self-actualized for 23, but I understood Mulan's sentiment exactly. How many times had I asked myself the same question, though perhaps without the moving vocals. Mulan is not just a love story between a man and woman, it is also a love story of a girl and her father, a girl and her country, a girl and herself.
Some time in my early thirties, I finally looked into the mirror one day and loved the woman I saw staring straight back at me. I found the place where I ceased to see myself through others eyes, even Plantboy's, and I felt deeply empowered. Intellectually, emotionally, spiritually and sexually. A balance that had taken me half my life to finally achieve.
The question I have today is, "why did it take so long?" What can be done to speed this process for the wondering and wandering young women we know and love so that they can be the heroines in their own lives?
Just a few weeks ago, a man in our ward gave a wonderful fireside about dating, but during his remarks he noted that if you believed yourself to be "in love" in high school, then you were just being ridiculous. (Ironically, his own wife, to whom he is very close, is his high school sweetheart.) I felt impressed to drive one of my young women home and speak to her a little more closely: she is dealing with some serious empowerment issues right now, and a serious boyfriend issue. I told her that loving another person wasn't ridiculous, and that part of the nature of women was to be loving. I reiterated that it is never okay to break the commandments, but that there are plenty of appropriate ways to give and express all kinds of love, even that feeling of romantic love. I pray that she will feel the power that comes into her life by choosing to be chaste. By choosing to love. By choosing her own path and asserting what she really wants. Mostly I pray that she will find her power before she finds herself on a road where she actually is helpless.
It is a hard thing we ask of our youth and young adults; it is a hard standard the Lord holds us to while simultaneously blessing us with such powerful needs, but we weren't sent here to fail, either. Empowerment is about realizing that we can do hard things. Because I am God's daughter.
A woman.
Strong. Feminine. Empowered.
Hear me roar!
Monday, November 30, 2009
Conclusions
I actually started this post a couple of weeks ago, but never got around to finishing it. Three things prompted its completion today: finishing a book titled, The Memory Keeper's Daughter, watching the movie Up and a complete lack of desire to clean out the detritus left over after vacation.
My Segullah post was not the only one on LDS sexuality during the month of November. In fact, the first such post received something like 75 comments. My own post was geared as much toward approaching children about this sensitive subject as it was about spousal relationships--a topic not quite as "hot" as sex drive, which is what the first post was about. From the many and varied comments on the posts, some of them surprisingly blunt, as well as the variety of personal e-mails I received, I perceive that I wasn't far off the mark when I implied that in matters of intimacy, LDS women aren't always sure about where they stand and whom to talk to about their difficulties. I think the relatively anonymous nature of blogging makes it easy to open up about things that you might not ever talk about otherwise. Such anonymity allowing us to be open can be both good and bad, but that is another topic.
As I've thought about all I've read in the last couple of months on this subject, I felt like I wanted to draw a few conclusions here about things that have been meaningful to me. Perhaps they will be meaningful to you also. If not, feel free to add your own insights.
The overwhelming theme in the topic responses is that communication is the key to any successful relationship. This is true whether we are talking about husbands and wives or parents and children. It seems that initmacy is nearly impossible for women to enjoy without honesty. I was the most intrigued by the sister who wrote in about her husband finally coming clean about his pornography addiction. Before this happened to her, she would have assumed that nothing would be more damaging to her sex drive than to have this knowledge. However, once her husband admitted to this terrible thing, a huge barrier was removed between them and she found him absolutely attractive in his "naked" honesty. I thought this was fascinating; I also think that with enough work this sister could end up having a very successful marriage, and such open-ness in their relationship will hopefully make it more difficult for her husband to be secretive in the future.
The same applies to our children. Respondents who believed they had the most positive relationship with their own children or parents all said they same thing--they feel like they can talk about anything together. That is very powerful. If my sons believe they can come to me with their problems from skinned knees to hurt feelings to the facts of life to dating relationships then I will have a lot of influence about how they perceive the world. Notice I didn't say "control." Ultimately, only my children will control the decisions they make. Again, another topic worth exploring.
A second conclusion I realized in teaching our children about matters of human intimacy is that it is better to have this discussion late than never. One sister said bluntly that if you had never talked with your children about anything to do with their bodies, and then you try to sit your twelve year old down and explain to her why she is menstruating, it is going to be terribly awkward. Yet, it still should be done. I have to admit that even after I'd been through AP Biology, I would have still appreciated my mom making the effort to help me understand a little bit more about how boys ticked and how she felt about my dad.
This better-late-than-never mantra should apply to spouses also. It is so easy to fall into a routine with those we love the best. Marriages fail for a lot of reasons, but one of those reasons is that they grow stale with routine and low expectations. When Plantboy and I were engaged, we went to see his bishop for a routine "check-up." I only remember one part of the interview. This bishop, a very traditional older brother, said that in forty years of marriage he'd hardly ever seen his wife without her make-up. That she made a point of getting out of bed before he did each morning and at least putting on lipstick before he saw her. My 24 year-old feminist self rebelled against this idea: that his poor wife wouldn't dare appear before him without her best face on! What kind of ogre was he? Now I see this offhand statement for what the bishop probably intended: that his wife loved him so much that she always wanted to look her best for him. Even after 40 years of marriage, his attraction to her was something she valued and cultivated.
I still don't put on make-up before I get out of bed. (Neither should Sister Bishop. I can just see her pink lipstick sneaking out of her natural lips and creeping up the lines around her mouth, but I digress . . . .) But when I get dressed up to go out somewhere, even if I am not going to be with Plantboy, it is his reaction that means the very most to me. And I've learned to never miss a chance to flirt or tease or give a kiss goodbye. I hope I don't forget this lesson, even when I've been married four decades.
As for whether YOU should put on make-up before your husband sees you in the morning, well, that leads into my third conclusion: each relationship is unique. During the comment phase, particularly of the first sexuality post, a lot of people were giving specific ideas about what made an intimate relationship successful. A couple of good sisters went so far as to discuss the merits of vibrators before the moderator cut them off. I'm not sure that any of the really specific advice, particularly in such a large forum, is helpful or appropriate. There is a Woody Allen movie (Annie Hall, I think?) in which he and Diane Keaton (his love interest) are going to therapy as part of the story line. Each character is shown separately with their respective therapist. Each therapist asks the same question, "How is your sex life?" The woman's response is, "Oh! All the time, at least two or three times a week!" The man's? "Hardly ever! Three, maybe four times a week!"
Hm . . . .
Communication problem indeed. I sometimes find myself thinking, "What is normal?" But perhaps a better question is, "What is normal and comfortable FOR US." Such a question can only be answered if you hold a conversation with your loved one, holding nothing back, and set reasonable expectations on your partner. There was another sister who wrote in that, at first, for a woman who is a virgin, hardly anything will seem comfortable and that to hold yourself to THAT standard is to deny a lot of pleasure and happiness. While her point is valid and interesting, I still maintain that sex should be something enjoyed by both partners. Something that crosses the comfort line one day, may not the next. Again, you have to speak up.
And yet, you might be in a marriage and have a personality where you feel more comfortable just not talking about it at all. As hard as that is for me to imagine, again, your relationship is uniquely yours and you know better what it needed than anyone. This is especially true when we expand this individuality to your children. Just as your marriage is unlike anybody else's, so is your precise relationship with each child. Books and advice are helpful, but ultimately you have to decide the best time, age and circumstances to approach your children about intimacy. I think listening to the Spirit is a big thing here.
It was Mike (the lone male willing to show his face on the subject, though Plantboy and I talked over nearly every comment together) who really got me thinking about my last conclusion on the subject. Discussions about sexuality need to be approached with values at the forefront, but also facts. While necessary between spouses (one sister indicated how valuable a book on female anatomy had been), such fact-based discussion is perhaps even more important with our children. From the young man who feels intense guilt over uncontrolled dream-fantasies after being told in a fireside that even sinful thoughts make you evil to the young woman who innocently sits on her boyfriend's lap while wearing a mini-skirt, a basic understanding of the biology involved is as necessary as a standards talk.
The problem, too often, is just that as we perceive a person's spiritual nature as completely different from and even opposed to their sensual nature, we also look at science and religion as dichotomies. This is a mistake. ALL learning can be for our good, particularly if we strive to understand just how important it is to our Heavenly Father that we have a body AND a spirit. Striving to defeat the natural man is not about learning to hate your physical body. It is about learning that there is a time and a place for certain behaviors, that self-mastery is the key to being filled with the pure love of Christ. A young man with self-control and integrity is still going to have wet dreams regularly. A young woman who dresses modestly still has to be careful about what she says to a young man or how she kisses him for BOTH their sakes. A husband who has a hard time helping his wife at home will find an uninterested lover. A wife, on the other hand, will nearly ALWAYS find an interested lover, so it is important that she not lead her man on too far without intentions to act on her teasing.
Being human is both complicated and wonderful. Perhaps the key with any struggle is to recognize that our Father created us the way we are for a reason. The spirit and the flesh.
As for why my entertainment selections of the last week prompted this post, The Memory Keeper's Daughter was one of the most depressing novels I've read this year. I didn't really like or identify with any of the characters, and I especially disliked the author's portrayal of marriage. In fact, my favorite character, was the Memory Keeper himself who gave his daughter away in a moment of supreme need to control the outcome of a difficult situation. I'm not sure if this says something disastrous about me, or is a tribute to just how unlikeable the characters in this story are. The movie Up, though I cried for nearly the entire length of the film, is probably one of the sweetest movies I've ever seen. It showed me that you can't just keep sitting around and waiting for life to happen. You have to seize the big opportunities when you get them sure, but you also have realize before it is too late that the real adventure is in living quiet, everyday moments with the ones you love best. Memories of a life are built as powerfully in simple things as in grand adventure. Ellie's message from the grave to her crotchety husband is that she didn't regret a thing. I don't want to regret a thing.
I'm thankful for my life, and for the love that Plantboy and I have worked so hard to cultivate. We have lived for some time now in relative ease and comfort, temporarily immune from the deep and difficult trials so many seem to be faced with right now. I hope that this season of joy hasn't made me complacent to my many blessings, or calloused toward those with greater struggles. As the holiday season moves into full swing this year, I pray that I will put off some of the frivolity in exchange for more meaningful thoughts and friendships. That I will decorate less and serve more. That I will fill my scrapbook with more memories and fewer unfulfilled promises.
Happy December-ing.
My Segullah post was not the only one on LDS sexuality during the month of November. In fact, the first such post received something like 75 comments. My own post was geared as much toward approaching children about this sensitive subject as it was about spousal relationships--a topic not quite as "hot" as sex drive, which is what the first post was about. From the many and varied comments on the posts, some of them surprisingly blunt, as well as the variety of personal e-mails I received, I perceive that I wasn't far off the mark when I implied that in matters of intimacy, LDS women aren't always sure about where they stand and whom to talk to about their difficulties. I think the relatively anonymous nature of blogging makes it easy to open up about things that you might not ever talk about otherwise. Such anonymity allowing us to be open can be both good and bad, but that is another topic.
As I've thought about all I've read in the last couple of months on this subject, I felt like I wanted to draw a few conclusions here about things that have been meaningful to me. Perhaps they will be meaningful to you also. If not, feel free to add your own insights.
The overwhelming theme in the topic responses is that communication is the key to any successful relationship. This is true whether we are talking about husbands and wives or parents and children. It seems that initmacy is nearly impossible for women to enjoy without honesty. I was the most intrigued by the sister who wrote in about her husband finally coming clean about his pornography addiction. Before this happened to her, she would have assumed that nothing would be more damaging to her sex drive than to have this knowledge. However, once her husband admitted to this terrible thing, a huge barrier was removed between them and she found him absolutely attractive in his "naked" honesty. I thought this was fascinating; I also think that with enough work this sister could end up having a very successful marriage, and such open-ness in their relationship will hopefully make it more difficult for her husband to be secretive in the future.
The same applies to our children. Respondents who believed they had the most positive relationship with their own children or parents all said they same thing--they feel like they can talk about anything together. That is very powerful. If my sons believe they can come to me with their problems from skinned knees to hurt feelings to the facts of life to dating relationships then I will have a lot of influence about how they perceive the world. Notice I didn't say "control." Ultimately, only my children will control the decisions they make. Again, another topic worth exploring.
A second conclusion I realized in teaching our children about matters of human intimacy is that it is better to have this discussion late than never. One sister said bluntly that if you had never talked with your children about anything to do with their bodies, and then you try to sit your twelve year old down and explain to her why she is menstruating, it is going to be terribly awkward. Yet, it still should be done. I have to admit that even after I'd been through AP Biology, I would have still appreciated my mom making the effort to help me understand a little bit more about how boys ticked and how she felt about my dad.
This better-late-than-never mantra should apply to spouses also. It is so easy to fall into a routine with those we love the best. Marriages fail for a lot of reasons, but one of those reasons is that they grow stale with routine and low expectations. When Plantboy and I were engaged, we went to see his bishop for a routine "check-up." I only remember one part of the interview. This bishop, a very traditional older brother, said that in forty years of marriage he'd hardly ever seen his wife without her make-up. That she made a point of getting out of bed before he did each morning and at least putting on lipstick before he saw her. My 24 year-old feminist self rebelled against this idea: that his poor wife wouldn't dare appear before him without her best face on! What kind of ogre was he? Now I see this offhand statement for what the bishop probably intended: that his wife loved him so much that she always wanted to look her best for him. Even after 40 years of marriage, his attraction to her was something she valued and cultivated.
I still don't put on make-up before I get out of bed. (Neither should Sister Bishop. I can just see her pink lipstick sneaking out of her natural lips and creeping up the lines around her mouth, but I digress . . . .) But when I get dressed up to go out somewhere, even if I am not going to be with Plantboy, it is his reaction that means the very most to me. And I've learned to never miss a chance to flirt or tease or give a kiss goodbye. I hope I don't forget this lesson, even when I've been married four decades.
As for whether YOU should put on make-up before your husband sees you in the morning, well, that leads into my third conclusion: each relationship is unique. During the comment phase, particularly of the first sexuality post, a lot of people were giving specific ideas about what made an intimate relationship successful. A couple of good sisters went so far as to discuss the merits of vibrators before the moderator cut them off. I'm not sure that any of the really specific advice, particularly in such a large forum, is helpful or appropriate. There is a Woody Allen movie (Annie Hall, I think?) in which he and Diane Keaton (his love interest) are going to therapy as part of the story line. Each character is shown separately with their respective therapist. Each therapist asks the same question, "How is your sex life?" The woman's response is, "Oh! All the time, at least two or three times a week!" The man's? "Hardly ever! Three, maybe four times a week!"
Hm . . . .
Communication problem indeed. I sometimes find myself thinking, "What is normal?" But perhaps a better question is, "What is normal and comfortable FOR US." Such a question can only be answered if you hold a conversation with your loved one, holding nothing back, and set reasonable expectations on your partner. There was another sister who wrote in that, at first, for a woman who is a virgin, hardly anything will seem comfortable and that to hold yourself to THAT standard is to deny a lot of pleasure and happiness. While her point is valid and interesting, I still maintain that sex should be something enjoyed by both partners. Something that crosses the comfort line one day, may not the next. Again, you have to speak up.
And yet, you might be in a marriage and have a personality where you feel more comfortable just not talking about it at all. As hard as that is for me to imagine, again, your relationship is uniquely yours and you know better what it needed than anyone. This is especially true when we expand this individuality to your children. Just as your marriage is unlike anybody else's, so is your precise relationship with each child. Books and advice are helpful, but ultimately you have to decide the best time, age and circumstances to approach your children about intimacy. I think listening to the Spirit is a big thing here.
It was Mike (the lone male willing to show his face on the subject, though Plantboy and I talked over nearly every comment together) who really got me thinking about my last conclusion on the subject. Discussions about sexuality need to be approached with values at the forefront, but also facts. While necessary between spouses (one sister indicated how valuable a book on female anatomy had been), such fact-based discussion is perhaps even more important with our children. From the young man who feels intense guilt over uncontrolled dream-fantasies after being told in a fireside that even sinful thoughts make you evil to the young woman who innocently sits on her boyfriend's lap while wearing a mini-skirt, a basic understanding of the biology involved is as necessary as a standards talk.
The problem, too often, is just that as we perceive a person's spiritual nature as completely different from and even opposed to their sensual nature, we also look at science and religion as dichotomies. This is a mistake. ALL learning can be for our good, particularly if we strive to understand just how important it is to our Heavenly Father that we have a body AND a spirit. Striving to defeat the natural man is not about learning to hate your physical body. It is about learning that there is a time and a place for certain behaviors, that self-mastery is the key to being filled with the pure love of Christ. A young man with self-control and integrity is still going to have wet dreams regularly. A young woman who dresses modestly still has to be careful about what she says to a young man or how she kisses him for BOTH their sakes. A husband who has a hard time helping his wife at home will find an uninterested lover. A wife, on the other hand, will nearly ALWAYS find an interested lover, so it is important that she not lead her man on too far without intentions to act on her teasing.
Being human is both complicated and wonderful. Perhaps the key with any struggle is to recognize that our Father created us the way we are for a reason. The spirit and the flesh.
As for why my entertainment selections of the last week prompted this post, The Memory Keeper's Daughter was one of the most depressing novels I've read this year. I didn't really like or identify with any of the characters, and I especially disliked the author's portrayal of marriage. In fact, my favorite character, was the Memory Keeper himself who gave his daughter away in a moment of supreme need to control the outcome of a difficult situation. I'm not sure if this says something disastrous about me, or is a tribute to just how unlikeable the characters in this story are. The movie Up, though I cried for nearly the entire length of the film, is probably one of the sweetest movies I've ever seen. It showed me that you can't just keep sitting around and waiting for life to happen. You have to seize the big opportunities when you get them sure, but you also have realize before it is too late that the real adventure is in living quiet, everyday moments with the ones you love best. Memories of a life are built as powerfully in simple things as in grand adventure. Ellie's message from the grave to her crotchety husband is that she didn't regret a thing. I don't want to regret a thing.
I'm thankful for my life, and for the love that Plantboy and I have worked so hard to cultivate. We have lived for some time now in relative ease and comfort, temporarily immune from the deep and difficult trials so many seem to be faced with right now. I hope that this season of joy hasn't made me complacent to my many blessings, or calloused toward those with greater struggles. As the holiday season moves into full swing this year, I pray that I will put off some of the frivolity in exchange for more meaningful thoughts and friendships. That I will decorate less and serve more. That I will fill my scrapbook with more memories and fewer unfulfilled promises.
Happy December-ing.
Friday, August 21, 2009
The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands
I haven't done a book review for a long time. I've been reading; there is a list of this year's selections about halfway down my sidebar. This post will be partially a book review, but also some of my own opinions (shocker) on the proper care and feeding of husbands.
It is probably good to begin by disclosing my own bias against self-help books. When I do find them useful, it is only because the basic philosophy of the author is consistent with gospel teachings. (For a brief discussion of this, check out Elder Uchtdorf's talk from the last conference.) Laura Schlessigner's book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," is no exception to this--where her philosophy is consistent with gospel teachings I think she has a lot of helpful advice; but, to me, her basic theme in the book is completely incompatible with our understanding of the divine nature of man and woman. I'll complete this thought later.
The first thing that bothers me about the book is the shoddy scholarship. She explains that her ideas for the book come from her experience as a therapist, her radio show and her web site. As for the first, Dr. Laura (I use the term "doctor" very loosely here; this is Ms. Shlessigner's preferred title), currently holds no license from any state as a family therapist, and has not for many, many years. Her PhD is in physiology, not psychology. None of her educational background is in psychology. As for the radio show and the website, these can hardly be called unbiased sources as her often volatile program likely attracts a certain type of demographic. The addendum on her website says that any email or call becomes her sole property once it is made public. In other words, she has full discretion to abuse you soundly on the air and then use the interaction in a book, taking whichever excerpt proves her point and paints her in the light of having saved your marriage by way of a 20 second lecture.
There are no facts or statistics to back up the more specific claims she makes. There isn't a single footnote in the entire book. No expert, other than Dr. Laura herself, is quoted. Her evidence all seems to be anecdotal, though she has plenty of anecdotes.
As I read, I became curious about Dr. Laura's personal life and was quite shocked by what I learned. Her current incarnation/persona is of a highly conservative, God-fearing woman who is critical of anything that might break down the family. She thinks women should delay sex, if not until marriage, at least until relationships are serious. She is highly critical of feminism and thinks mothers should raise the children they have, and that those children should never be born out of wedlock. While this is generally positive, Dr. Laura, now in her 60's, only came by her current philosophy much later in life. It seems apparent that her first radio job was a result of sleeping with the boss, and the nude photos emerged 20 years later to prove it. She divorced her first husband after just a few years. She lived with her second husband for eight years before marrying him, and for the first of those years he was still married to another woman. She was pregnant their only son before they were married and had a very demanding career while he was a small child. Dr. Laura was a self-proclaimed feminist well into the 1980's. To defend herself against the many who have called her hypocrite she says, "A hypocrite says 'do as I say, not as I do.' I am saying, 'do as I say, not as I did.'"
None of the previous paragraph is, of course, in the book. I just wanted to know what I was dealing with. This makes it sound as though I don't think she could have anything worthwhile to say because of the life she has lived. In fact, just the reverse is true: I think her many negative experiences probably give her unique perspective on the mistakes that many women make. It does, however, make her holier-than-thou tone throughout the book a bit disgusting. It also makes me halfway think that her scathing critique of women is her own way of justifying her husband's prior infidelity--as though his first wife drove him to Dr. Laura's caring and feeding arms and she deserved it. (It seems, to the good doctor anyway, that most cheated on women DO deserve it.)
Anyway, I think her advice needs to be taken in context of who she is and where she is coming from, recognizing that her source material is certainly biased in favor of her own methods. Her motivation for writing the book is that women are undermining their marriages right and left by their own actions, and that most other "help" sources--books, talk shows, therapists and girl friends are contributing to the problem by validating and therefore reinforcing women's most negative behaviors to their husbands. In "researching" her topic, she set up a spot on her website where men could email comments to her about what should go into this book. She quotes from these extensively, but there is one such email that gets to the heart of her thesis very quickly.
"Men are simple. If I'm not horny then I probably want a sandwich."
This is funny. Maybe REALLY funny. And, as with many tacky jokes, it requires a broad generalization of men in order to work. Jumping from this platform, Dr. Laura's book deals in broad stereotypes, reiterating time and time again that MEN ARE SIMPLE. They want to be shown physical affection (reader Steve left this charming comment, "[Men] need more sex. Once a day is fine"), given praise, fed a good dinner and be shown "awe" by "their woman" for all they do for her. If a woman will perform these simple tricks then, voila! "Your man" will reciprocate by "slaying dragons" and "walking through fire for you."
Hm . . . . to some of this verbiage I want to say that we are fresh out of dragons and that in most normal circumstances, walking through fire would be rather useless. Yes, I get that this is figurative, but isn't it easy to say that you would do something very dramatic for the one you love, when all she might really want is for you NOT to regard the toilet as a general sort of a goal instead of a target?
If this seems like a gross simplification of a book that is nearly 200 pages, well, I'm not so sure. I think what I've said here really gets to the heart of what she is advocating. True, she treats topics such as respect, busy-ness, feelings, communication, nagging and sex in seperate chapters, but her conclusions are all the same.
I didn't hate this book, though I found her tone so supercilious at times that I wished for a dart board so that I could paste a picture of her face right on the bullseye. The book was actually recommended to me many years ago, and I've put off reading it as I had heard clips from Dr. Laura's radio show, and expected the tone to be very combative.
To say the least.
But in the interest of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I will tell you what I liked about it. I can hardly call these things "spoilers." I would actually think that for LDS women, these points shouldn't be anything we haven't already learned in Church or from our own mothers.
1--Dr. Laura goes on at some length about treating your spouse with kindness and love first without waiting for him to make the first move. She is basically saying that we should serve our families cheerfully, even when we aren't quite feeling it, because this basic service-attitude will make us feel much happier.
2--"Your feelings are not facts and should not be used as weapons." I quite like the way she worded this. It is true that some women use tears and verbal abuse to bend men to their will all the time. I'm grateful to have been raised by a mother who saw herself as a partner with my dad and she didn't resort to passive-aggressive methods in an attempt to make him into something else. My mother loved us all very much and never hesitated to express such in a hundred tiny ways, but she never turned on the waterworks or used the silent treatment to get her way with my dad.
3--The feminist movement tricked women: First into thinking they could have it all and do it well, and that if they DIDN'T then they were somehow less than a woman. The second fallacy is that women don't need men. And lastly is the popularized notion that women who find fulfillment in home and family are deluding themselves. I agree that these are all negative attitudes that were a result of that movement.
4--Love is more than just a feeling--it is both a choice and an action. Dr. Laura explains that she writes FOR women because so much ineffective advice, counsel and teaching is aimed at changing men. But it is women that want to change men. Since it really is only possible to change yourself, then it stands to reason that if your marriage is in trouble and worth saving, then you can really only influence your own behavior, and not your partner's. I like her proactive, practical approach to making your life better. We must choose every day to love our spouses, and then we must show that love by our actions.
5-Men and women ARE different. And that is okay, these differences can be a wonderful compliment to each other if we allow them to be.
As for what disturbed me about this book, it was partly her combative tone and Dr. Laura's advice doled out like she is spouting eternal truth in every consonant. She advocates control and manipulation just as powerfully as the feminists, but encourages women to do this in a uniquely feminine way. So here are a few of my gripes.
1--She seems to advocate serving in order to manipulate: love is practically an afterthought in the reasoning. By manipulate I mean that she encourages women to use all of their kindest "tricks" so that men will be putty in their hands and do whatever they want them to do. In other words, the purpose of serving "your man" is to get served in return. While I admit that such reciprocation of affection, help and love is often the result of properly caring and feeding your husband, I think the motivation here is everything. I remember once, some years ago, Dr. Phil had a woman on his show who was using sex as a way to get her husband to buy her expensive gifts. If this sounds like prostitution, well, you aren't alone in your thinking there. That, obviously, is an over-the-top example of a woman going to the extreme to get what she wants, but again, if our motivation is not pure love for our partner, giving without expectation of getting in return, then we haven't learned squat about charity.
2--She says that women ARE in control in their homes, but that men want to BELIEVE that they are. To this end, she instructs women on how to give men the illusion of wearing the pants. Yet, other times, she berates women soundly for emasculating their men by expecting them to be good listeners. There were whole passages in this book I found very contradictory to itself, besides being at odds with a patriarchal model of the family set forth by the Lord.
3--The feminist movement wasn't ALL bad. Heck, even "Dr. Laura" herself wouldn't exist without some kind of sexual revolution. Women have choices now that they never had 100 years ago. Absolutely, some of it has been taken too far (see #3 above), but it is pretty disingenuous to soundly criticize something you have been a huge beneficiary of.
4--Men's emotional needs are met, not just primarily, but pretty much entirely through sex: this is the gospel according to Dr. Laura. I won't say much more on this, some topics are better left between husband and wife, but I sincerely hope that if you are married (or become so one day) that it is to a man who has emotional needs beyond sex. Or at least if he views sex as the culmination of all emotional needs, he has made an honest effort to meet your emotional needs before he expects you to welcome his advances with open arms.
5--But the last thing, and probably most disturbing thing, about this book is the oversimplification of who man is. Yes, to a large degree, a man's needs might be rather simple. However, he, himself is not. Men are sons of God. Men who are priesthood holders and have made covenants are gods in embryo. To use sex and food to trick them into behaving as we want is regarding them as trained monkeys.
We reiterate to our young women week in and week out this princess part of their nature. Each week they recognize "divine nature" as one of their values. We play on their sense of romance by encouraging them to find a prince who will take them to the palace/temple and commit to them forever. What could be more romantic than that? Yet, when we make analogies with our young men, we talk so much in terms of warriors and armies and battles. Men are so trained to slay the dragon that I wonder if they sometimes forget that they will be kings as surely as their wives will be queens. Dr. Laura encourages each woman to set her standards much lower and then "stand by your man, because, after all, he's just a man."
I once heard a general authority give a talk about Christlike attributes, and the teaching of such to our young men. He said that too often, the qualities of Christ are attributes men only assign to women--love, compassion, mercy, tenderness, etc.--but that in reality, these are attributes we all must strive to have. Dr. Laura berates women for trying in so many negative ways to change the nature of men, and she certainly has a point about all of the mean and ineffectual ways women attempt to do this; but what she doesn't understand is that part of the nature of the covenant marriage is that a man and a woman will work as a team to go beyond just accepting and loving each other as they are, and instead bring out the very best in each other's natures in order to progress together toward something greater.
One of my favorite scriptures from the new testament is, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it." The counsel could apply equally to women, and I don't think Paul was talking about dying for the Church here, though Christ certainly did that too. I think he is talking about living for the things we love and have covenanted to. We shouldn't love our spouses to get dinner or sex or help around the house or a night off from changing diapers . . . . we should love our spouses because it makes us more Christlike to do so. Deep, abiding and lasting love has the power to change our very nature.
Maybe my next post will be about why in the world, if most men (as per Dr. Laura) are really looking for wives who are sweet and acquiescing by nature, do they try so hard to date women who manipulate, control, tease and tempt? But that can wait; this post is already twice as long on paper as it was in my head. By all means, share your thoughts on taking care of "your man," or on the book if you have read it.
It is probably good to begin by disclosing my own bias against self-help books. When I do find them useful, it is only because the basic philosophy of the author is consistent with gospel teachings. (For a brief discussion of this, check out Elder Uchtdorf's talk from the last conference.) Laura Schlessigner's book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands," is no exception to this--where her philosophy is consistent with gospel teachings I think she has a lot of helpful advice; but, to me, her basic theme in the book is completely incompatible with our understanding of the divine nature of man and woman. I'll complete this thought later.
The first thing that bothers me about the book is the shoddy scholarship. She explains that her ideas for the book come from her experience as a therapist, her radio show and her web site. As for the first, Dr. Laura (I use the term "doctor" very loosely here; this is Ms. Shlessigner's preferred title), currently holds no license from any state as a family therapist, and has not for many, many years. Her PhD is in physiology, not psychology. None of her educational background is in psychology. As for the radio show and the website, these can hardly be called unbiased sources as her often volatile program likely attracts a certain type of demographic. The addendum on her website says that any email or call becomes her sole property once it is made public. In other words, she has full discretion to abuse you soundly on the air and then use the interaction in a book, taking whichever excerpt proves her point and paints her in the light of having saved your marriage by way of a 20 second lecture.
There are no facts or statistics to back up the more specific claims she makes. There isn't a single footnote in the entire book. No expert, other than Dr. Laura herself, is quoted. Her evidence all seems to be anecdotal, though she has plenty of anecdotes.
As I read, I became curious about Dr. Laura's personal life and was quite shocked by what I learned. Her current incarnation/persona is of a highly conservative, God-fearing woman who is critical of anything that might break down the family. She thinks women should delay sex, if not until marriage, at least until relationships are serious. She is highly critical of feminism and thinks mothers should raise the children they have, and that those children should never be born out of wedlock. While this is generally positive, Dr. Laura, now in her 60's, only came by her current philosophy much later in life. It seems apparent that her first radio job was a result of sleeping with the boss, and the nude photos emerged 20 years later to prove it. She divorced her first husband after just a few years. She lived with her second husband for eight years before marrying him, and for the first of those years he was still married to another woman. She was pregnant their only son before they were married and had a very demanding career while he was a small child. Dr. Laura was a self-proclaimed feminist well into the 1980's. To defend herself against the many who have called her hypocrite she says, "A hypocrite says 'do as I say, not as I do.' I am saying, 'do as I say, not as I did.'"
None of the previous paragraph is, of course, in the book. I just wanted to know what I was dealing with. This makes it sound as though I don't think she could have anything worthwhile to say because of the life she has lived. In fact, just the reverse is true: I think her many negative experiences probably give her unique perspective on the mistakes that many women make. It does, however, make her holier-than-thou tone throughout the book a bit disgusting. It also makes me halfway think that her scathing critique of women is her own way of justifying her husband's prior infidelity--as though his first wife drove him to Dr. Laura's caring and feeding arms and she deserved it. (It seems, to the good doctor anyway, that most cheated on women DO deserve it.)
Anyway, I think her advice needs to be taken in context of who she is and where she is coming from, recognizing that her source material is certainly biased in favor of her own methods. Her motivation for writing the book is that women are undermining their marriages right and left by their own actions, and that most other "help" sources--books, talk shows, therapists and girl friends are contributing to the problem by validating and therefore reinforcing women's most negative behaviors to their husbands. In "researching" her topic, she set up a spot on her website where men could email comments to her about what should go into this book. She quotes from these extensively, but there is one such email that gets to the heart of her thesis very quickly.
"Men are simple. If I'm not horny then I probably want a sandwich."
This is funny. Maybe REALLY funny. And, as with many tacky jokes, it requires a broad generalization of men in order to work. Jumping from this platform, Dr. Laura's book deals in broad stereotypes, reiterating time and time again that MEN ARE SIMPLE. They want to be shown physical affection (reader Steve left this charming comment, "[Men] need more sex. Once a day is fine"), given praise, fed a good dinner and be shown "awe" by "their woman" for all they do for her. If a woman will perform these simple tricks then, voila! "Your man" will reciprocate by "slaying dragons" and "walking through fire for you."
Hm . . . . to some of this verbiage I want to say that we are fresh out of dragons and that in most normal circumstances, walking through fire would be rather useless. Yes, I get that this is figurative, but isn't it easy to say that you would do something very dramatic for the one you love, when all she might really want is for you NOT to regard the toilet as a general sort of a goal instead of a target?
If this seems like a gross simplification of a book that is nearly 200 pages, well, I'm not so sure. I think what I've said here really gets to the heart of what she is advocating. True, she treats topics such as respect, busy-ness, feelings, communication, nagging and sex in seperate chapters, but her conclusions are all the same.
I didn't hate this book, though I found her tone so supercilious at times that I wished for a dart board so that I could paste a picture of her face right on the bullseye. The book was actually recommended to me many years ago, and I've put off reading it as I had heard clips from Dr. Laura's radio show, and expected the tone to be very combative.
To say the least.
But in the interest of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I will tell you what I liked about it. I can hardly call these things "spoilers." I would actually think that for LDS women, these points shouldn't be anything we haven't already learned in Church or from our own mothers.
1--Dr. Laura goes on at some length about treating your spouse with kindness and love first without waiting for him to make the first move. She is basically saying that we should serve our families cheerfully, even when we aren't quite feeling it, because this basic service-attitude will make us feel much happier.
2--"Your feelings are not facts and should not be used as weapons." I quite like the way she worded this. It is true that some women use tears and verbal abuse to bend men to their will all the time. I'm grateful to have been raised by a mother who saw herself as a partner with my dad and she didn't resort to passive-aggressive methods in an attempt to make him into something else. My mother loved us all very much and never hesitated to express such in a hundred tiny ways, but she never turned on the waterworks or used the silent treatment to get her way with my dad.
3--The feminist movement tricked women: First into thinking they could have it all and do it well, and that if they DIDN'T then they were somehow less than a woman. The second fallacy is that women don't need men. And lastly is the popularized notion that women who find fulfillment in home and family are deluding themselves. I agree that these are all negative attitudes that were a result of that movement.
4--Love is more than just a feeling--it is both a choice and an action. Dr. Laura explains that she writes FOR women because so much ineffective advice, counsel and teaching is aimed at changing men. But it is women that want to change men. Since it really is only possible to change yourself, then it stands to reason that if your marriage is in trouble and worth saving, then you can really only influence your own behavior, and not your partner's. I like her proactive, practical approach to making your life better. We must choose every day to love our spouses, and then we must show that love by our actions.
5-Men and women ARE different. And that is okay, these differences can be a wonderful compliment to each other if we allow them to be.
As for what disturbed me about this book, it was partly her combative tone and Dr. Laura's advice doled out like she is spouting eternal truth in every consonant. She advocates control and manipulation just as powerfully as the feminists, but encourages women to do this in a uniquely feminine way. So here are a few of my gripes.
1--She seems to advocate serving in order to manipulate: love is practically an afterthought in the reasoning. By manipulate I mean that she encourages women to use all of their kindest "tricks" so that men will be putty in their hands and do whatever they want them to do. In other words, the purpose of serving "your man" is to get served in return. While I admit that such reciprocation of affection, help and love is often the result of properly caring and feeding your husband, I think the motivation here is everything. I remember once, some years ago, Dr. Phil had a woman on his show who was using sex as a way to get her husband to buy her expensive gifts. If this sounds like prostitution, well, you aren't alone in your thinking there. That, obviously, is an over-the-top example of a woman going to the extreme to get what she wants, but again, if our motivation is not pure love for our partner, giving without expectation of getting in return, then we haven't learned squat about charity.
2--She says that women ARE in control in their homes, but that men want to BELIEVE that they are. To this end, she instructs women on how to give men the illusion of wearing the pants. Yet, other times, she berates women soundly for emasculating their men by expecting them to be good listeners. There were whole passages in this book I found very contradictory to itself, besides being at odds with a patriarchal model of the family set forth by the Lord.
3--The feminist movement wasn't ALL bad. Heck, even "Dr. Laura" herself wouldn't exist without some kind of sexual revolution. Women have choices now that they never had 100 years ago. Absolutely, some of it has been taken too far (see #3 above), but it is pretty disingenuous to soundly criticize something you have been a huge beneficiary of.
4--Men's emotional needs are met, not just primarily, but pretty much entirely through sex: this is the gospel according to Dr. Laura. I won't say much more on this, some topics are better left between husband and wife, but I sincerely hope that if you are married (or become so one day) that it is to a man who has emotional needs beyond sex. Or at least if he views sex as the culmination of all emotional needs, he has made an honest effort to meet your emotional needs before he expects you to welcome his advances with open arms.
5--But the last thing, and probably most disturbing thing, about this book is the oversimplification of who man is. Yes, to a large degree, a man's needs might be rather simple. However, he, himself is not. Men are sons of God. Men who are priesthood holders and have made covenants are gods in embryo. To use sex and food to trick them into behaving as we want is regarding them as trained monkeys.
We reiterate to our young women week in and week out this princess part of their nature. Each week they recognize "divine nature" as one of their values. We play on their sense of romance by encouraging them to find a prince who will take them to the palace/temple and commit to them forever. What could be more romantic than that? Yet, when we make analogies with our young men, we talk so much in terms of warriors and armies and battles. Men are so trained to slay the dragon that I wonder if they sometimes forget that they will be kings as surely as their wives will be queens. Dr. Laura encourages each woman to set her standards much lower and then "stand by your man, because, after all, he's just a man."
I once heard a general authority give a talk about Christlike attributes, and the teaching of such to our young men. He said that too often, the qualities of Christ are attributes men only assign to women--love, compassion, mercy, tenderness, etc.--but that in reality, these are attributes we all must strive to have. Dr. Laura berates women for trying in so many negative ways to change the nature of men, and she certainly has a point about all of the mean and ineffectual ways women attempt to do this; but what she doesn't understand is that part of the nature of the covenant marriage is that a man and a woman will work as a team to go beyond just accepting and loving each other as they are, and instead bring out the very best in each other's natures in order to progress together toward something greater.
One of my favorite scriptures from the new testament is, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave his life for it." The counsel could apply equally to women, and I don't think Paul was talking about dying for the Church here, though Christ certainly did that too. I think he is talking about living for the things we love and have covenanted to. We shouldn't love our spouses to get dinner or sex or help around the house or a night off from changing diapers . . . . we should love our spouses because it makes us more Christlike to do so. Deep, abiding and lasting love has the power to change our very nature.
Maybe my next post will be about why in the world, if most men (as per Dr. Laura) are really looking for wives who are sweet and acquiescing by nature, do they try so hard to date women who manipulate, control, tease and tempt? But that can wait; this post is already twice as long on paper as it was in my head. By all means, share your thoughts on taking care of "your man," or on the book if you have read it.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Finally! Political Ideology I Can Agree With
No. This will not be about Sarah Palin's speech. But I am going to try very hard for this to be last political post before November. I just won't be able to help it then. Oh, and it is another long one.
After the 2000 election, it was plain to see that part of Al Gore's problem was that he simply promised too many things to too many people. His campaign promises began to look fairly ridiculous. While accusing the Republicans of serving, primarily, a single special interest group--big business; the Dems simultaneously have about 50 tiny special interests groups! Some of who are old-school bread and butter (farmers, union workers, minorities, etc.), and others who are newer to the Party (environmentalists, homosexuals, feminists, etc.) The problem is that the goals of these many special interest groups are not always compatible with one another, making it nearly impossible for the Democrats to have a cohesive strategy or approach. I was reading an article the other day about the current governor of Colorado and changes taking place in the Democratic Party. He is a pro-life Democrat.
That is NOT a typo.
In fact, his stick-to-it stance as a Catholic nearly cost him the election. I am not going to go on in any detail here about his policies or how much I like this guy, etc. (No doubt such talk would win me much criticism from my highly conservative family-in-law mostly living in Colorado. I'm not here to pick a fight, contrary to popular belief.) I am, however, going to talk about the Colorado electorate as defined by Governor Ritter and his pollster. I'll paraphrase.
Dividing the electorate into five groups, Ritter says that 20% of Coloradans are the "very liberal" base of the party. You know, the hippie feminist down the street who wouldn't vote Republican under pain of death. He called the next 16%, for lack of a better term, the "Fox News Conservatives." These are conservatives like Rush Limbaugh (and other talking heads), Rudy Guliani, and Dick Cheney who are conservative because of their powerful belief in a small government. These are your cut most taxes and services guys. They would privatize everything except for military and law enforcement. Just as the first group will NEVER vote Republican, the second group will NEVER vote Democrat, nor will they compromise. Their ideologies, regardless of what actually works, will never be compatible.
Ritter refers to the next 13% as the "moral conservatives." Some of these folks overlap the second group in their beliefs about limited government, but mostly their platform is about issues they view as moral, not political. For these folks, abortion, gun control and gay marriage especially, are the deal breakers. This group got George Bush elected, twice, and won Iowa for Mike Huckabee. They are a powerful minority, but there is a general populace frustration with them, too. In 2004, the Republican-controlled Colorado congress, in the face of a billion dollar budget shortfall, spent a huge chunk of the session arguing an amendment banning gay marriage and a statue requiring schools to say the Pledge each morning. A year later, the voters spoke and returned control of the legislature to the Democrats, which leads us to our last two groups.
That leaves more than HALF of the electorate left over. Ritter calls these are the "government pragmatists" and the "moral pragmatists." The GP's tend to be pro-choice and neutral about gay marriage, "they just want to make sure government works, but they are not liberals, and they don't think the government should be increasing. It should spend your tax dollar prudently and wisely." So what of the last group?
This 14% sliver is my group. These are people who DO have issues with gay marriage and abortion, but "at the same time, they don't want those issues to bog down the government's ability to deliver appropriate functions." And this group believes that the government does play a role in providing certain social services. This group recognizes, that for all its inefficiencies, there are things that people will only do if the government intervenes: fund shelters, school programs, business regulations. . . . .
Governor Ritter believes that he was elected because he was able to make significant in-roads in BOTH of these last two categories, but particularly the MP's. He also believes that this is the direction the Dems will have to go in order to sustain voter turn out: they are going to have to stop clinging so tenaciously to their issues of abortion rights, gun control and gay marriage or they will implode. They also have to stop trying so hard to get voters in the South (who are shifting toward being moral conservatives) and focus more to the West where the electorate looks a lot like Colorado's, with Utah being the obvious exception.
This is the place where Mr. Obama is making his in-roads as well. The evidence that this constituency is here to stay? Mrs. Clinton did NOT get the nomination. She is an old-school Democrat. Still, the transition will be slow. As the Democratic party gets younger, "greener" and more educated, where will those who don't fit this mold go? My grandmother, a farmers widow, has always been a staunch Democrat. But she has also always liked John McCain. This year, as she looks at her ballot, I think she is going to identify much more strongly with the candidate from the party she dislikes more than a young Black man from Illinois.
So what do I think about the issues?
1--I believe in equal opportunity, not equal employment. For this reason, I believe that government money for social programs should be pumped into the front end: Head Start, ESL classes and one-on-one help for ALL children in early grades, Baby Your Baby type programs (especially for poor or very young mothers), Free and reduced school lunch, free health care for children . . . . you name it: if it is for kids and has any kind of a positive track record, I say "fund it." These programs are all cheaper than prison and the other socials costs that come from dysfunctional citizens. And don't forget, our youngest struggling kids didn't choose to be the way they are. If not helped, they are practically guaranteed to repeat the mistakes of their parents.
2--I believe that church plays a role in society, but I also believe that the idea of separating church and state is the thing that protects our freedom to choose where we worship. This makes me leery of any publicly funded program that gives money to churches. Particularly when it comes to church-run schools. I'm coming around on the faith-based initiatives, but I think that there needs to be very careful oversight about the use of these monies. I am very against churches speaking out on political issues and candidates. Moral issues are different. Churches have an obligation to speak up there, but must still be very careful about raising money, setting up PACs etc.
3-- I believe that a woman "chooses" when she decides to have un-protected sex. If she DIDN'T decide to have unprotected sex (i.e., rape and incest) then she should still have a choice. I believe that the life of a mother, particularly one with children, takes precedent over the life of a fetus if it comes to a "life of the mother" issue. I think this is entirely between her and God and her family. Nobody can judge such a difficult decision. However, my anti-abortion stance is closely coupled to #4, which is not at all Republican.
4--I believe in sex education that goes beyond abstinence only. If schools are going to spend valuable time to teach it, then they need to teach what works. It is up to parents to filter that information in light of their own moral values. If the government wants nothing more than abstinence, they should pull ALL funding and not teach it at all--leave the entire subject up to parents.
5--I favor tax cuts for small corporations (not big ones, particularly those that get rid of American jobs) as well as nationalized health care to benefit companies too small to purchase reasonably affordable plans. America was built on the backs of small businesses. Our economy will collapse if we don't re-enthrone this model. If jobs are lost by movement overseas, large corporations have an obligation to re-train their workers and give them options. More American-made products probably will NOT lower prices. But ask yourself, seriously, how much more cheap junk from China do I need? Do we save money with lower prices? Or do we just purchase more? Is an ever-expanding GNP really possible? Are there other evidences of economic stability and growth?
6--Public education must be a very well-funded and locally controlled enterprise if it is to succeed. And if it doesn't succeed? We will revert to a dark time when only those with means and influence got a decent education. We are nearly the only country in the world who even attempts to educate a majority of our population until age 18. Teachers need to be well educated, decently paid, but mostly they need a student-teacher ratio that does not exceed 15:1 in regular classrooms. Our test scores could be turned around in a decade if any class over twenty students had two full time teachers--a mentor teacher and a training teacher. After teachers trained for a certain number of years (or positive recommendations), they could be promoted to mentor teachers at a greater pay scale. Again, school is cheaper than prison. And way cheaper than seeing our entire economy shipped overseas.
7--Energy policy must be driven by science and not by politicians. Markets have a role here too, but the attitude of the populace will reflect the leadership. The regulations may have to be passed (i.e. higher emissions standards) before companies will act in a responsible manner.
8--Health insurance should be for catastrophes, or hospital stays or chronic illnesses. Other medical issues (particularly maintenance) should be paid for out-of-pocket at prices much lower prices than now with an emphasis on PA's, RN's and CNM's handling most routine care. Immunizations should cost nothing.
9--Owning guns for personal, recreational use should not be incompatible with regulations designed to keeps guns away from criminals. Distinctions in the law can be made between assault weapons and hunting rifles so that our cities don't devolve into war zones.
10--God has defined marriage. If same-sex marriages are to be stricken down, however, laws allowing for couple's rights in de facto marriages should also be overturned. The second will never happen, however, because the VAST majority of people don't really believe there is anything wrong with sex before marriage, or if they do, they see it as fairly minor on the list of sins. Ultimately, I think this will come down to a civil rights issue. Except for a very small percentage of people who actually believe in abstinence before marriage, not just in principle, but in practice, most people do not see sexual behavior as a choice. They see it as a need to be met. This is significant because public opinion now is generally that homosexuality is a choice, though that idea is shifting. Personally, I believe that sexual attraction/orientation is a combination of genes and environment, but except in rare cases of genetic abnormality, sexual behavior is always a choice.
11--Any student with the grades and the desire and the ambition should have opportunity to go to college or trade school. Loans should be reasonable and at low interest rates. Tuition should be affordable. If college costs way too much for ordinary middle class folks and all of the industrial jobs have been sent to China, where will our children work?
12--Welfare should be a stopgap measure between where a person is now and where they hope to be a short time from now. Welfare should focus on what the needs of the children (health care, food, safety) are and job-training for parents. Welfare should not be funded from social security funds (which tax should be reduced and untouched, or mandated into 401K type plans for each worker), but separately. I think all welfare money should have careful oversight and that people should never PLAN to use welfare. Though I am sure I'll get really vilified for saying it, I think it is a form of dishonesty to plan a pregnancy knowing that it will be paid for whole or in part by a government program. There is faith, and then there is just expecting other people to pick up the tab.
People who run for office should talk about their own plans, goals, and ideologies. If they mention other candidates at all, it should be to show contrast and not just to criticize. Mrs. Palin was a bit heavy handed last night, I thought (like bringing up a quote said months ago that a candidate has apologized ad naseum for). But then, others said the same about Mr. Obama last week. I guess, when all is said and done, you just see what you want to see. KimBlue said that much of what we observe is based on our own pre-conceived filter. At this point, there are probably not that many people who will be swayed one way or the other by anything the candidates say. I suppose that people engaged in the process will listen carefully for the things they want to hear and the one who says the most of those things gets our vote.
Policies, even the best-intentioned ones, however, can never help people who do not want to help themselves. But perhaps good policies can help give people incentives to help themselves.
After the 2000 election, it was plain to see that part of Al Gore's problem was that he simply promised too many things to too many people. His campaign promises began to look fairly ridiculous. While accusing the Republicans of serving, primarily, a single special interest group--big business; the Dems simultaneously have about 50 tiny special interests groups! Some of who are old-school bread and butter (farmers, union workers, minorities, etc.), and others who are newer to the Party (environmentalists, homosexuals, feminists, etc.) The problem is that the goals of these many special interest groups are not always compatible with one another, making it nearly impossible for the Democrats to have a cohesive strategy or approach. I was reading an article the other day about the current governor of Colorado and changes taking place in the Democratic Party. He is a pro-life Democrat.
That is NOT a typo.
In fact, his stick-to-it stance as a Catholic nearly cost him the election. I am not going to go on in any detail here about his policies or how much I like this guy, etc. (No doubt such talk would win me much criticism from my highly conservative family-in-law mostly living in Colorado. I'm not here to pick a fight, contrary to popular belief.) I am, however, going to talk about the Colorado electorate as defined by Governor Ritter and his pollster. I'll paraphrase.
Dividing the electorate into five groups, Ritter says that 20% of Coloradans are the "very liberal" base of the party. You know, the hippie feminist down the street who wouldn't vote Republican under pain of death. He called the next 16%, for lack of a better term, the "Fox News Conservatives." These are conservatives like Rush Limbaugh (and other talking heads), Rudy Guliani, and Dick Cheney who are conservative because of their powerful belief in a small government. These are your cut most taxes and services guys. They would privatize everything except for military and law enforcement. Just as the first group will NEVER vote Republican, the second group will NEVER vote Democrat, nor will they compromise. Their ideologies, regardless of what actually works, will never be compatible.
Ritter refers to the next 13% as the "moral conservatives." Some of these folks overlap the second group in their beliefs about limited government, but mostly their platform is about issues they view as moral, not political. For these folks, abortion, gun control and gay marriage especially, are the deal breakers. This group got George Bush elected, twice, and won Iowa for Mike Huckabee. They are a powerful minority, but there is a general populace frustration with them, too. In 2004, the Republican-controlled Colorado congress, in the face of a billion dollar budget shortfall, spent a huge chunk of the session arguing an amendment banning gay marriage and a statue requiring schools to say the Pledge each morning. A year later, the voters spoke and returned control of the legislature to the Democrats, which leads us to our last two groups.
That leaves more than HALF of the electorate left over. Ritter calls these are the "government pragmatists" and the "moral pragmatists." The GP's tend to be pro-choice and neutral about gay marriage, "they just want to make sure government works, but they are not liberals, and they don't think the government should be increasing. It should spend your tax dollar prudently and wisely." So what of the last group?
This 14% sliver is my group. These are people who DO have issues with gay marriage and abortion, but "at the same time, they don't want those issues to bog down the government's ability to deliver appropriate functions." And this group believes that the government does play a role in providing certain social services. This group recognizes, that for all its inefficiencies, there are things that people will only do if the government intervenes: fund shelters, school programs, business regulations. . . . .
Governor Ritter believes that he was elected because he was able to make significant in-roads in BOTH of these last two categories, but particularly the MP's. He also believes that this is the direction the Dems will have to go in order to sustain voter turn out: they are going to have to stop clinging so tenaciously to their issues of abortion rights, gun control and gay marriage or they will implode. They also have to stop trying so hard to get voters in the South (who are shifting toward being moral conservatives) and focus more to the West where the electorate looks a lot like Colorado's, with Utah being the obvious exception.
This is the place where Mr. Obama is making his in-roads as well. The evidence that this constituency is here to stay? Mrs. Clinton did NOT get the nomination. She is an old-school Democrat. Still, the transition will be slow. As the Democratic party gets younger, "greener" and more educated, where will those who don't fit this mold go? My grandmother, a farmers widow, has always been a staunch Democrat. But she has also always liked John McCain. This year, as she looks at her ballot, I think she is going to identify much more strongly with the candidate from the party she dislikes more than a young Black man from Illinois.
So what do I think about the issues?
1--I believe in equal opportunity, not equal employment. For this reason, I believe that government money for social programs should be pumped into the front end: Head Start, ESL classes and one-on-one help for ALL children in early grades, Baby Your Baby type programs (especially for poor or very young mothers), Free and reduced school lunch, free health care for children . . . . you name it: if it is for kids and has any kind of a positive track record, I say "fund it." These programs are all cheaper than prison and the other socials costs that come from dysfunctional citizens. And don't forget, our youngest struggling kids didn't choose to be the way they are. If not helped, they are practically guaranteed to repeat the mistakes of their parents.
2--I believe that church plays a role in society, but I also believe that the idea of separating church and state is the thing that protects our freedom to choose where we worship. This makes me leery of any publicly funded program that gives money to churches. Particularly when it comes to church-run schools. I'm coming around on the faith-based initiatives, but I think that there needs to be very careful oversight about the use of these monies. I am very against churches speaking out on political issues and candidates. Moral issues are different. Churches have an obligation to speak up there, but must still be very careful about raising money, setting up PACs etc.
3-- I believe that a woman "chooses" when she decides to have un-protected sex. If she DIDN'T decide to have unprotected sex (i.e., rape and incest) then she should still have a choice. I believe that the life of a mother, particularly one with children, takes precedent over the life of a fetus if it comes to a "life of the mother" issue. I think this is entirely between her and God and her family. Nobody can judge such a difficult decision. However, my anti-abortion stance is closely coupled to #4, which is not at all Republican.
4--I believe in sex education that goes beyond abstinence only. If schools are going to spend valuable time to teach it, then they need to teach what works. It is up to parents to filter that information in light of their own moral values. If the government wants nothing more than abstinence, they should pull ALL funding and not teach it at all--leave the entire subject up to parents.
5--I favor tax cuts for small corporations (not big ones, particularly those that get rid of American jobs) as well as nationalized health care to benefit companies too small to purchase reasonably affordable plans. America was built on the backs of small businesses. Our economy will collapse if we don't re-enthrone this model. If jobs are lost by movement overseas, large corporations have an obligation to re-train their workers and give them options. More American-made products probably will NOT lower prices. But ask yourself, seriously, how much more cheap junk from China do I need? Do we save money with lower prices? Or do we just purchase more? Is an ever-expanding GNP really possible? Are there other evidences of economic stability and growth?
6--Public education must be a very well-funded and locally controlled enterprise if it is to succeed. And if it doesn't succeed? We will revert to a dark time when only those with means and influence got a decent education. We are nearly the only country in the world who even attempts to educate a majority of our population until age 18. Teachers need to be well educated, decently paid, but mostly they need a student-teacher ratio that does not exceed 15:1 in regular classrooms. Our test scores could be turned around in a decade if any class over twenty students had two full time teachers--a mentor teacher and a training teacher. After teachers trained for a certain number of years (or positive recommendations), they could be promoted to mentor teachers at a greater pay scale. Again, school is cheaper than prison. And way cheaper than seeing our entire economy shipped overseas.
7--Energy policy must be driven by science and not by politicians. Markets have a role here too, but the attitude of the populace will reflect the leadership. The regulations may have to be passed (i.e. higher emissions standards) before companies will act in a responsible manner.
8--Health insurance should be for catastrophes, or hospital stays or chronic illnesses. Other medical issues (particularly maintenance) should be paid for out-of-pocket at prices much lower prices than now with an emphasis on PA's, RN's and CNM's handling most routine care. Immunizations should cost nothing.
9--Owning guns for personal, recreational use should not be incompatible with regulations designed to keeps guns away from criminals. Distinctions in the law can be made between assault weapons and hunting rifles so that our cities don't devolve into war zones.
10--God has defined marriage. If same-sex marriages are to be stricken down, however, laws allowing for couple's rights in de facto marriages should also be overturned. The second will never happen, however, because the VAST majority of people don't really believe there is anything wrong with sex before marriage, or if they do, they see it as fairly minor on the list of sins. Ultimately, I think this will come down to a civil rights issue. Except for a very small percentage of people who actually believe in abstinence before marriage, not just in principle, but in practice, most people do not see sexual behavior as a choice. They see it as a need to be met. This is significant because public opinion now is generally that homosexuality is a choice, though that idea is shifting. Personally, I believe that sexual attraction/orientation is a combination of genes and environment, but except in rare cases of genetic abnormality, sexual behavior is always a choice.
11--Any student with the grades and the desire and the ambition should have opportunity to go to college or trade school. Loans should be reasonable and at low interest rates. Tuition should be affordable. If college costs way too much for ordinary middle class folks and all of the industrial jobs have been sent to China, where will our children work?
12--Welfare should be a stopgap measure between where a person is now and where they hope to be a short time from now. Welfare should focus on what the needs of the children (health care, food, safety) are and job-training for parents. Welfare should not be funded from social security funds (which tax should be reduced and untouched, or mandated into 401K type plans for each worker), but separately. I think all welfare money should have careful oversight and that people should never PLAN to use welfare. Though I am sure I'll get really vilified for saying it, I think it is a form of dishonesty to plan a pregnancy knowing that it will be paid for whole or in part by a government program. There is faith, and then there is just expecting other people to pick up the tab.
People who run for office should talk about their own plans, goals, and ideologies. If they mention other candidates at all, it should be to show contrast and not just to criticize. Mrs. Palin was a bit heavy handed last night, I thought (like bringing up a quote said months ago that a candidate has apologized ad naseum for). But then, others said the same about Mr. Obama last week. I guess, when all is said and done, you just see what you want to see. KimBlue said that much of what we observe is based on our own pre-conceived filter. At this point, there are probably not that many people who will be swayed one way or the other by anything the candidates say. I suppose that people engaged in the process will listen carefully for the things they want to hear and the one who says the most of those things gets our vote.
Policies, even the best-intentioned ones, however, can never help people who do not want to help themselves. But perhaps good policies can help give people incentives to help themselves.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Trashy?
Christie made an interesting comment on my last post about how some of the people in her RS reading group found Austenland a little bit trashy. It was interesting to me because I had a very similar conversation with a friend this morning.
As an aspriring novelist who is first and foremost and LDS person, sex is a very tricky issue. If you are not going to treat it at all, then you are stuck writing novels that are only of the LDS variety, or ones that are completely devoid of romance (which is hard to do because we learn a lot about ourselves as we fall in love and work through relationships). Whether we like to admit it or not, sex and romantic love are pretty closely connected in our society. Even in LDS circles, there are plenty of young men surrounded by wonderful friend-girls who they are not attracted to and will never marry for that reason.
Shannon Hale's novel, Austenland, makes no pretenses of being for anyone other than adults. The protagonist is in her mid-thirties, single, un-religious and living in New York. This is not a novel aimed (necessarily) at an LDS audience, and certainly not aimed at teenage girls. Implying that a woman living such a lifestyle is automatically trashy because she is just following the rules of the culture she lives in is jumping the gun a bit, I think.
In fact, Hale works very hard to let the reader draw their own conclusions. Other than a little descriptive making-out, she avoids the sex question entirely, by merely implying there are times this main character was okay with it and times that she wasn't. No descriptions, no titilating details, no smokin' hot love scenes. . . .
Now, the Twilight saga (the word used on Amazon) on the other hand . . . (I promise, I'm not getting holier than thou here. I've read them all and probably will read the next as well. I'm just trying to make a point.) Stephanie Meyer has kind of painted herself into a corner. These books are obsessesed with descriptions of physical attraction (and physcial attractiveness) and she is never shy to put her characters into very close and compromising situations. After all, any Bishop worth his salt will tell you that merely not having sex is really not enough, and having your boyfriend sleep in your room every night is definitely over-stepping the bounds of what is and is not appropriate. When it comes time for Edward and Bella to finally just get past the tension, marriage or not, she will have to alienate a certain portion of her readers. Her younger and/or more conservative fans (read: LDS) will mostly be disappointed if she includes the gory details, feeling like she sold-out. Still, they will probably comfort themselves with the fact that "at least they are married." On the other hand, her older, non-LDS readers will be disapointed if she allows the great consummation to take place behind closed doors. "What!?! 1500 pages of passion burning the pages up and she leaves out the undressing of Edward!!!!???????!!!!!!!" It is almost like the whole abstience thing in the Meyer books is just a way of obsessing about sex.
It is an interesting question, but I have to admit I found Austenland, for all of its implied sexuality, much less trashy than Eclipse, with its relentless sensuality. As LDS authors (and actors) become more and more mainstream, it will sometimes be hard to make choices about what is really appropriate. And make no mistake, LDS authors will have to bear closer scrutiny than their less religious peers. There is no getting away from it: our culture affects everything we do, even when we are trying to operate outside our culture; and those outside our culture watch us very carefully.
In an unrelated news item, did you guys know this is called the "Dead Star." That's what Patchy Pirate says. Of course, Scallywag tells me that Patchy is still a padawan learner, and not yet a full Jedi.
As an aspriring novelist who is first and foremost and LDS person, sex is a very tricky issue. If you are not going to treat it at all, then you are stuck writing novels that are only of the LDS variety, or ones that are completely devoid of romance (which is hard to do because we learn a lot about ourselves as we fall in love and work through relationships). Whether we like to admit it or not, sex and romantic love are pretty closely connected in our society. Even in LDS circles, there are plenty of young men surrounded by wonderful friend-girls who they are not attracted to and will never marry for that reason.
Shannon Hale's novel, Austenland, makes no pretenses of being for anyone other than adults. The protagonist is in her mid-thirties, single, un-religious and living in New York. This is not a novel aimed (necessarily) at an LDS audience, and certainly not aimed at teenage girls. Implying that a woman living such a lifestyle is automatically trashy because she is just following the rules of the culture she lives in is jumping the gun a bit, I think.
In fact, Hale works very hard to let the reader draw their own conclusions. Other than a little descriptive making-out, she avoids the sex question entirely, by merely implying there are times this main character was okay with it and times that she wasn't. No descriptions, no titilating details, no smokin' hot love scenes. . . .
Now, the Twilight saga (the word used on Amazon) on the other hand . . . (I promise, I'm not getting holier than thou here. I've read them all and probably will read the next as well. I'm just trying to make a point.) Stephanie Meyer has kind of painted herself into a corner. These books are obsessesed with descriptions of physical attraction (and physcial attractiveness) and she is never shy to put her characters into very close and compromising situations. After all, any Bishop worth his salt will tell you that merely not having sex is really not enough, and having your boyfriend sleep in your room every night is definitely over-stepping the bounds of what is and is not appropriate. When it comes time for Edward and Bella to finally just get past the tension, marriage or not, she will have to alienate a certain portion of her readers. Her younger and/or more conservative fans (read: LDS) will mostly be disappointed if she includes the gory details, feeling like she sold-out. Still, they will probably comfort themselves with the fact that "at least they are married." On the other hand, her older, non-LDS readers will be disapointed if she allows the great consummation to take place behind closed doors. "What!?! 1500 pages of passion burning the pages up and she leaves out the undressing of Edward!!!!???????!!!!!!!" It is almost like the whole abstience thing in the Meyer books is just a way of obsessing about sex.
It is an interesting question, but I have to admit I found Austenland, for all of its implied sexuality, much less trashy than Eclipse, with its relentless sensuality. As LDS authors (and actors) become more and more mainstream, it will sometimes be hard to make choices about what is really appropriate. And make no mistake, LDS authors will have to bear closer scrutiny than their less religious peers. There is no getting away from it: our culture affects everything we do, even when we are trying to operate outside our culture; and those outside our culture watch us very carefully.
In an unrelated news item, did you guys know this is called the "Dead Star." That's what Patchy Pirate says. Of course, Scallywag tells me that Patchy is still a padawan learner, and not yet a full Jedi.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
They Aren't Kids So Much As They Are Blog Fodder
Last night we had a roast chicken for dinner. It is not the first time. In fact, Scallywag coined the term "chicken on a bone" and generally eats it really well. He has seen Plantboy carve up the whole bird before also. Scallywag (remember, he is 6 1/2) looked at the meat curiously as I put it on his plate. "So where does the chicken come from?" This is not the first time I've answered this question.
"A chicken at a farm."
"A chicken?" His little face crumpled and I saw something come over him that never has before when I've answered this question.
"Yes."
"You mean a real live animal chicken?" He began to get quite hysterical. "That's just rude and mean, we don't kill animals to eat them!" He jumped up from the table, "I'm not eating." I found him a few minutes later in his bed buried under the covers. We had a long talk.
After which, my own meat didn't look as appetizing.
Patchy Pirate has earned his own place on the blog this week, however. He loves to jump on my bed and throw my pillows, hoping, no doubt, that some obliging soul will throw them back. Monday, while I was tutoring, Patchy was up to his usual raucous jumping while Plantboy entertained the baby in another room. Some minutes later Patchy came down the hall shouting, "Daddy! I found something for you!"
Patchy proudly held out a silver foil-wrapped condom.
Plantboy said, "Thanks, buddy," and quickly put the something in his pocket. I can't help but be reminded of raccoons who will pick up anything shiny and small.
So, at my house this week we've tackled the big issues--animal rights and sex ed. What are you up to?
Actually, I do need some advice about an actual three year-old issue. (Though when you read the situation, you'll probably maintain it should have been a two-year old issue.) Patchy has a blanket that he loves. No big deal, I took a tattered wubby to college. The problem is that Patchy sucks his thumb when he has the blanket. Not just sometimes, every time. (His blognym could just as easily be Pavlov.) He doesn't suck his thumb at other times. It has been this way for over a year. He also only gets his blanket at bedtime, or the occasional naptime. So it isn't like he is dragging blue-friend and thumb to Sunbeams or anything.
Still, I always said that when the potty training was done, I'd take the blanket so that we could break the thumb habit.
The reality, however, is that I'm finding the follow through very difficult. Why? We had to take a binky away from Scallywag and it was fairly traumatic. With the binky, however, he didn't really LOVE it. It was more of a sleep tool for a child that was (and still is) very oral. He gave up napping almost entirely as we adjusted to a binky-free life. This was actually a big sacrifice for his very pregnant and then post-partum mother. With Patchy, however, he really actually sees this blanket as an essential member of our family. It is such a part of our daily routine for wake up and bedtime that it is a part of us. He is my snuggler and I think the cuddliness of the blanket is as joyful to him as the thumb. (Watch this clip from 3:45 to 4:30) Besides, for this second boy who has had almost every single thing second hand, the blanket is undeniably HIS. No other person in the family is allowed to touch it without his permission.
I've talked to lots of different people about this and heard many different opinions ranging from "He'll quit when his ready! Junior sucked his thumb until he was 13!" (Loud chuckle) to "I hate thumb sucking. I think it is completely gross." I can see the long term implications--Patchy has slightly buck teeth already--and his sleeping is tied to the thumb. However, the blanket-thumb combination hasn't affected his speech (development or enunciation) at all and he is learning self-monitoring about the times of day it is okay to have his blanket.
I allowed this dear little soul to be a thumb-baby because we'd just come through months of binky/sleep issues with the first and he didn't seem to like it anyway. (My only ultrasound shot of Patchy shows him with his left thumb--the only one he likes--in his mouth.) The day he found his thumb with regularity was the day we all began sleeping well again.
Our new baby is also a thumb-baby. I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing there by allowing it to start.
So advice from you mothers of children who sucked thumbs and/or fingers? What did you do, if anything, to stop the habit? Or advice about asking a child to give up a beloved and non-offending blanket or toy?
"A chicken at a farm."
"A chicken?" His little face crumpled and I saw something come over him that never has before when I've answered this question.
"Yes."
"You mean a real live animal chicken?" He began to get quite hysterical. "That's just rude and mean, we don't kill animals to eat them!" He jumped up from the table, "I'm not eating." I found him a few minutes later in his bed buried under the covers. We had a long talk.
After which, my own meat didn't look as appetizing.
Patchy Pirate has earned his own place on the blog this week, however. He loves to jump on my bed and throw my pillows, hoping, no doubt, that some obliging soul will throw them back. Monday, while I was tutoring, Patchy was up to his usual raucous jumping while Plantboy entertained the baby in another room. Some minutes later Patchy came down the hall shouting, "Daddy! I found something for you!"
Patchy proudly held out a silver foil-wrapped condom.
Plantboy said, "Thanks, buddy," and quickly put the something in his pocket. I can't help but be reminded of raccoons who will pick up anything shiny and small.
So, at my house this week we've tackled the big issues--animal rights and sex ed. What are you up to?
Actually, I do need some advice about an actual three year-old issue. (Though when you read the situation, you'll probably maintain it should have been a two-year old issue.) Patchy has a blanket that he loves. No big deal, I took a tattered wubby to college. The problem is that Patchy sucks his thumb when he has the blanket. Not just sometimes, every time. (His blognym could just as easily be Pavlov.) He doesn't suck his thumb at other times. It has been this way for over a year. He also only gets his blanket at bedtime, or the occasional naptime. So it isn't like he is dragging blue-friend and thumb to Sunbeams or anything.
Still, I always said that when the potty training was done, I'd take the blanket so that we could break the thumb habit.
The reality, however, is that I'm finding the follow through very difficult. Why? We had to take a binky away from Scallywag and it was fairly traumatic. With the binky, however, he didn't really LOVE it. It was more of a sleep tool for a child that was (and still is) very oral. He gave up napping almost entirely as we adjusted to a binky-free life. This was actually a big sacrifice for his very pregnant and then post-partum mother. With Patchy, however, he really actually sees this blanket as an essential member of our family. It is such a part of our daily routine for wake up and bedtime that it is a part of us. He is my snuggler and I think the cuddliness of the blanket is as joyful to him as the thumb. (Watch this clip from 3:45 to 4:30) Besides, for this second boy who has had almost every single thing second hand, the blanket is undeniably HIS. No other person in the family is allowed to touch it without his permission.
I've talked to lots of different people about this and heard many different opinions ranging from "He'll quit when his ready! Junior sucked his thumb until he was 13!" (Loud chuckle) to "I hate thumb sucking. I think it is completely gross." I can see the long term implications--Patchy has slightly buck teeth already--and his sleeping is tied to the thumb. However, the blanket-thumb combination hasn't affected his speech (development or enunciation) at all and he is learning self-monitoring about the times of day it is okay to have his blanket.
I allowed this dear little soul to be a thumb-baby because we'd just come through months of binky/sleep issues with the first and he didn't seem to like it anyway. (My only ultrasound shot of Patchy shows him with his left thumb--the only one he likes--in his mouth.) The day he found his thumb with regularity was the day we all began sleeping well again.
Our new baby is also a thumb-baby. I'm not sure I'm doing the right thing there by allowing it to start.
So advice from you mothers of children who sucked thumbs and/or fingers? What did you do, if anything, to stop the habit? Or advice about asking a child to give up a beloved and non-offending blanket or toy?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Monsters and Love Triangles and Why I Can't Breathe Life Into a Real Woman
I finally broke down and read the third Stephenie Meyer book. Now, don't go looking all smug on me. I've known that I would, I was just waiting for someone to loan me a copy and a day to read it.
Well, the stars were all in alignment today and so I read it. I guess you can call that one sitting if you subtract out time to provide nourishment to the children, clean up throw up, do two loads of laundry, wipe several poopy bums and generally (if abstractedly) offer encouragment to my wonderfully patient children.
I was pleased to see Bella use a few "hells." We are after all, dealing with very tense situations and Bella is not, herself, a Mormon. Bella still loves to say "crap" more often than most people I've ever met, but if Meyer LOVES her editors, than who am I to argue? (And while I'm not arguing, I won't bring up her dialogue that goes on for ages and doesn't always move the plot, and how you sometimes lose the thread of the conversation because every expression, nuance, and utterance is painstakingly recorded. But I digress again.)
Once again, Meyer has written a highly entertaining, even engrossing, story based on a very clever plot. Her symbols rooted in sappy and dark romance novels are apt, as her descriptions are thorough. Her love triangle story is truly wrenching and, yes, it must be admitted, VERY sexy.
(Note here on the last word: I wouldn't let my teenage daughter near this stuff without careful screening first. There is plenty of bald attraction tied up in Meyer's brand of love with Bella herself twisting the need for sex to be stronger than marriage. I know that this book would have ruined STM age 16 from any REAL relationship for a long time.)
But the more I read, the more I think Bella is a real . . . .
I won't say it. I won't. This blog is G, or maybe PG rated, but I wasn't going to fill in sweetheart after the ellipse. More like the exact opposite. To her credit, she realizes, too late (a whole book too late for you Jacob fans out there), what a monster she is and even owns it up to both men she loves. Who, of course, are willing to forgive her for every twisted situation she thrusts these two into. Is Bella weak? Or is she so strong that she wreaks havoc on every life that becomes even remotely connected to hers? Hmm. . .
Maybe that is the point. I've realized lately, as I've been looking through some of my old writing material and formulating ideas for new, that I have a much easier time writing a believable male character than a female one. I finish my stories and find myself really liking my men for their humanity. Their struggles and imperfections make them, well. . . perfect.
On the other hand, my female characters are all very together. Oh, sure, bad things happen to them, but they bear it with amazing fortitude and strength. Their faults are not really faults: more like quirks that just make them more lovable. You know, the "acceptable" imperfections--shyness, stubborness, powerful independence, not-quite-beautiful, lonely, girls-that-don't-cook, that kind of thing. No big, overpowering character flaws. The bad things, really bad things, that happen to them are hardly ever the consequences of their own choices.
Why is this?
I'm not sure, though I've given it a lot of thought lately. First of all, most of the women I'm really close to, admire, want to be friends with, etc., are AMAZING. And while they are not all alike, they are each strong, incredibly strong, in their own way. When I write a novel, it is engrossing. My thoughts are consumed by characters, situations, events. Some of which, I must admit, I feel I have very little control over. If I am going to spend, literally, hundreds of hours at my computer to produce a work of (probably mediocre) fiction, I want to feel like I'm among friends.
Also, my favorite books have always been peppered with incredible girls and women. When I read stories of undeveloped or weak women I am unimpressed, bored and ruthless in my critique. This is not merely a development of my adult life. In the 9th grade, we read a book called "Izzy Willy-Nilly" by Paula Danzinger (I think). The story was of a girl who was really awful--petty, popular, mean--who lost a leg (or both legs?) in a car accident. Afterward she went through this big life change, but she pretty much cried all the time and she still wasn't great to people. I hated this book for some reason and I thought Izzy was not tough. At. All. Didn't Nem post a few months back about the dying-of-terminal-cancer novels we all loved as teenagers? I think this was in the same vein. Anyway, I hated my English teacher and I really challenged the idea of Izzy's bravery, out loud, in class in front of my more indifferent and acquiesing peers. I remember that teacher's mean, little eyes burrowing right into mine, daring me to have a different opinion. And I did.
How ridiculous! Do I really think I'd be tough or brave for two minutes if I lost my legs? No, of course not. Because I'm HUMAN. Just like the other women I know. Maybe that is real strength--carrying on in the face of our humanity. Our limitations.
Some years back I had a friend going through a very difficult situation. A situation I didn't learn about until after the fact and from somebody else. I spoke with my mother about the incident and was in disbelief that I had never seen this difficulty coming, and that she had hidden it so carefully from me, a good friend. My mother said a couple of things that revealed much to me about myself. She said that I was an intensely loyal friend, and that this loyalty sometimes made me blind to a person's real character. She said that I was sometimes better at seeing people as I wanted them to be than how they really were. On the other hand, my good opinion was really important to my friends and they would do anything to maintain that image in my eyes. Her words confused me. The upshot was basically that I translate my high self-expectations into high expectations for those around me. And while, this often makes people want to be better, it also makes them feel like they can never really be themselves around me. They are too afraid of my criticism.
I was a little bit speechless by her forthright assessment of my character, but in the years since I've come to see just how much she hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure that even getting that our there in the open has changed me much. I'm painfully aware now of the way I unwittingly alienate people, but I don't always rein in my personality to make more friends and be more inclusive, either.
I'm embarking on a new writing project. I'm creating a female character who has many faults. Real ones. Deep and hard to expose or expunge. But she too will be strong. I just can't help it. Women ARE strong. But I'm going to try to make her vulnerable, too. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finally have created a character that I don't just look up to, but one that I identify with. Wish me luck.
Well, the stars were all in alignment today and so I read it. I guess you can call that one sitting if you subtract out time to provide nourishment to the children, clean up throw up, do two loads of laundry, wipe several poopy bums and generally (if abstractedly) offer encouragment to my wonderfully patient children.
I was pleased to see Bella use a few "hells." We are after all, dealing with very tense situations and Bella is not, herself, a Mormon. Bella still loves to say "crap" more often than most people I've ever met, but if Meyer LOVES her editors, than who am I to argue? (And while I'm not arguing, I won't bring up her dialogue that goes on for ages and doesn't always move the plot, and how you sometimes lose the thread of the conversation because every expression, nuance, and utterance is painstakingly recorded. But I digress again.)
Once again, Meyer has written a highly entertaining, even engrossing, story based on a very clever plot. Her symbols rooted in sappy and dark romance novels are apt, as her descriptions are thorough. Her love triangle story is truly wrenching and, yes, it must be admitted, VERY sexy.
(Note here on the last word: I wouldn't let my teenage daughter near this stuff without careful screening first. There is plenty of bald attraction tied up in Meyer's brand of love with Bella herself twisting the need for sex to be stronger than marriage. I know that this book would have ruined STM age 16 from any REAL relationship for a long time.)
But the more I read, the more I think Bella is a real . . . .
I won't say it. I won't. This blog is G, or maybe PG rated, but I wasn't going to fill in sweetheart after the ellipse. More like the exact opposite. To her credit, she realizes, too late (a whole book too late for you Jacob fans out there), what a monster she is and even owns it up to both men she loves. Who, of course, are willing to forgive her for every twisted situation she thrusts these two into. Is Bella weak? Or is she so strong that she wreaks havoc on every life that becomes even remotely connected to hers? Hmm. . .
Maybe that is the point. I've realized lately, as I've been looking through some of my old writing material and formulating ideas for new, that I have a much easier time writing a believable male character than a female one. I finish my stories and find myself really liking my men for their humanity. Their struggles and imperfections make them, well. . . perfect.
On the other hand, my female characters are all very together. Oh, sure, bad things happen to them, but they bear it with amazing fortitude and strength. Their faults are not really faults: more like quirks that just make them more lovable. You know, the "acceptable" imperfections--shyness, stubborness, powerful independence, not-quite-beautiful, lonely, girls-that-don't-cook, that kind of thing. No big, overpowering character flaws. The bad things, really bad things, that happen to them are hardly ever the consequences of their own choices.
Why is this?
I'm not sure, though I've given it a lot of thought lately. First of all, most of the women I'm really close to, admire, want to be friends with, etc., are AMAZING. And while they are not all alike, they are each strong, incredibly strong, in their own way. When I write a novel, it is engrossing. My thoughts are consumed by characters, situations, events. Some of which, I must admit, I feel I have very little control over. If I am going to spend, literally, hundreds of hours at my computer to produce a work of (probably mediocre) fiction, I want to feel like I'm among friends.
Also, my favorite books have always been peppered with incredible girls and women. When I read stories of undeveloped or weak women I am unimpressed, bored and ruthless in my critique. This is not merely a development of my adult life. In the 9th grade, we read a book called "Izzy Willy-Nilly" by Paula Danzinger (I think). The story was of a girl who was really awful--petty, popular, mean--who lost a leg (or both legs?) in a car accident. Afterward she went through this big life change, but she pretty much cried all the time and she still wasn't great to people. I hated this book for some reason and I thought Izzy was not tough. At. All. Didn't Nem post a few months back about the dying-of-terminal-cancer novels we all loved as teenagers? I think this was in the same vein. Anyway, I hated my English teacher and I really challenged the idea of Izzy's bravery, out loud, in class in front of my more indifferent and acquiesing peers. I remember that teacher's mean, little eyes burrowing right into mine, daring me to have a different opinion. And I did.
How ridiculous! Do I really think I'd be tough or brave for two minutes if I lost my legs? No, of course not. Because I'm HUMAN. Just like the other women I know. Maybe that is real strength--carrying on in the face of our humanity. Our limitations.
Some years back I had a friend going through a very difficult situation. A situation I didn't learn about until after the fact and from somebody else. I spoke with my mother about the incident and was in disbelief that I had never seen this difficulty coming, and that she had hidden it so carefully from me, a good friend. My mother said a couple of things that revealed much to me about myself. She said that I was an intensely loyal friend, and that this loyalty sometimes made me blind to a person's real character. She said that I was sometimes better at seeing people as I wanted them to be than how they really were. On the other hand, my good opinion was really important to my friends and they would do anything to maintain that image in my eyes. Her words confused me. The upshot was basically that I translate my high self-expectations into high expectations for those around me. And while, this often makes people want to be better, it also makes them feel like they can never really be themselves around me. They are too afraid of my criticism.
I was a little bit speechless by her forthright assessment of my character, but in the years since I've come to see just how much she hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure that even getting that our there in the open has changed me much. I'm painfully aware now of the way I unwittingly alienate people, but I don't always rein in my personality to make more friends and be more inclusive, either.
I'm embarking on a new writing project. I'm creating a female character who has many faults. Real ones. Deep and hard to expose or expunge. But she too will be strong. I just can't help it. Women ARE strong. But I'm going to try to make her vulnerable, too. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finally have created a character that I don't just look up to, but one that I identify with. Wish me luck.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
As Promised! The Chastity Talk
Fireside Talk:
This is excerpted/paraphrased. My original remarks were about 50 minutes long. The theme was from D & C 121:45 "Let Virtue Garnish Thy Thoughts Unceasingly," which is the YM/YW theme for 2007.
I began by showing them pictures of myself in junior high and high school and spoke about trying to reinvent myself every year because I kept thinking that I'd have more confidence if I could just alter aspects of myself that I hated. These were mostly superficial things. Clothes, hair make-up, peer groups, etc. The kids, obviously got a real kick out of my late-eighties, early nineties attire and hair disasters. I'll pick up here:
"And while I was figuring out a lot about myself, there were still things that just didn't seem quite right. There was this boy that I really was crazy about who never saw me as anything more than a friend. I never quite got the grades I really craved. I never was the lead in the play. I never made student office. Even during my senior year, as I learned what I was good at and had lots of friends, I could never quite get rid of my inner turmoil.
"All this time I had attended seminary and church regularly. I knew a lot about the Church. I had felt the spirit many times and even borne my testimony, but I frequently doubted the truth of the gospel and often mistrusted my feelings.
"This is my state of mind when I got to college. And although I was thrilled to move out and be on my own, I was overwhelmed with the number of freshmen girls at my university. They all seemed just like me! I felt kind of adrift and without identity. And for the first time, I was very closely exposed to students who did not keep the commandments, or even pretend to. I
"Then during my freshman year of college, a series of a terrible and unrelated events happened, all of them within just a couple of months of each other." My freshman year was pretty bad--friends having terrible accidents or cancer, a brother with an emergency surgery, an aunt who died of cancer at age 34, leaving behind four young children. . . you get the picture.
"Up to that point, I’d had very few trials and I felt like my life was crashing down around my ears. And for the first time in my life I had to know if the gospel was true. I had to know if families were eternal, or if the whole temple marriage thing was just a nice fairy tale we told ourselves to feel better about death. I had to know that there was a purpose to trial and suffering and difficulty. I had to know there was a reason to keep the commandments and be righteous, when I was surrounded by those who seemed to have a lot more fun by not doing these things.
"So I did the things I’d been taught. I prayed and studied the scriptures. I read stories from the life of the Savior and tried to learn who He was so I could begin to understand what He had done for me, and what He meant to me. I worked hard on being a good daughter and good friend. And then one day, I knew. I still remember the chair I was sitting in and the passage of the book I was reading when it hit me. I knew that Jesus had died for me, a poor, struggling college student who had no idea what terrible thing would happen next to someone I loved. Once this knowledge flooded me, the other pieces of the gospel fell into place and I knew that our trials had purpose and that families were eternal. I didn’t doubt any more, and I began keeping the commandments because I wanted to.
"And I learned one of the most important lessons of my life: confidence does not come from changing your outward appearance or your friends or from always saying the right thing, though the world will tell us this is the exact formula. But this prideful sense of self-esteem is just Satan’s counterfeit for true confidence.
"True confidence is something else entirely. True confidence is trusting the Lord so completely that our testimonies do not falter even when the storms of life beset us. True confidence is having our thoughts so in tune with the Lord that the Spirit is our constant companion in the face of every difficulty, temptation and trial. "
We then discussed the scriptural theme for the year and talked about the terrible circumstances under which Joseph was given this revelation. I told them that I loved this scripture for its built in promise about having confidence. My whole life I'd fought so hard to have confidence, but the formula was there in the scriptures all along. This, incidentally, is the only time in the scriptures that the word "confidence is used."
"True confidence . . . has nothing to do with how we dress or look or act, it has everything to do with how much faith we exercise.
"So though I’ve spent most of our time here tonight focusing on this remarkable promise of confidence in the presence of the Lord, I’d like to take some more time now on the virtue part."
We then discussed the 13th Article of Faith and how it uses the term virtue in two different contexts. "The first time it comes in a list of other good attributes. So our first working definition is that virtue is a particular attribute, a Christlike attribute, that is desirous to have. The second time it is used, it gives the impression that all of these things can be considered virtuous, so that virtue can also be a general category of good things.
"Some years back President Hinckley wrote a book that spent a couple of weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. This book may look familiar to some of you. Now you are probably all too young to have been aware when this came out, but if your parents have a copy of this book, you should read it. The book is called Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes."
The kids came up with as many virtues as they could. I mentioned that although they were all good, we wanted to emphasize, "chapter three of his book called, 'Making a Case for Morality, in which he uses the words morality, chastity and virtue interchangeably. So while virtue is being generally a good person, virtue is, specifically, keeping the Lord’s law of chastity. Just so there is no question about what this law is, I’m going to quote directly from For the Strength of Youth 'Physical Intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.'
"I think it is important to point out here that the term “sexual intimacy” is used, which is more encompassing than if just the word “sex” is used. If you have any questions about behaviors and whether or not they are appropriate, you should read the rest of this section as well as the section on chastity in 'True to the Faith." Or talk to your parents and leaders and bishop. And if you are behaving in any way in reference to the opposite sex that even raises a question in your mind of whether or not it is appropriate, then stop what you are doing immediately.
"I want to quote somewhat at length from President Hinckley’s book here. I am also going to have several of you read quotes from his book as well as a talk that was given in October Conference 1998 by Jeffrey R. Holland, which I first heard when my husband and I were dating. I quote liberally from the prophets here because their words, while being plain and unapologetic about our standards, are also filled with love and authority."
The kids read several excerpts which I will not quote here--you really should read both the chapter and the talk in their complete form. EXCELLENT stuff.
"I know it is hard. I know it. About a year before going on my mission, I committed myself to the Lord one night in my prayers, promising that by my 21st birthday I would be ready and worthy to go to the temple—whether to be married or to go on a mission would be up to Him, but I would be ready.
"I was so grateful for my commitment. Just weeks after making this promise, I was tested in this very principle. I came to the moment of decision, and if I had not decided before-hand and made that firm commitment of worthiness to the Lord, I would never have had the strength to make up my mind in that instant. And if I had not made the right decision, I would have regretted it for months, and maybe years after.
"Because it wasn’t marriage that happened for me first; it was a mission. The confidence I took with me on my mission, true confidence based on the Lord’s requirements, was one of my most valuable possessions. Only perfect trust in the Lord could have compelled me to knock on doors, day after day, week after week and share the gospel message. And even after thousands and thousands of rejections, my testimony, my faith and my confidence only grew. I saw an elder on the last day of his mission knock on a door and say with absolute steadiness, 'Sir, I am here on your doorstep because the Lord wants to call you to repentance. Will you listen to our message?' The man did listen. Only perfect purity of heart can give you enough faith to say such a thing to a perfect stranger.
"Now, I know that you are exposed to things so much worse and more shocking than what I was exposed to as a teenager, but I also know--I know--that you were saved to come to earth for this time because you are the very best the Lord has. Many of you sitting in this very room no doubt sat at the knee of our Father in Heaven before you ever came to this earth and solemnly promised to do all in your power to overcome temptation and return to Him. There is nothing the world has to offer that is greater than the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing.
"Satan knows this. And I hate to even bring up his name. I hate to even give him mention in a place that should uplift and edify. But he is so real. He knows you are the best of the best. It is nothing for him to claim a soul that is already on its way down to hell, but if he can claim one of YOU for his own—one of God’s own elite—then he laughs and laughs as he watches you surrender your agency to your passions, as he watches you surrender your body to one who will break your heart and surrender your soul to himself, so he can enslave you.
"I’d like to take a moment to address the boys.
"I’ve never had a teenage son, nor have I been a teenage boy. But I have taught hundreds of middle and high schoolers over the last several years and I have three sons of my own. I think I know a little bit about how boys tick. You hear talks time and time again about the evils of pornography. But even with the repetition, I don’t think the warning can be repeated often enough. There is nothing in our society that will give you a more perverse idea of relationships between men and women. There is nothing that will lead you to objectify and distort the truth about love and intimacy as much as pornography. It will poison your mind and heart and spirit. And if doesn’t even have to be hard pornography found in certain places on the internet. Any television program, song or commercial that treats women as objects to satisfy desire is unworthy of a priesthood holder’s time and attention; even a moment is too much if it seeks to cheapen things that are sacred. If you do date, date in groups. If you date alone, specify a start and ending time to the date. Bring her home early. Whatever you do, PLAN activities for your dates. There is nothing more flattering to a young woman than to know her date has cared enough about her to plan something to do. If you are in a place where your guy and girl friends are doing nothing more than hanging out or, worst case scenario, watching a movie in the dark, then have the courage to be like Joseph of Egypt and FLEE. Have the courage to date girls who are keeping gospel standards, even if it means you may not get a goodnight kiss. Have the courage to tell a young woman who is dressed modestly how pretty she looks and how proud you are to be seen with her.
"Now the boys can tune out while I address the girls.
"You young sisters have more power over the young men than even they will dare admit. If you would one day have strong marriages and worthy priesthood holders leading your families, you must not do anything that would jeopardize the young men you associate with—either the young men you date, or the young men you are friends with—from going on missions. On their missions they will learn the true nature of love and sacrifice; they will return home ready to settle and commit and lead. The way you speak, the way you dress, the way you walk, has a huge influence on any young man in your vicinity. Using your words and your body to tease, tempt and control is the cruelest use of the powerful gifts God has given to you. Do not wear clothes that are so tight your straps underneath can be seen; do not sit on a guy’s lap, even if he is just a friend; do not give back rubs; do not wear dresses that creep up your legs and shirts that creep up your bellies. Try clothes on until you find the ones that fit you properly so they are not too tight or too sloppy. But most of all, do not explain away such behavior. Rationalization is no substitute for quiet dignity and modesty. Nobody should ever have to look at you and wonder if you are LDS.
"And while many of these things, on their own, are not direct violations of the Law of Chastity, I have seen every single one of them lead to things that are.
"In the Book of Mormon, Alma gives some advice to each of his sons before he dies. He says to one of them, 'Bridle all of your passions that you may be filled with love.' The world would have us believe that expressing your passion is the equivalence of expressing your love. But the Lord’s way is the higher way, and he says that expressing our passion is absolutely NOT love: it is keeping our passion under control so that we might have time to learn and develop true Christlike love instead of just giving in to our selfish desires.
"When I knelt across the altar from my husband eight and a half years ago, surrounded by family and friends in that beautiful sealing room in the Logan temple, I knew that we were worthy to be there. I knew that any price I had paid in self control was worth it for that moment and for the eternity we would have together, and the children that would be born to us. On that day, I began to understand what it means to really be 'in love.' I testify to you this day, that keeping your thoughts clean and pure and virtuous is WORTH IT. Whatever sacrifice you think you are making to get your life in order is NOTHING compared to the blessings the Lord is waiting to give to you when you approach him with clean hands and a pure heart.
I concluded by sharing two stories: the first of a girl I had grown up with who allowed herself be led away, and the second of a remarkable young man I taught on my mission.
After sharing the story of the young woman, who, after a series of terrible choices, ended up pregnant by age 16, I said, "Not long ago I heard about her, though my parents have since moved from that neighborhood. She is renting the home she grew up in from her parents who have moved away. She has several children now from at least two different fathers and has been divorced a couple of times. Her unwillingness to keep her thoughts and actions pure has caused her to have a life that is difficult and no doubt, filled with a large measure of sorrow. At what point could she have turned things around?"
There was some discussion about the right time to make good choices, and then one especially perceptive Priest said, "Now!"
"That is right. At any point she wanted to. The Savior’s atonement is real and powerful. At any moment, even now, that she decides her life is not what she wants it to be and she desires to repent, she can begin the long process back toward the light. Any one of you sitting her tonight has the same promise extended. If there is anything in your life that needs changing, do it now! The Lord is waiting to help you overcome your sin and to bless you anew with the power of His Spirit. You just have to take a single step in the right direction. I shared her story because I don't think any dicussion of chastity can be made without reference to repentance."
I then shared a story of one of the most remarkable young men I've ever met, Peter, and shared his conversion story I was pleased to witness during my mission. The central pont was that, "Peter did not have a single thing in his life when we met him that would give him anything the world termed confidence.
"Still, even before joining the church, the strength of Peter’s spirit shone through and he was a young man of integrity. A year or two previous he had made a commitment to himself not to drink or smoke as well as a decision to live the law of chastity. While this may not seem too remarkable to you, growing up in the church and being trained to make these commitments from your early childhood, but to a young man growing up in Australia! Such a commitment outside the church is hardly ever heard of.
"After his baptism, Peter glowed with such a light that he found himself a white shirt and tie at the thrift shop and was out door knocking with our district leader before he had even been a member for a month. Our district leader said that Peter was more bold at the doors than even he and his companion and his strength of spirit and pure testimony had given them teaching opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise had.
"Peter’s journey hasn’t always gone as smoothly as those first several weeks, but he has endured. Just over a year ago, he and his wife were sealed together in the Sydney Temple. Now, if Peter will stay true to the covenants he made both at baptism and in the temple, keeping his thoughts and actions clean before the Lord, then he will be able to be the husband and father that his own dad was not. He will be walk with confidence when confronting any situation because his life is right with the Lord."
I closed with my testimony of the divinity of the soul and the Lord's love for each of us, urging the kids to find out for themselves who they really are and to gain a testimony so that resisting temptation will not be as hard.
I think it went over pretty well. The leaders liked it and the kids are all still speaking to me.
This is excerpted/paraphrased. My original remarks were about 50 minutes long. The theme was from D & C 121:45 "Let Virtue Garnish Thy Thoughts Unceasingly," which is the YM/YW theme for 2007.
I began by showing them pictures of myself in junior high and high school and spoke about trying to reinvent myself every year because I kept thinking that I'd have more confidence if I could just alter aspects of myself that I hated. These were mostly superficial things. Clothes, hair make-up, peer groups, etc. The kids, obviously got a real kick out of my late-eighties, early nineties attire and hair disasters. I'll pick up here:
"And while I was figuring out a lot about myself, there were still things that just didn't seem quite right. There was this boy that I really was crazy about who never saw me as anything more than a friend. I never quite got the grades I really craved. I never was the lead in the play. I never made student office. Even during my senior year, as I learned what I was good at and had lots of friends, I could never quite get rid of my inner turmoil.
"All this time I had attended seminary and church regularly. I knew a lot about the Church. I had felt the spirit many times and even borne my testimony, but I frequently doubted the truth of the gospel and often mistrusted my feelings.
"This is my state of mind when I got to college. And although I was thrilled to move out and be on my own, I was overwhelmed with the number of freshmen girls at my university. They all seemed just like me! I felt kind of adrift and without identity. And for the first time, I was very closely exposed to students who did not keep the commandments, or even pretend to. I
"Then during my freshman year of college, a series of a terrible and unrelated events happened, all of them within just a couple of months of each other." My freshman year was pretty bad--friends having terrible accidents or cancer, a brother with an emergency surgery, an aunt who died of cancer at age 34, leaving behind four young children. . . you get the picture.
"Up to that point, I’d had very few trials and I felt like my life was crashing down around my ears. And for the first time in my life I had to know if the gospel was true. I had to know if families were eternal, or if the whole temple marriage thing was just a nice fairy tale we told ourselves to feel better about death. I had to know that there was a purpose to trial and suffering and difficulty. I had to know there was a reason to keep the commandments and be righteous, when I was surrounded by those who seemed to have a lot more fun by not doing these things.
"So I did the things I’d been taught. I prayed and studied the scriptures. I read stories from the life of the Savior and tried to learn who He was so I could begin to understand what He had done for me, and what He meant to me. I worked hard on being a good daughter and good friend. And then one day, I knew. I still remember the chair I was sitting in and the passage of the book I was reading when it hit me. I knew that Jesus had died for me, a poor, struggling college student who had no idea what terrible thing would happen next to someone I loved. Once this knowledge flooded me, the other pieces of the gospel fell into place and I knew that our trials had purpose and that families were eternal. I didn’t doubt any more, and I began keeping the commandments because I wanted to.
"And I learned one of the most important lessons of my life: confidence does not come from changing your outward appearance or your friends or from always saying the right thing, though the world will tell us this is the exact formula. But this prideful sense of self-esteem is just Satan’s counterfeit for true confidence.
"True confidence is something else entirely. True confidence is trusting the Lord so completely that our testimonies do not falter even when the storms of life beset us. True confidence is having our thoughts so in tune with the Lord that the Spirit is our constant companion in the face of every difficulty, temptation and trial. "
We then discussed the scriptural theme for the year and talked about the terrible circumstances under which Joseph was given this revelation. I told them that I loved this scripture for its built in promise about having confidence. My whole life I'd fought so hard to have confidence, but the formula was there in the scriptures all along. This, incidentally, is the only time in the scriptures that the word "confidence is used."
"True confidence . . . has nothing to do with how we dress or look or act, it has everything to do with how much faith we exercise.
"So though I’ve spent most of our time here tonight focusing on this remarkable promise of confidence in the presence of the Lord, I’d like to take some more time now on the virtue part."
We then discussed the 13th Article of Faith and how it uses the term virtue in two different contexts. "The first time it comes in a list of other good attributes. So our first working definition is that virtue is a particular attribute, a Christlike attribute, that is desirous to have. The second time it is used, it gives the impression that all of these things can be considered virtuous, so that virtue can also be a general category of good things.
"Some years back President Hinckley wrote a book that spent a couple of weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. This book may look familiar to some of you. Now you are probably all too young to have been aware when this came out, but if your parents have a copy of this book, you should read it. The book is called Standing for Something: 10 Neglected Virtues That Will Heal Our Hearts and Homes."
The kids came up with as many virtues as they could. I mentioned that although they were all good, we wanted to emphasize, "chapter three of his book called, 'Making a Case for Morality, in which he uses the words morality, chastity and virtue interchangeably. So while virtue is being generally a good person, virtue is, specifically, keeping the Lord’s law of chastity. Just so there is no question about what this law is, I’m going to quote directly from For the Strength of Youth 'Physical Intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage.'
"I think it is important to point out here that the term “sexual intimacy” is used, which is more encompassing than if just the word “sex” is used. If you have any questions about behaviors and whether or not they are appropriate, you should read the rest of this section as well as the section on chastity in 'True to the Faith." Or talk to your parents and leaders and bishop. And if you are behaving in any way in reference to the opposite sex that even raises a question in your mind of whether or not it is appropriate, then stop what you are doing immediately.
"I want to quote somewhat at length from President Hinckley’s book here. I am also going to have several of you read quotes from his book as well as a talk that was given in October Conference 1998 by Jeffrey R. Holland, which I first heard when my husband and I were dating. I quote liberally from the prophets here because their words, while being plain and unapologetic about our standards, are also filled with love and authority."
The kids read several excerpts which I will not quote here--you really should read both the chapter and the talk in their complete form. EXCELLENT stuff.
"I know it is hard. I know it. About a year before going on my mission, I committed myself to the Lord one night in my prayers, promising that by my 21st birthday I would be ready and worthy to go to the temple—whether to be married or to go on a mission would be up to Him, but I would be ready.
"I was so grateful for my commitment. Just weeks after making this promise, I was tested in this very principle. I came to the moment of decision, and if I had not decided before-hand and made that firm commitment of worthiness to the Lord, I would never have had the strength to make up my mind in that instant. And if I had not made the right decision, I would have regretted it for months, and maybe years after.
"Because it wasn’t marriage that happened for me first; it was a mission. The confidence I took with me on my mission, true confidence based on the Lord’s requirements, was one of my most valuable possessions. Only perfect trust in the Lord could have compelled me to knock on doors, day after day, week after week and share the gospel message. And even after thousands and thousands of rejections, my testimony, my faith and my confidence only grew. I saw an elder on the last day of his mission knock on a door and say with absolute steadiness, 'Sir, I am here on your doorstep because the Lord wants to call you to repentance. Will you listen to our message?' The man did listen. Only perfect purity of heart can give you enough faith to say such a thing to a perfect stranger.
"Now, I know that you are exposed to things so much worse and more shocking than what I was exposed to as a teenager, but I also know--I know--that you were saved to come to earth for this time because you are the very best the Lord has. Many of you sitting in this very room no doubt sat at the knee of our Father in Heaven before you ever came to this earth and solemnly promised to do all in your power to overcome temptation and return to Him. There is nothing the world has to offer that is greater than the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing.
"Satan knows this. And I hate to even bring up his name. I hate to even give him mention in a place that should uplift and edify. But he is so real. He knows you are the best of the best. It is nothing for him to claim a soul that is already on its way down to hell, but if he can claim one of YOU for his own—one of God’s own elite—then he laughs and laughs as he watches you surrender your agency to your passions, as he watches you surrender your body to one who will break your heart and surrender your soul to himself, so he can enslave you.
"I’d like to take a moment to address the boys.
"I’ve never had a teenage son, nor have I been a teenage boy. But I have taught hundreds of middle and high schoolers over the last several years and I have three sons of my own. I think I know a little bit about how boys tick. You hear talks time and time again about the evils of pornography. But even with the repetition, I don’t think the warning can be repeated often enough. There is nothing in our society that will give you a more perverse idea of relationships between men and women. There is nothing that will lead you to objectify and distort the truth about love and intimacy as much as pornography. It will poison your mind and heart and spirit. And if doesn’t even have to be hard pornography found in certain places on the internet. Any television program, song or commercial that treats women as objects to satisfy desire is unworthy of a priesthood holder’s time and attention; even a moment is too much if it seeks to cheapen things that are sacred. If you do date, date in groups. If you date alone, specify a start and ending time to the date. Bring her home early. Whatever you do, PLAN activities for your dates. There is nothing more flattering to a young woman than to know her date has cared enough about her to plan something to do. If you are in a place where your guy and girl friends are doing nothing more than hanging out or, worst case scenario, watching a movie in the dark, then have the courage to be like Joseph of Egypt and FLEE. Have the courage to date girls who are keeping gospel standards, even if it means you may not get a goodnight kiss. Have the courage to tell a young woman who is dressed modestly how pretty she looks and how proud you are to be seen with her.
"Now the boys can tune out while I address the girls.
"You young sisters have more power over the young men than even they will dare admit. If you would one day have strong marriages and worthy priesthood holders leading your families, you must not do anything that would jeopardize the young men you associate with—either the young men you date, or the young men you are friends with—from going on missions. On their missions they will learn the true nature of love and sacrifice; they will return home ready to settle and commit and lead. The way you speak, the way you dress, the way you walk, has a huge influence on any young man in your vicinity. Using your words and your body to tease, tempt and control is the cruelest use of the powerful gifts God has given to you. Do not wear clothes that are so tight your straps underneath can be seen; do not sit on a guy’s lap, even if he is just a friend; do not give back rubs; do not wear dresses that creep up your legs and shirts that creep up your bellies. Try clothes on until you find the ones that fit you properly so they are not too tight or too sloppy. But most of all, do not explain away such behavior. Rationalization is no substitute for quiet dignity and modesty. Nobody should ever have to look at you and wonder if you are LDS.
"And while many of these things, on their own, are not direct violations of the Law of Chastity, I have seen every single one of them lead to things that are.
"In the Book of Mormon, Alma gives some advice to each of his sons before he dies. He says to one of them, 'Bridle all of your passions that you may be filled with love.' The world would have us believe that expressing your passion is the equivalence of expressing your love. But the Lord’s way is the higher way, and he says that expressing our passion is absolutely NOT love: it is keeping our passion under control so that we might have time to learn and develop true Christlike love instead of just giving in to our selfish desires.
"When I knelt across the altar from my husband eight and a half years ago, surrounded by family and friends in that beautiful sealing room in the Logan temple, I knew that we were worthy to be there. I knew that any price I had paid in self control was worth it for that moment and for the eternity we would have together, and the children that would be born to us. On that day, I began to understand what it means to really be 'in love.' I testify to you this day, that keeping your thoughts clean and pure and virtuous is WORTH IT. Whatever sacrifice you think you are making to get your life in order is NOTHING compared to the blessings the Lord is waiting to give to you when you approach him with clean hands and a pure heart.
I concluded by sharing two stories: the first of a girl I had grown up with who allowed herself be led away, and the second of a remarkable young man I taught on my mission.
After sharing the story of the young woman, who, after a series of terrible choices, ended up pregnant by age 16, I said, "Not long ago I heard about her, though my parents have since moved from that neighborhood. She is renting the home she grew up in from her parents who have moved away. She has several children now from at least two different fathers and has been divorced a couple of times. Her unwillingness to keep her thoughts and actions pure has caused her to have a life that is difficult and no doubt, filled with a large measure of sorrow. At what point could she have turned things around?"
There was some discussion about the right time to make good choices, and then one especially perceptive Priest said, "Now!"
"That is right. At any point she wanted to. The Savior’s atonement is real and powerful. At any moment, even now, that she decides her life is not what she wants it to be and she desires to repent, she can begin the long process back toward the light. Any one of you sitting her tonight has the same promise extended. If there is anything in your life that needs changing, do it now! The Lord is waiting to help you overcome your sin and to bless you anew with the power of His Spirit. You just have to take a single step in the right direction. I shared her story because I don't think any dicussion of chastity can be made without reference to repentance."
I then shared a story of one of the most remarkable young men I've ever met, Peter, and shared his conversion story I was pleased to witness during my mission. The central pont was that, "Peter did not have a single thing in his life when we met him that would give him anything the world termed confidence.
"Still, even before joining the church, the strength of Peter’s spirit shone through and he was a young man of integrity. A year or two previous he had made a commitment to himself not to drink or smoke as well as a decision to live the law of chastity. While this may not seem too remarkable to you, growing up in the church and being trained to make these commitments from your early childhood, but to a young man growing up in Australia! Such a commitment outside the church is hardly ever heard of.
"After his baptism, Peter glowed with such a light that he found himself a white shirt and tie at the thrift shop and was out door knocking with our district leader before he had even been a member for a month. Our district leader said that Peter was more bold at the doors than even he and his companion and his strength of spirit and pure testimony had given them teaching opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise had.
"Peter’s journey hasn’t always gone as smoothly as those first several weeks, but he has endured. Just over a year ago, he and his wife were sealed together in the Sydney Temple. Now, if Peter will stay true to the covenants he made both at baptism and in the temple, keeping his thoughts and actions clean before the Lord, then he will be able to be the husband and father that his own dad was not. He will be walk with confidence when confronting any situation because his life is right with the Lord."
I closed with my testimony of the divinity of the soul and the Lord's love for each of us, urging the kids to find out for themselves who they really are and to gain a testimony so that resisting temptation will not be as hard.
I think it went over pretty well. The leaders liked it and the kids are all still speaking to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)