Vort

As I wrote, the point is that I personally think it's a waste of time (at best) to videotape such intimate acts. At worst, it can be harmful, as anecdotal evidence from this very thread illustrates. Just a bad idea all the way around. In the sense of legality, I agree with you. In the sense of "Is this a good thing?", I think it's a foolish, unwise thing, even if both adults consent.

Of course. But what of the case when (for example) the wife simply refuses sex? She doesn't have an infection or anything; the couple engaged in normal sex for a period of some years; and then the wife says, "No more." Or perhaps she agrees to sex once or twice per month, but even then, only in very strict, controlled conditions (and we're not talking "no whips or chains", more like "no light or talking").A sudden change like this might signify some weird psychological disorder. But what if the wife refuses all efforts to treat or otherwise ameliorate the situation? Would you consider this to be a form of sexual abuse? Not being familiar with abuse, I find this an interesting distinction. Why ought physical mistreatment to be considered abusive the first time, but sexual or emotional mistreatment not be considered abusive until an ongoing pattern is established? I know nothing of such things, but am very happy in my ignorance and don't care to be educated on such topics.

Low humidity, not a lot of rain, but it does snow in the winter and I believe they salt the roads. Rust is not generally a huge problem for cars in most of eastern Washington.

I think if you're going to be a student at BYU, you should recognize that you are a de facto representative of the university and its sponsoring organization and comport yourself as such.Why would a BYU student want to go on HBO's "Real Life" or dance in the almost-nude? Perhaps a better way to ask is: Why would someone who goes on HBO's "Real Life" or dances in the almost-nude want to be a BYU student?

Weird Al wishes you a !

A marriage involves give-and-take compromise. Ideally, a couple eventually becomes one and makes decisions together as a team, always. But even this often involves one person giving in to the other. Only in the most unhealthy of relationships will the same person always or usually "win".The problem with using sex as punishment is when one party (typically the wife) gives in on some decision, but then "gets back at" the other party by withholding sex. The person will never say, "I don't want to have sex with you because I don't want you getting any pleasure or satisfaction, seeing as how we're spending the weekend camping like you've been wanting to do for a year instead of spending it at my mother's house so I could go shopping with her." Instead the person will say, "I just don't feel well." The funny thing is, the person's "not feeling well" so often coincides with the times when the partner's way gets chosen that, eventually, the partner figures things out. Again, I am fortunate not to have been in this position, but I have heard many people talk about and dance around this topic, and even come right out and say things sometimes. I am embarrassed and appalled by the idea. In my opinion, this is nothing short of sexual abuse. I would certainly consider it grounds for divorce if the offending spouse did not take positive and drastic steps to change her/his behavior. If nothing else, it is virtual prostitution and should have no part in a marriage.

This is a matter of definition. What does it mean to "know"?For most of my adult life, I was of the school of thought that Latter-day Saints ought to say "I believe" more than "I know". In the last few years, I have had a change of mind and heart on this topic. I think it is more truthful and meaningful in many instances to say "I know", even if your experience did not involve a divine visitation.

I have avoided commenting on this thread because I don't have anything useful to offer the topic. But I'm curious about KrazyKay's comment above. Not sure whether or not I agree with it -- I may -- but I wonder if KrazyKay considers the refusal to engage in sex, or only in extreme and uncommon circumstances (e.g. once a month, lights out, under covers, no talking, five minutes max), to be a form of sexual abuse and thus a legitimate reason for divorce.(Thankfully, I am not in any such position, but I know people, including members of my own extended family, who have been.)

And yet, you don't... This is false. I consistently reply to all your assertions and answer most or all of your questions. In contrast, you refuse to address my assertions, completely ignore my questions, and in addition make things up out of whole cloth and then attribute them to me. Yet you refuse to cite anything I've written that would justify this absurd idea of yours. Why is that? Yet I have implied no such thing. Ever. That is purely your own inference, and of course it is wrong. If you believe that I have implied such a thing, then again, for the thousandth time, cite something I have written that makes such an implication. ***NEWS FLASH***Chouchou brought up screaming and yelling, not Vort. Vort merely asked why she was bringing up screaming and yelling out of thin air, implying that those who disagreed with her were guilty of said screaming and yelling As I recall, the original topic was a news item about elementary school teachers taking their school children to eat at a Hooters restaurant. The question was whether it was inappropriate and whether it merited being national news. I replied "yes" to both questions. No one said anything about screaming and yelling until you brought it up.

So it appears that you, LDSJewess, and Chouchou have reached this conclusion. I'm curious: Why? What have I written that even suggests such a thing? The two other ladies have both confirmed that they have no intention of dialog; they prefer to throw out barbed comments and baseless innuendo.Can you do better than that, GB-UK? Can you actually cite something I have written that suggests that I "base [my] masculinity on getting sexually excited by the female body?" Or is yours merely another baseless, thoughtless, vacuous accusation? Again, please provide some justification from what I have written for such ridiculous assertions.

That's not phat, cat. That's not rad, dad. Dismiss the heads but don't dis the threads. Don't be rude, dude.

I'm not familiar with this song, but it sounds like the kind of thing antiMormons accuse us of...

To be clear: The "snappy comeback" was something I used on an antagonistic stranger who clearly had no real interest in the garment or the LDS religion except to mock them. For relatives, friends, and well-meaning acquaintances, or even sincere strangers, such a response would be out of place. I can see how that would be an encouragement. :) Nah. Just tell him what others have suggested earlier: The garment is a reminder of my covenants and a spiritual protection. Wearing it privately, underneath my clothing, demonstrates my devotion to God and my promises to him.Honestly, if your choice in underwear is the weirdest thing about you that your husband has to put up with, he will consider himself the luckiest man on earth.

Hey, wait! What...why...how...?!?!

I urge you to rethink this, for your own happiness as well as that of your future wife. If you are firmly set on this mindset, then by all means let any future fiancée know that you are marrying her primarily for her uterus and ovaries. No woman should enter a marriage under the delusion that she is loved, only to find that she is nothing more than a baby oven.

Lots of existing threads on this topic. Abridged version: The heat does not "cook out" all the alcohol, unless you cook out all the water at the same time. This is because water and alcohol form an azeotrope. But alcohol is a food substance, present in trace amounts in basically everything containing sugar. The Word of Wisdom warns against "strong drinks", interpreted as "alcoholic drinks" such as beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Many Latter-day Saints are understandably concerned about consuming alcohol used in cooking, but it does not appear to be specifically prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. If the topic is bothering you, read Section 89 and talk with your bishop.

This is the wording typically used to end conversations where one party presents no compelling arguments and doesn't like to consider the other party's arguments. But, okay. I agree to disagree. From a discussion list thread you have figured this out about me? Impressive. Please point to anything I have written that qualifies as a graphic description of the female anatomy and that is degrading. Interesting. Do unqualified and unmerited personal insults count as "agreeing to disagree"? You misunderstand, thinking that I seek to impress you with my machoness or masculinity. You are mistaken. I do not care the least bit whether you or anyone else finds me macho. I do hope my wife thinks I'm sufficiently masculine, but seeing as how she doesn't read this list, nothing I say here will impress her one way or the other. LDSJewess, I'm not trying to be offensive but am completely sincere in asking you: Have you actually read what I have written? Because only the most inattentive or dull reader could possibly interpret what I have written as me being "offended or disgusted by anyone that does not fit into [my] standards of modesty". Thank you for your touching concern about my children. I feel pretty good about their spiritual and social state, though, so you can put your mind at ease. For someone who is so against judging and finding negativity, you strike me as extremely judgmental and negative toward me.

Or that the celestial kingdom is located in Scandinavia.

Seriously? Maybe you're right. A marriage is a living entity, and a marriage contracted in this life is an embryo for a marriage lasting for eternity. What she is doing by leaving the marriage is more akin to the murder of a marriage, something that might have been everlasting but instead will completely cease to exist. Instead of rape, perhaps elective abortion is a more accurate comparison for her crime.

I mostly agree with what you have written, but there is one mistake: This is not correct. Murder was not always punishable by death, and the only fornication so punished was adultery. Non-marital fornication was punishable by forcing the guilty parties to marry (assuming the father of the virgin woman approved; otherwise, the man had to pay the bride price anyway).Why the punishment for fornication should be so much harsher than for adultery is not given us to know.

As long as the garment remains completely covered at all times, I can't imagine that it matters whether it is one piece of clothing or two that covers the whole thing. Why not just ask your RS president or your visiting teachers? If the "cute nightgown" is intended as foreplay with your husband, lose the garment first. It's going away, anyway, until after you're all done. If you just want to wear the nightgown around the house, you might want to consider getting nightgowns that cover everything.

I noticed you answered exactly none of my questions. Hmmm. I wonder why not? What makes you think I forgot about them? Rather, when I say that "Women are like creatures who don't get a thrill from the female body", I am referring to the vast majority, not the 2% of sexual deviants.How is this not obvious? I will not rephrase. But it looks like you consider a normal masculine reaction of thrill to a female body as "being a perv". Is this correct? Can't blame you there. Any guy who ogles a typical, modestly clad woman is acting like a pig.But if we're talking a Chouchou who is wearing that "cute" bikini bra that barely covers the areolae and leaves everything else bare along with the thong bottom that gives that nice camel toe look...well, if you take offense at men staring at your, um, assets, then frankly you're the idiot pig, not them. When you dye your hair bright orange and spike it straight up, don't act surprised or offended when people stare at you. Same theory. How often have you been a man? Sorry, but I am exactly the wrong person to try to impress with a psychology degree of any sort. You might as well have majored in voodoo with a minor in magical incantations. And you know this...how? Before you brought it up, who had said anything about screaming and ranting? If the answer is "no one" (which it is), then why did you bring it up?

Congratulations! Great news!

Yes, that's it. I am stalking you, Chouchou. You're participating on a discussion list, so when someone responds to what you write, that's a sure sign you're being stalked. Oh, yes. I did read that. Let me give an equivalent:"So you raped her -- and I don't mean that to sound like a bad thing, it's really very normal, not a good thing necessarily, but one that, unfortunately, does happen often in the complex world of relationships." This woman is virtually raping her marriage. Your efforts to be neutral and non-judgmental toward her evil, violent action are inappropriate. Exactly. You don't know the rapist personally or exactly what caused him to rape his girlfriend, so it's really not appropriate to condemn that action. Better to be non-judgmental toward such things.

In what way does men getting a thrill from the female body mean or imply that "they aren't respecting it as they should"? I think that getting a thrill from the female body is masculine. Do you disagree? No, it doesn't make me a man, it simply confirms my masculine identity. Women are like creatures who don't get a thrill from the female body. Fascinating. What evidence can you produce that a woman's sexual response differs from a man's primarily due to societal influence? Any? I inferred such from your statement that you "wouldn't freak out over" your children being taken to Hooters, which seemed clearly to imply that anyone who reacted more strongly than you would have been "freaking out". Pray tell, who suggested screaming and ranting at the children, or anyone else?