Yeah, wow: I've been meaning to comment on this. If you've read the Mopologists for any length of time, you're accustomed to seeing them say stupid things, but sometimes they go so far off the deep end that it's hard to believe. For starters, the poster Chewbarker makes a valid point:
Chewbarker wrote:I would imagine that the sexual mores of our early Mormon leaders would have also been highly objectionable to our modern sensibilities.
Fascinating to ponder.
Which earns him a censorship threat from the blog's proprietor:
DCP wrote:Debatable. But, beyond dispute, irrelevant to the point of my post.
Strike one.
And drum dude already quoted this, but it's worth noting again:
Sam LeFevre wrote:Typically, those that think that sex is just recreation and solely for pleasure, also feel that the unwanted fetus is just a parasite to be gotten rid of.
Fred Kratz objects:
Kratz wrote:I'd love to read the study that confirms your first sentence.
To which DCP replies:
Dan Peterson wrote:You seriously doubt that, FK?
And:
Dan Peterson wrote:I think it intuitively less likely that people who view non-marital sex as merely a recreational activity -- as opposed to those who, whatever their actual practice may be, tend to revere marriage and married sexuality as more or less sacred -- will see abortion as a serious matter.
Prove me wrong.
Fred Kratz wrote:So, given that, are you ok with the blanket "parasite" comment?
Daniel Peterson wrote:If you prefer inconvenience or nuisance or something along those lines, you're certainly free to substitute another such word of similar import.
I think it undeniable that many recreational fornicators and adulterers view conception more or less in that fashion.
If you have evidence to prove me wrong, please produce The Study.
My goodness...."recreational fornicators"? "adulterers"? Where is he getting the notion that having sex outside of marriage automatically means that these folks hate procreation and having babies? Lots and lots of people have conceived out of wedlock, after all, and I can't help but wonder: Who counts as a "recreational fornicator" in his book? Normal people, who aren't married, but who have relationships and happen to have sex, despite not getting married? Are these the alleged "fetus-haters"?
This sounds to me like one of those cases where the Mopologists are angry that others are getting to enjoy the fruits of life in a way that they never will. One of the greatest threads of all time was started by Dean Robbers several years back, and it dealt with a similar theme: Dr. Robbers observed that the Mopologists' tastes are limited by the dictates of the Brethren, and thus, they--the Mopologists--will never understand the pleasures of, e.g., a "modestly priced Bordeaux" paired with a perfectly grilled rack of lamb. Or single-origin coffee, or a hand-rolled Cuban cigar, etc.
But the same can apply to sex as well. If Dr. Peterson, Midgley, Gee and the rest have been 100% observant Latter-day Saints for their whole lives, then that means they were virgins when they got married, and that they've only ever had sex with one partner. And there is a whole laundry list of additional things that they've likely never done, or that they don't really know anything about, including:
--Masturbation. Presumably they've never done it, don't know how to do it, and don't know what it feels like.
--Oral Sex. Again, this was kiboshed by the Brethren years ago. Sure, the prohibition was later "lifted," but do you think these guys are taking any chances?
--Anal sex. In their universe, this is something that only homosexuals do.
--Pornography, including "soft-core" material, such as
Playboy. Instead, the Mopologists apparently have to derive their titillation from things like "J. Lo Pitbull Get a Boner Hot Booty Shaking" videos on Facebook.
--They likely don't know what women's breasts look like, apart from their own wives', and or, perhaps tribal women in (e.g.)
National Geographic, or scenes from R-rated movies, etc. In fact, it's unlikely that they've seen *any* naked bodies in frankly sexual situations. The idea of such a thing is likely totally foreign to them: they don't know anything about it.
--I recall that Dr. Peterson once said that, while he was a bishop overseeing a singles ward, he asked some of his college-aged parishioners if they knew about "coitus interrupts," which struck me as a bit "forward" and gross on his part, but then again, you have to wonder how he heard about the concept in the first place.
Basically, for the Mopologists to claim that they know anything at all about sex is like a person who's only read one book to claim that they know about literature. This really ranks among the more embarrassing things that the Mopologists have done in recent memory.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
