Thursday, March 08, 2007

A cool photo and what's known as deep shit

Well, I'm in deep shit now. Mickelle took the post down herself. I do not recoil at the thought of someone else knowing vague details about my sex life. Evidently, no one born in Deseret shares my feelings.


Also, on a completely unrelated note, I think this photograph is awesome, and I know my sister will love it.




















* Mickelle is sure to get pissed about this post.

17 comments:

JC said...

Queue Mac sleeping on the couch in 3...2...1...

Emily Fonnesbeck said...

I believe that I am the one you are referring to in your post and I would just like a chance to defend myself. I did hear it from a professor at BYU. His name is Douglas E. Brinley, he is in fact married, and he co-authored a book entitled “Between Husband and Wife”. The last chapter in the book, chapter 15, is called “Drawing the Line”. In that chapter he quotes many general authorities such as President Kimball, President Benson and President Packer. They refer to “unnatural, unholy, and unworthy behavior”. No general authority has ever specifically said what qualifies as unnatural but they do say, “there are some people who have said that behind the bedroom doors anything goes. That is not true and the Lord would not condone it.” (President Kimball). Brother Brinley was the one that said that oral sex, or “blowjobs” as it was referred to on your blog, met the criteria as unnatural. Therefore, you can take that for what it is worth. But I do think it is a mistake to say that the Lord doesn’t care about what happens in your bedroom. The Lord cares about every area of our lives, especially when it comes to sexual relationships.

Thanks for letting me explain myself.

Mac said...

Why would the Lord care about the sexual acts of two consenting married individuals?

Remember that the bretheren you refer to are from a prudish and post-Victorian generation that would have only advocated male prone sex (as was the law, mind you). Garments used to go to the ankles and wrists. Girls couldn't wear pants at BYU. No one could wear shorts. Interracial marriage was illegal. Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. Times change, as do attitudes towards sex.

And when I think of President Kimball's statement, I think of some people acting out fantasies that would be immoral in any circumstance (rape fantasies, etc.).

Now I'm not gonna comment any further to keep myself out of trouble other than to say, I wholly disagree with you. You have no idea what you're missing.

Brady said...

First of all, I hope all this dialogue can be treated with complete respect and no ill will towards those with dissenting ideas on the subject, after all we are all adults.

With that much said I have a few comments to make myself.

I don't think it is a fair comparison to equate African and African-Americans receiving the priesthood to honor code issues at BYU. Times have changed, but I doubt you believe that Lord, in his infinite wisdom, allowed the priesthood to be given to all people because he felt like he needed to become more progressive and change with the times. In the world we live in today, if this was the Lord's disposition the law of chastity and word of wisdom would have been repealed a long time ago.

On the subject of oral sex - in addition to what my wife said (I was in Professor Brinley's class too) - it was mentioned that oral sex mimics a homosexual act and this is another reason why the Lord might care about such practices. Not to mention that I personally feel that it is demoralizing to women as it symbolizes a complete subjugation to a man's will. Furthermore, I believe it breaks the yoke by which a man and women are intended to be equally hooked together as it places the man's desires above the female's.

These are my thoughts on the subject. I hope Mickelle isn't too pissed at you.

thewmes said...

In response to Brady's coment on the deed I totaly agree with him if the husband is forcing or shaming his wife into action, but if this is an act to please her spouse of her own accord I don't think you can say this is "complete subjugation to a man's will". And I think it is well documented this act goes deep in to human history of both hetero and homosexual relationships, and for anyone to say they know what group it started with would be like me saying I know where the ark is. My wife also makes me do things I don't want to like wash the dishes, or change the dirty daiper, law school for that mater, does this qualify as complete subjugation to a woman's will?

And this is just a question, why do teachers at BYU get this elevated status like they are clergy?

Most importabtly if this was a real issue of concern to the church or God I think he would make it known in no uncertain terms. There would be talks about it, it would be in the priesthood hand book and the like.

Finaly, and most importantly I don't even know what this post was about, I just showed up today to see a picture of a cat riding an invisible bike and when I looked at the coments it blew my mind. Pun intended, Pun intended! That's right up top Mac.

Brady said...

Thewmes -

"Complete" subjugation was probably a little dramatic on my part, I was just trying to get my point of view across.

As for BYU professors, certainly the religious professors' teachings at a church sponsored institution are taking in high regard by students who are members of the church itself.

Either way, I think will choose to rely on a religious professor's point of view on this subject over someone who is advocating "Steak and Blowjob Day".

Mac said...

Brady,

Comparing blacks and the priesthood is totally appropriate, as is the comparison with polygamy. The church ended polygamy when the political and legal pressure would have destroyed the church and imprisoned the leaders.

As far as the priesthood and blacks goes, in the early days of the church, blacks were given the priesthood. However, the practice was stopped due to any number of reasons, including crushing social pressure. My mom got in trouble for drinking from a "colored" fountain when she was a child. The church had to adapt to social and cultural situations as well. The decision in 1978 came after it was finally time because the members were okay with it. If you had tried the same thing twenty years previously, there might have been a rift. Also the church was in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status in many places because of this policy. To think that generational and social issues have no effect on policy is naivete.

I could easily counter that homosexual sex mimics heterosexual behavior because they don't have the option of vaginal intercourse, while hetero couples have any number of other options.

And Brady, as far as oral sex being "complete subjugation" to man's desires, oral sex can (and should) go both ways. The "yoke" is maintained when both people engage in whatever behavior they both enjoy and find mutually acceptable.

Also, I'm not "advocating" the Steak and Blowjob Day. The tone of my post was meant to be humorous and to josh you a little.

Brady said...

Mac,

Touche, but we will have to agree to disagree on some of the particulars.

This whole diaglogue has reminded me of the parable of the sowers.

Mac said...

Now Brady, by invoking the parable of the sowers in this conversation, you have brought in a whole new realm of symbolism, which could be very offensive and self-righteous. Therefore, before I respond to your last post, I'll ask you to kindly clarify each of our roles as you see them in the parable.

karie said...

Mac,
You know that I love you and your status as one of the most opinionated people that I know. You also know that I have no personal experience on which to draw on this subject. I came to the site after Mickelle had taken down the post - and I have to say that I am very glad that she did. Somewhere your self-censorship button must have gotten broken. I know that this is your private blog, and when we sign in to read it we are taking a risk. Yet, surely you must agree that there are topics that don't need discussion outside of your marriage. I know (I mean totally, absolutely, no doubt in my mind at all) that you love Mickelle, but sometimes I wonder at the posts you put up knowing that she would be bothered or embarrassed by them.

JC said...

Deep doo-doo eh? Well, good luck on the 14th. MUA HA HA HA!!!

Brady said...

Mac,

I didn't mean to be offensive by mentioning the parable of the sower. We are on lesson 11 in the new testament manuel this week and I have been studying it.

All week I have been pondering what it entails to be "good ground". The manual mentions that the "good ground" symbolizes people who hear the word of God, understand it, and do works of righteousness.

My question is this - What if two people such as you and I are doing our best to hear the word of God, and do works of righteousness, but disagree on a subject such as the one that we have been blogging about?

Let's say I am wrong and you are right. Are you then good ground and I thus become thorny or wayside ground?

Mac said...

Brady,

Let's say that I am right, that there's nothing wrong with oral sex between married folks. The fact that you choose not to engage in it would have no effect on your standing as "good ground" or not, just as it wouldn't matter whether or not you climbed Mount Everest. The real worry then is whether or not it is wrong to do so.

I do not believe it is. If I did, as amazing as it is, I would stop the behavior. However, if it were such a matter of importance, at some point, someone, somewhere, would have told us so. It would be made very clear to us that it was wrong to do so. If the bretheren take the time to rail against pornography, gambling, mastubration, etc. then I don't see why they wouldn't bring up oral sex as being wrong. Having been in a branch presidency for four years, and having the Priesthood for Bishops manual right here with me, I can tell you that there is no mention of oral sex in it at all, other than to clarify that oral sex carries the same weight as regular sex in cases of adultery.

Therefore, absent any priesthood leadership, speaking in an official capacity (not McConkie and Mormon Doctrine type stuff), etc counsel that oral sex is un-natural, I do not see any reason why two married people could not give such a wondrous gift to one another.

As I know you know, but just let me restate it here in case any non-Mormons are wondering about Mormon sexuality, sex is for more than just making babies. If the two of you enjoy it, I see no reason why you could not or should not use your body every mutually-agreeable amd physically possible way to bring you closer together. Basically, I don't see how bringing someone else's prudishness into the bedroom can help you grow spiritually. Guilt and sex, and frustrated desire and curiosity can be killers in a relationship, especially in a spiritual way. Sexual hangups are manifested manifoldly in populations that repress sexuality.

There is a difference between chastity and repressed sexuality. I think porn, pre-martial sex, etc. are wrong, but so too is the taboo against any kind of frank or even a-little-open discussion about sex. All too often amongst Mormons, people freak out (Mickelle included) if any mention of sex and themselves happens.

I know other Mormons that share your opinion and I think it has much to do with hangups, and what has been documented in Mormon female populations as sexual guilt even after marriage (that somehow it's still wrong to copulate even being married).

You made mention that sex is a way to bring two people together under the yoke (conjugal= con- together + jug- root of jung-re to join, yoke)of marriage. I can promise you that a mutually agreeable sexual freedom along with trust, comfort, and a gifted tongue can make that yoke even stronger.

The ground where I've taken root is good. Heavenly Father has seen fit to keep me as a counselor to a branch president for a long time. If what I was doing was offending the spirit in such a way as to make me unworthy or unable to effect my calling, I would've been released by now. I truly believe that.

Generational trends change with the times. Attitudes towards sex have certainly changed. The older I get the more I realize the differences between personal opinion and actual doctrine. Some people take a, and I don't mean to be insulting here, Pharisee-like* stance when it comes to what they can and can't do. Listen to the Spirit on this one. That's how you'll know for sure. I'm confident that if you prayed about it, neither believing nor dis-believing, you'd be thanking me later.

You can't read the parable of the sower so narrowly. Think of the place and time in which it was given. Think of the target audience. Think of its adaptation in the various Gospels. Think of how certain crops grow better in different soils. You can plant a potato in Louisiana and it will grow into a great potato--Idaho isn't the only place where they grow. What I'm saying is that the Lord wants us to be happy. There are many different paths that lead back to Him. If you're on the path, and something you do doesn't move you off the path, why not make the journey more enjoyable. Whistle while you walk. Inside the bonds of matrimony, something that feels so good, without any doctrinal mention of it being wrong, can't be wrong.

It's freakin' awesome.



*A member of a religious party within Judaism between the second cent. B.C. and New Testament times, distinguished by its rigorous interpretation and observance of the written Mosaic law as well as the traditions of the elders.

emily fonnesbeck said...

Mac,

My original post was not meant to change your mind as I am surprised you even remembered the original conversation we had about it. We obviously see differently on this and many other subjects that have come up in the past few days. I think we can agree that both people have to consent to anything done sexually and, obviously, Brady and I don't. Therefore, it would be wrong for us to do so.

With that said, the reason I posted was because I felt attacked. I think we were drawn in the light that we do whatever our "unmarried BYU professors" say, that we are prudes, or "sensitive mormons". I wanted a chance to stick up for myself. I don't think it is fair for you to put other people down to make your point and then to pass it off as "joshing". You could have mentioned that you had a family member that believed oral sex was wrong and continued with your arguments without taking punches at us.

Further, Brady is the most important thing to me in the world. Our relationship, as well as our sexual relationship, is something I hold very dear. For you to imply that our sexual relationship is somehow "frustrated" because we do not engage in oral sex is something I find very offensive. I am sure you can counter that I am being too sensitive and maybe I am. But I reserve the right to be sensitive about something that is our own business and I really regret ever making it anyone else's.

I respect the fact that you feel sex shouldn't be taboo. I don't mind a dialouge about sex. I do mind when accusations are made against us that are totally unfounded.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. I think we all do the best we can here and hope that the Lord smiles on us. We aren't as closed minded as you might think. You have brought up some very good points that Brady and I have discussed. However, what happens between us should stay between us.

Mac said...

Emily,

Alright. The "sensitive Mormon set" is a term I have used ever since Hurricane Katrina when I expressed my outrage at events that included some swearing, and certain people made anonymous posts about how horrible a person I was because I swore and was in a branch presidency. The sensitive mormon set does not refer to you, unless you term yourself as such.

Mickelle has now forbidden me from making any more posts about this. That doesn't change my opinion. I'll agree to really really really disagree.

dj-anakin said...

Times HAVE to change, things MUST progress. Like was said, the GA are old men passed their prime, mostly out of touch with younger generations, just like their grandfathers were when they were young. What was not acceptable can now perfectly acceptable.

What goes on between two consenting adults between closed doors, in my opinion, is kosher. As long as both parties agree, then there is no problem.

As far as God is concerned, I don't think he would be. Like I said, as long as both sides are consenting, and are in love, then it doesn't matter. Not every act of intercourse is to conceive. Humans have the ability to have sex for fun. Part of that fun is making your partner feel good. How can that be bad?

Darla M. Wiese said...

hmmm so I missed the original post, but I've gotten a pretty good idea of what it was about! And Mac, I agree with you. As long as both parties agree, all systems go. I really resent that I was taught sex was shameful and dirty. I think children and young adults can be taught to respect the gift and save it for marriage without degrading it. Girls especially are taught these things about sex and then on our wedding night we're supposed to throw all of that out the window and embrace it as the beautiful wonder that it is? Good luck with that one.

Sex isn't about rules right? That's half the fun- it can be totally different each time! But what does God say and what do conservative church leaders say? There's a difference.