Dating question for endowed members

[77convert]

My girlfriend and I have been dating for roughly 8 months. She is an endowed, lifelong member of the church. I am not endowed, having joined the church later in life as a convert. We are both in our 30s.

 

On several occasions, my girlfriend has made the comment that "It's not right to touch each other where garments would be".

 

I certainly understand the need to keep physical intimacy in check outside of marriage and we are quite careful about that.  I'd like to clarify that her comments are in no way reflective of touching of private parts. They apply to situations when her hand touches my back beneath the hem of my t-shirt, or when applying sunscreen at a public beach.

 

As a convert, I can't tell if this is extreme caution against intimacy, or an actual rule pertaining to members who have received their endowment. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

 

[Vort]

"Don't touch where the garment covers" is an old rule of thumb to help return missionaries and others set boundaries for premarital physical affection. The idea is that, in addition to the obvious parts, you really shouldn't be rubbing your girlfriend's thighs or massaging her abdomen. As a rule of thumb, it works well enough, but I personally see nothing wrong with giving a gentle backrub. In any case, to answer your question: It is not any sort of established LDS standard. The bishop is unlikely to be asking about backrubs with your girlfriend. But if she's uncomfortable with it, it's probably best avoided.

 

Might be worth exploring whether your girlfriend is merely super-cautious (which is probably good) or whether she is generally uncomfortable with physical contact (which seems to me very bad).

[omegaseamaster75]

 

As a convert, I can't tell if this is extreme caution against intimacy, or an actual rule pertaining to members who have received their endowment. Can someone shed some light on this for me?

Extreme caution on your girlfriends part, and quite frankly a little weird.  There is no "rule" that says you cannot touch where the garments cover, heck they sell garments that go to your ankles if you want them.

 

Before you take your relationship to the next level (marriage) a frank and open discussion needs to be had about intimacy and boundaries. 

[pam]

Extreme caution on your girlfriends part, and quite frankly a little weird.  There is no "rule" that says you cannot touch where the garments cover, heck they sell garments that go to your ankles if you want them.

 

Before you take your relationship to the next level (marriage) a frank and open discussion needs to be had about intimacy and boundaries. 

 

Certainly not weird.  As Vort explained, it is something that missionaries were taught, heck I was taught as a youth, this same guideline.  It was just to keep us aware of things.  Not that rubbing a back is wrong.

[pkstpaul]

Not weird, but unfortunately a tiny bit extreme. To answer your question, it is not a "rule". Maybe the "swimsuit" model is better than "garment" model. You have to have some intimancy or you aren't likely to progress to marriage. I wouldn't marry if I there were no spark.

 

If you get your endowments, you'll understand it a bit more.

[Leah]

Not weird, but unfortunately a tiny bit extreme. To answer your question, it is not a "rule". Maybe the "swimsuit" model is better than "garment" model. You have to have some intimancy or you aren't likely to progress to marriage. I wouldn't marry if I there were no spark.

 

If you get your endowments, you'll understand it a bit more.

Using your "swimsuit model" touching her to the tops of the thighs would be okey-dokey. Not such a great idea if you are trying to follow the law of chastity.

She has set a limit for herself using garments as the guideline. That still leaves plenty of the body outside those boundaries, so to speak. If the guy can't respect her wish to not be touched by a boyfriend on the bare skin of certain parts of her body, then he need to decide what is more important to him - physical contact with someone he is dating (that she does not wish to have) or respecting his girlfriend.

And, no, the girlfriend setting these particular boundaries does NOT mean she has a "problem" or that the sexual intimacy in a marriage with her is doomed.....as some like to jump to that conclusion.

They are dating. They are not engaged. He's not endowed. Nothing wrong with her being sensible about things. She's an endowed member of the church, not a "try it before you buy it" member of the Kardashian world.

[The Folk Prophet]

heck they sell garments that go to your ankles if you want them.

 

^ this.

 

And, frankly, if you're rubbing each other's ankles in an arousing way, it's still inappropriate even if you aren't using longer garments.

[omegaseamaster75]

Certainly not weird.  As Vort explained, it is something that missionaries were taught, heck I was taught as a youth, this same guideline.  It was just to keep us aware of things.  Not that rubbing a back is wrong.

I was never taught this as a missionary.

[77convert]

I appreciate all the comments. It's helpful to know if this is just a precautionary rule of thumb or something more strict and doctrinal in nature. My personal feeling on the topic is that while the law of chastity is the same for all ages, the guidelines and precuations we adopt to ensure we live those standards can change with age and maturity.

[The Folk Prophet]

I appreciate all the comments. It's helpful to know if this is just a precautionary rule of thumb or something more strict and doctrinal in nature. My personal feeling on the topic is that while the law of chastity is the same for all ages, the guidelines and precuations we adopt to ensure we live those standards can change with age and maturity.

 

Whereas I agree, I would be very, very careful to not use this thinking to excuse or justify anything. It is way too easy to get into trouble. Better to be too strict than to end up making mistakes that you will surely regret deeply.

[Silhouette]

Whereas I agree, I would be very, very careful to not use this thinking to excuse or justify anything. It is way too easy to get into trouble. Better to be too strict than to end up making mistakes that you will surely regret deeply.

Very well said.