A couple years ago, I sat in a Relief Society lesson at church about modesty. According to the rumor mill, this lesson was necessitated by the fact that some women in our congregation were dressing immodestly, a most unfortunate reality that was making it difficult for the (all male) leadership to focus on their duties. The lesson was multiple layers of weird. A retired woman drew an outline of a body on the board and marked all the body parts that should be covered. When an outspoken woman raised her hand to speak, I foolishly hoped she would set us straight. She boldly explained, “Look. This is what I used to tell my girls. When you get dressed to go on a date, do ya wanna look like a burger on a paper plate, or do you wanna look like a rare steak on fine china?” She repeated it for effect while numerous women madly jotted down her story. One woman exclaimed, “Oh, Suzy, I just love that! I’m gonna tell that to my girls.”
I was positively flummoxed. While some of my fellow church members were lapping this up, I was scratching my head, thinking: You actually used that line on your daughters? You asked them whether they wanted to be seen as a steak or a burger? I’ve got two girls of my own and the last thing on earth I want them thinking when they get dressed is: what cut of meat does this outfit make me look like? And I sure as hell don’t want my son to look at girls/women as something for him to consume.
It shouldn’t have surprised me, really. I know I’m not the only Mormon who sat through object lessons where virginity was likened to a cupcake or a Snickers bar which, after having been mauled and prodded, was of course totally undesirable and worthless. [Insert eyeroll here. Everyone knows that a Snickers bar is good regardless of the shape it’s in.]
I’m similarly bothered to hear virginity described as a “gift” we give to our future spouses. In Regnerus’s interviews with teenagers, many Evangelical Protestant teens referred to virginity as a gift. Abstinence pledgers speak of their virginity as “the ultimate wedding gift” (p. 95). Curricula for Mormon girls ages 12-18 (not boys) likewise refer to sex as a “gift” to be guarded at all costs.*
Why the discrepancy? I guess it’s only a gift that girls need to worry about guarding. Gifts are meant to be given, though, right? Nobody buys a gift and then just sticks it in a closet (well, I sometimes lose cleverly-hidden gifts at Christmastime, but . . .). Men can just stand with open arms, ready to receive their gifts. I guess it’s up to them whether their meal is served on fine china or paper plates.
I don’t like it. Using the word “gift” bothers me. What do y’all think?:
- Virginity is a gift that one (anyone, but mostly girls) should save to give to a future spouse.
- Teenage girls are either like hamburgers on a paper plate or like a rare steak on fine china.
Does this language work for y’all? Am I straining at gnats? Is it good to tell girls that their virginity is a gift they can one day give to their future spouses? Is there other language we could use that would more accurately communicate what we want teenagers to think about their sexuality? Should we be communicating different messages to our daughters and sons? If so, what are those different messages?
*Note: I searched the Young Women’s and Young Men’s manuals on www.lds.org for the word “gift.” Oddly, only the Young Women have a lesson called “The Sacred Powers of Procreation” in which virginity is likened to a gift. A similar lesson is conspicuously absent in the Young Men’s manuals.
You raise some great questions. I’m still hung up on the reason for your RS lesson on modesty, “some women in our congregation were dressing immodestly, a most unfortunate reality that was making it difficult for the (all male) leadership to focus on their duties.” Shouldn’t a lesson on focusing their attention away from the physical attributes of female members of the congregation have been directed to the high priests? Or how about the possibility of women instead of easily tempted men sitting on the stand?
Course Correction, I’ve had a couple years to let that one roll around in my brain, so the shock value has worn off for me. But yes, it was indeed strange. And creepy.
Even creepier is that the YW all attended. I was squirming in my seat as they discussed how “unfair” it was for the men in the ward when YW/women dressed immodestly. I was thinking: Umm, apparently it’s the MEN here who have the problem–and hoping that no one was (cringe) uncomfortable to see my daughter’s bare legs in a skirt. Ew.
I’ve always hated the idea of “giving” your virginity away and guarding it as a “precious gift”. (The word “precious gift” makes my skin crawl!) First off, it makes it seem like a sacrifice, something you give away. I tend to think more on the lines that healthy sexuality is something that works best when it’s really owned, rather than given away.
The meat analogy is horrendous. When it comes to talks relating to sexuality with teenagers I’m not sure why so many of us fail to just be honest with them. Is it a cultural awkwardness, the idea that these things are private, which keeps us from just talking about sex? This “precious” language isn’t helping.
I remember being a beehive in Young Woman at New Beginnings. One of the leaders was giving a talk about sex and was telling us to save our virginity. I remember my sister and I rolling our eyes in a visceral reaction to her sharing, “Oh girls! There’s nothing like making lurvvv with your husband in front of a fire on a bear-skin rug.” Even a s 12-year old, I just long for someone to get real about sex. Teens can smell through schmaltzy in a New York minute.
Yeah. I don’t like the gift thing. That implies that it’s something you give AWAY and no longer keep. I mean, it’s not a gift if you give it to someone and then say you actually want to keep it. It feels very one-way to me.
I think the gift idea works in the sense that you are offering your future spouse the gift of your righteous choices–and this should be for both boys and girls. I know it was a gift to me that my husband was a virgin and I didn’t have to deal with baggage from past girlfriends; similarly, my virginity gave him the same gift, a pure start. The gift is that we sacrificed for each other the teenage temptations of sex and were free to learn together. A danger I see, however, is building up the “ultimate wedding gift” concept when honeymoon sex for virgins can be frustrating and painful.
The gift thing just really bothers me. I didn’t feel like we were *giving* each other anything–at least not in that arena.
And yes–the “ultimate wedding gift”–wow. One of my college roommates called me before we got married to supposedly offer advice. I remember her saying that if sex was something I had looked forward to my whole life, then I was gonna be pretty disappointed. I was left holding the phone, wondering how to respond: umm, okay, thanks?
I am too creeped out by the rare steak story to even know what to say. Rare steak freaks me out when we are just talking about what to order at a restaurant- I can’t take it as a reference to a teenage girl ‘getting ready for a date.’
If the gift concept were equally applied to the concepts of chastity and morality taught to the young men, then maybe – JUST maybe the whole thing wouldn’t be so offensive.
Yes–the discrepancy is what bothers me the most, although I still don’t like the gift language. And the meat thing, well, that goes without saying.
huldah – I tend not to look at virginity as a pure start, because I just don’t buy into the idea that the first time is the most meaningful, or the most pure. When two people really connect with honest intent, then sex is meaningful. So many good and honest and well-intentioned people have sex in their younger years with someone they don’t end up with, and it doesn’t make sex with their long-term partners less pure, or them contaminated in any way. We learn, we grow, we do better.
The word pure, is loaded for sure – I keep thinking about my many LDS friends growing up who were sexually abused and wondering how hearing sex in this rhetoric framed their view of themselves. I think of my LDS friends who got caught up in a passionate moment that led to sex, only to get back on the LDS track in the future after setting things right. This type of verbiage is something I think it’s important to grow away from.
Okay, ya’ll make some very good points (and Heather, very nice post). What I want to say, though, is that I WANT TO EAT THAT BURGER. Nice picture, by they way. As women, does the food analogy work at any level for y’all. Do you ever think, when you’re getting dressed up for an anniversary dinner or a big date (or whatever), that you’d like your significant other to see you and drool (and then consumer you at the end of the date)? Is this a product of culture or something hardwired into the “mating” relationship or both?
Very funny, Brent. Yes, I want you to consumer me at the end of a date. (Sorry, the typo was funny, though.)
I don’t love the food idea, but the most bothersome part is the double standard. Why would we want to teach our girls that they should think of themselves as offering a gift to men (a man) that he will devour? What about him? Is he thinking he will be devoured as well? No, he’s thinking he’s going to be sitting at the table ordering his meal.
Also, the implication that there are two choices–a rare steak on fine china or a greasy burger on a paper plate? So the greasy burger is supposed to be the trashy option, I guess. ??
Of course from this point of view your sexuality is never really yours. It’s always about what it does or what it gives to someone else.
I don’t have a problem with “parables” in theory so I’m not so much bothered by steak vs hamburgers (but, while on this topic, I’d take a well made burger and fries over some bloody steak, any day… haha).
What has always bothered me is that the church always discusses morality and virtue in terms of what a woman has to offer a man. She shouldn’t be a licked cupcake because no man wants a licked cupcake. She shouldn’t be a hamburger because men prefer steak.
I wish we would stop teaching young girls (and women in Relief Society) that their virtue is external to them — some value placed on them by men. I wish we would start teaching girls/women to behave in a way that protects their mental health and self worth. I have always thought the church’s stance on intimacy outside of marriage is practical. The likelihood that a girl would be lied to, used, abused, or end up pregnant in a bad situation is a lot lower if she refrains from physical intimacy until she is married. (The same goes for the boys too.) Do any of us have friends who carry hurt in their hearts from being misused by someone? Or mental scars from the messy end of a relationship that went too far before they were mature enough to handle such a relationship? Those types of things should be the focus of “chastity lessons.”
The same for silly lessons on modesty in Relief Society.
Teaching females of any age that their worth lies in what men think of them is unfair and, depending upon the girl, can be damaging. Not to mention that it goes completely against the ideas of forgiveness and the worth of souls being great in the sight of God.
@Another Heather, yes, yes, and yes. The food imagery is just gross/creepy. Licked cupcake? Squished Snickers bar? The idea is always that a man would’ve wrought this horrible act upon a woman (and she never has power in the story, or is never seen as possibly doing the devouring herself), thereby rendering her useless. So it also implies that a woman’s worth is tied to her virginity.
@ Brent – oh yea, men are tasty! But, when the analogy comes from within a very patriarchal, sexist religion though – it’s hard not to feel awkwardness, that awkward recognition that we as women within the church are seen as pieces of meat (from women themselves!), something to be given or taken, rather than as whole people participating in that devouring ourselves. If women within the church would view their sexuality in a more whole way, it wouldn’t feel so demeaning.
I remember this story and it still makes me laugh. Maybe we should just treat virginity the same way we do cars. Everyone can agree that new cars are generally worth more than used cars but if you can qualify as an exotic or luxury model, being a highly sought after certified pre-owned model may still be more desirable and valuable than other lesser model new cars. Of course, the truth is that no one quite knows how many people have prodded, used, or test driven a particular car. So I guess we’ll have to find some kind of way to get a virginity carfax report.
What a joke.
Really though, it should require very little thought to realize that the one-sided consumption/ meat grade and presentation analogy for virginity is just ridiculous. Both men and women have virginity to maintain if they so choose. So under the analogy, it would have to be two steaks trying to devour each other, which is just silly and not reflective of reality. Furthermore, even when virginity is gone, that doesn’t mean there is no experience left to be had. On the contrary, it is only once a couple is past that moment that they can really begin to have any good experience with the whole process. The truth is that there is no other biological function which is so intricately and completely tangled up with religion, law, and general societal norms and structure. There are multiple physical, emotional, religious, and legal reasons and implications that demonstrate that waiting to have sex until you are married is the wisest choice. So virginity is what it is and so is the choice you have to make about it.
@Troy (if you come back!), so the story makes you laugh. I know your personality and I know that you let a lot of stuff just roll off your back. I can appreciate that (and probably could use a bit more of that attitude in my own life!). But now that you have kids, does this stuff worry you at all? Do you want your kidlets getting these kinds of messages? What if they don’t have the same easygoing personality as you do? What if they take it to heart?
I’ve often wondered… is the converse of the licked cupcake taught to young men? Are they taught to steer clear of girls who have “lost their virtue”?
I don’t know. Good question. Perhaps some men will weigh in.
I feel like the church does young men and young women a huge disservice by the way it chooses to approach (or selectively ignore) sexuality. I feel like even in a spiritual setting, things can be practical. I don’t drink because I have a bad liver, I don’t consume caffeine because it gives me headaches, and I’ve learned first hand that it is addicting. I waited to have sex because the more people you have sex with, the more likely you are to contract an STI/STD.
I also think it is terribly inappropriate to say women should dress modestly because the men get distracted. It is insulting to the men, and that is NOT why a women should dress modestly. Modesty should be about self-respect, and not because of what other people think.
I couldn’t help noticing your comment up above about the friend’s call right before your wedding…. and was wondering what your response “umm, okay, thanks?” meant (tones are hard to get through on the internet). I remember being rather disappointed the first time, and thinking that it was a terrible idea to have sex on a wedding night. Could we just go for like… first base? Second base maybe? It seems almost unnatural in my mind to (if you’ve been a “good mormon”) jump from innocent kisses to full on sex in one day.
@Jessica @ One Shiny Star, re: my “umm, okay, thanks”? comment. A few reactions:
1. I thought it was sad. She had been married for about a year, if I recall, and obviously was not having a good experience with regard to sexuality. Seems like in 1992, people should have access to books, articles, therapists, etc., so that having very negative sexual experiences shouldn’t be happening.
2. I thought it was funny because sex was NOT something I had looked forward to for my whole life. That idea seemed really strange to me.
3. It was also weird because she seemed to be calling to offer advice/help, but instead ended up revealing that her experiences had been so bad . . . so it really wasn’t helpful at all–just weird/awkward.
I guess I should just be thankful that the only “advice” I received was “As long as you and your husband are happy, no one has any business knowing what goes on in your bedroom.” My husband, who had joined the church later in his life, had slept with people before – which I’m kind of thankful for. He was terribly sweet and understanding, and there was no pressure on me to make our wedding night “the best night ever.”
I think I might have tried to offer similar advice though. I don’t know many people who thought sex was amazing the first time… just like anything.. it takes practice. lol.
The idea that virginity is a woman’s greatest wedding gift is a relic of human anthropological history, especially from those parts of the world where land was short and agriculture was intensive (Middle East, China, etc).
It is simply a tragedy for an entire culture of women to continue to feel this way. I am SO grateful that when I marry, I will be marrying someone who believes that my greatest treasures come from my mind and my heart (though, sex is an added bonus for both parties). My greatest gifts to him will be my love, my compassion, my mind, and my whole-hearted committment.
Yes–when I read/hear this stuff, it reminds me of checking for blood on the sheets for evidence of an intact hymen. But this is 2011!!
And yes, it is a tragedy.
I guess even more than the sex bit, the whole idea of giving your spouse a gift upon marriage seems odd to me. Looking BACK, after 18 years, I can see that there have been times when one of us has given the other the gift of understanding, time, sacrifice, opportunities, etc., but it still feels very much a mutual process. That feels different than giving (or receiving) a gift.
Yeah, this was my thought as well. The double standard is present because men are wired by evolution to try to control women’s sexual behavior so they can avoid cuckoldry–investing in children that aren’t theirs. So men prize women’s virginity, but aren’t so much concerned with their own. I read a book once called Virgin: The Untouched History that pointed out that even though we now extend the word “virgin” and the idea of virginity to men, historically it was typically applied only to women (since only controlling women’s sexuality was seen as important), and beyond that, only well-off white women.
It’s unfortunate that the Church insists on perpetuating the male-subject/female-object traditions, and the focus on men as consumers of sex and women as producers (in effect).
@ Heather and Another Heather, having grown up in the church, neither cupcakes nor meat were ever mentioned in young men’s. Instead, in simple non-allegorial terms the implication was don’t even look at or think about cupcakes much less lick them until you’re married and while you’re at it, leave your own meat alone. So in short, for young men the counsel is simply to control yourself and for young women, the counsel is to preserve and defend yourself when the counsel to the young men inevitably fails.
@TroyM: The young women have lesson after lesson about picking a good man who honors his priesthood to marry. Do young men receive counsel to choose good girls? It struck me that maybe the message wasn’t that explicit and/or discussed with purity lessons. But perhaps that lesson is still taught? On the opposite side of that, though, I often wonder if those lessons would make an impact at all? Boys seems to be attracted to who they are retracted to, regardless of who they’re told to like. heh.
Oh, the legendary food analogies. My issue tends to be that it doesn’t really take into account repentance. So someone licked your cupcake (to expound upon the analogy… ) doesn’t the atonement repair that?
Also, I’m not a fan of objectifying women or attributes of women’s sexuallity into food.
The “dress modest for other boys” never sunk in to my 14-year-old awkward self. Boys didn’t like me. But when I started dressing modestly for me, I was able to embrace it more.
I am actually OK with the gift thing. We give all sorts of gifts to our spouses… and I suppose that in a way sex is one of them.
P.S. I put a link to this on my blog – I love it!
Ha! I’m loving the “you licked my cupcake” analogies. I think Gloria from Modern Family actually said something about her cupcakes a couple weeks ago. :)
Yes to minimizing repentance/the atonement. I was reading something years ago about a person who said he had been told, as a teenager, that it would be better for him to come home dead in a coffin than lose his virginity before marriage. I was stunned and went running to my husband to share the crazy thing I had just read.
Imagine my surprise when he told me he had learned the same thing as a teenager. Wow. That is so many layers of crazy, I don’t even know where to begin.
Errr yeah that was pretty widely distributed. I’ve heard that in loads of places. Generally it’s received – it seems to me – in orthodox LDS circles as something like ‘harsh but admirable’. The logic, of course, is that nothing in this life could matter as much as maintaining your ‘purity’. Extreme.
Loads of places? That’s crazy. Completely crazy. What do parents do when a child does have sex before marriage? Hide their heads in shame? Mourn their own stupidity in communicating such an extreme idea to their child?
The food, and the gum, and the flowers, virtue analogies can be quite painful to those abused or raped. Even BYU is not date rape free. And, like that FB comment mentioned, there’s too much of the idea that women are just a piece of meat!
I wonder if the local Church Leaders there ever venture out in public. How do they deal with the women who dress skimpily there? Myself, I’ve rarely seen any women dressing immodestly at Church meetings.
But it was always very open which girls had made mistakes, as if they were being blacklisted. Horrible.
2 different YW have had babies, unmarried, in our Ward over the years. While the fathers of those children were non-members, very little was heard of them. I wonder how often those YW were made “object lessons” in some families in our Ward, yet the boyfriends may have not been blamed.
Corktree: The re-made hymens thing is over the top IMHO. Yes, it’s an issue in some cultures & countries (Japan?), but my wife & i were such “rank amateur” virgins that I could not tell the difference before & after!
@ Another Heather: There are multiple lessons for young men about purity, chastity, and marriage, but the focus is usually not on finding a good virtuous girl or even staying away from unvirtuous ones as much as it is about controling oneself and being a good husband, father, priesthood holder, etc. So to answer your question, I don’t think the “choose a good girl” message is as explicit for young men, (though dating and marrying virtuous, caring, loving, good mother types is certainly discussed on occasion). To answer your other question, my experience has been that prior to looking for marriage material after the mission, most young men don’t really focus on whether the person they date is marriage material. So, more lessons telling young men to date worthy marriage material wouldn’t have much effect. I guess that is why it is fortunate that there are church activities where they can meet young women who are taught to only give them a shot if they are living up to their part of the “being a worthy potential mate” bargain.
Gloria did mention her “cupcakes” and Phil said he was going to faint. LOL! Also, even as a non-meat eater, I’ve gotta admit that the photograph looks pretty sumptuous.
@Laurie – I love your observation that one fly in the soup is the idea that the first time is the best time. What an unrealistic expectation builder. It is completely illogical, especially in the LDS marriage context. It is also illogical in the bear rug in front of a fireplace context. :)
I think that this kind of “most sacred gift ever” approach – whether it comes from Mormons or evangelicals or anyone – is that it takes all of the humor and silliness out of sex. It becomes something with a capital letter, something like Opera or Fine Art or French Cheese that is supposed to be deeply powerful and awe-inspiring.
The gift I would hope to give a future spouse is the sum total of me – my experiences, good and bad, my lessons, my failings, my weaknesses and my strengths. And any gift giving – personality sum totals or sexual favors or whatever – should be more in line with the Gift of the Magi, IMO. As in, he gives her the hair combs as she gives him the watch chain. Mutual exchange.
Perhaps that O. Henry story could generate the next YW/YM metaphor – girls, save your hair and boys, watch the time.
Someone made this comment on my FB page and I loved it:
“Had to read your article to see where you were going with this. Nicely written and I am grateful you aren’t raising your girls to think they are pieces of “meat”(and Stuart for that matter) and if one must be taught this way; open range, grass fed organic cattle with no antibiotics/hormones/chemicals (i.e ammonia treatments) should at least be the standard for comparison. I mean if I am a steak, I want to be hand rubbed aged angus organically grown on a mom and pop farm that actually cares about me ;)” “
I don’t think my husband would complain about having his cupcake licked…..
Regarding the bad analogies (women as steak/burger, men as eater), there was a post a couple of years ago at the Exponent on bad and good object lessons for teaching about chastity. My favorite one that someone brought up was this:
Unlike so many other analogies, it focuses on someone being worth just as much if they’ve been through this or that bad experience as they were before. Interestingly, President Uchtdorf used this analogy in Conference after the discussion at the Exponent.
Great analogy indeed.
I’m willing to bet that saying didn’t come from within Mormon circles but was picked-up elsewhere – such as The Mustang Ranch?
Hey girls, it’s showtime.
Well, those meat comparisons are weird. What if you’re a vegetarian? :)
But really, I’m mostly with everyone else. I think it’s fine to teach/consider virginity a gift, and I don’t think most people will go into the semantics of it to the detail found on here. But to suggest that this is something exclusively women give/have is retarded. I certainly object to how often sexual purity of women is discussed only in terms of how to help the men. Sure, it’s nice to be considerate and not make anyone’s life unnecessarily hard if there is no need, but in the end everyone is responsible for themselves. It’s important to teach youth why certain actions are good for them, as an individual, and their happiness – and not just teach them what to do/not to do to make someone else’s life easier. For women I find this particularly problematic, because you cannot teach young women that their immodest dress affects men by not also teaching them that this IS a way to get men’s attention. All we’re really teaching then is that that’s not how they ought to get the men’s attention.
I remember once in 1979 sitting in a fireside in a california home (when they could still do that). The speakers were a Man and Wife who chose to talk about morality to us teens and pre-teens. I remember the wife advising against certain clothing on girls by using the analogy of “meat laid out for the wolves.” In which case she was very much against girls turning themselves into Meat. I’ve often wondered if she then meant that we 12 year old boys were in fact, Wolves.;}
Down to all food analogies!
Actually, I think my biggest complaint is the double standard that I’ve seen in boys that have lost their virginity versus girls. It always seemed to me that the guys get off a little easier if they slip (because it’s harder for them to wait?) and fewer people seemed to even be aware of certain cases that I knew of where the boy had been the one to go too far. But it was always very open which girls had made mistakes, as if they were being blacklisted. Horrible.
I do think it’s a nice thing for a couple to save that experience for each other, but if it’s in any way a gift (and I don’t like that word either) than it should be mutually given. I think it just has more potential for solidifying that bond between two people. For me, even though it was prior to marriage, I was a virgin with my future husband, but I knew that he was not because it hadn’t been taught to him that it was something to save. He did believe it was for people who loved each other, so he made it part of his early relationships. I understood that in principle, but after I knew what that level of intimacy was, it was hard to imagine him sharing that with other women, even before I knew him. I know that probably speaks to my insecurities at the time, but it’s nice not to have to think about those things in a relationship. So I don’t know how to talk about this with my kids (daughters AND son) without the stupid examples and metaphors, but I do want them to consider it something worth saving. I’ll be working on my own word choices before they ever hear it at church, that’s for sure.
And did anyone see that article about women getting their hymens reattached so that they could be re-virginized for their husbands? And it specifically calls that a gift that they can give as well. Disgusting.
I guess I’m less worried about the “gift” these days. . . and I’m more worried about the numbers of Mormon friends I have who gave their “gift” and are now super depressed and seemingly trapped in loveless marriages.
I would like for my church to teach:
1. You are a woman worthy of being equally yoked. Do not settle, so you can have a temple marriage.
2. Develop yourself through education and learning and travel, have a full life – that can be your gift to yourself.
3. Sex is not a relationship so you shouldn’t choose who to marry because you would like to experience sex. You can have sex safely when you date so that it doesn’t have to be the sole reason for marriage.
4. If you are in a bad marriage – get divorced as soon as possible. If you have experienced abuse, if you husband hits you or emotionally berates you or tries to manipulate you – get out.
5. You can be happy and have a full life . . . even if you haven’t done exactly what the church teaches. It’s a lie that God doesn’t love those who don’t live that one life-style.
I worry a lot about how depressing the church is for women.