For the men, who would you marry?

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Chances are very good you wouldn't.... stranded on a desert island with only these two choices. It's simply a hypothetical to contrast the two. As Gator mentioned we're all sinners - and Lehi is also correct that these decisions have implications on generations. I'm just curious to see how men think about this. It is very obviously a play on the other thread for the ladies where I've been shocked to discover that the ladies at my last reading unanimously were in favour of the former fornicator and/or adulterer over the porn addict who's been clean presumably for over a year. I just found it shocking and wanted to see how the men would respond. Now clearly it's debatable whether it's a fair comparison to use trashy novels in place of trashy magazines or videos - but it seems to be the way women prefer to indulge in my experience so I chose a problem that is likely as endemic among the ladies as the porn among the men.

Sure. But the only proper answer is neither, in my opinion. It's like asking me to choose between Trump and Hillary. Neither. Period.

[Guest]

@SpiritDragon,

I had trouble with this one.  I first had to get past the nature of the question.  How often are you going to find such individuals?  But once I got past that and recognized it as the hypothetical it is...

We're talking about two who are fully repentant.  What does that mean?  We can repent and still have some tendencies that will lead us back to the path.  If I give up smoking, I can stop smoking for 10 years and still possibly have yearnings for the nicotine buzz.  Am I repentant?  As some say, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.  But such are considered members in good standing.  The Church is a hospital for sinners.

When you're talking about books, as @LiterateParakeet says, there is a wide range.  So, where on the spectrum was her focus?  I'm assuming (to make the comparison fair) that the focus tended towards the 50 shades end of the spectrum.  Now they're making a sequel.  Ugh.

I eventually took the one who slept around as my choice.  The reason is that given nothing more than what was written, I'd have to make assumptions.  A person who slept around but fully repented would be more likely to fully repent and less likelihood of relapse.  But the one who spent a lot of time reading lady-porn (I'll call it) will have a lot of lingering thoughts and ideas in her head.

I'm assuming that the one who slept around didn't find any meaning in it.  How could you with that much sleeping around?  But a person who reads 40 books that indoctrinate to a particular mindset... that's difficult to get out again.

 

[zil]

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Lhei

Is that the French-Canadian version of your name?

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

 Can you realistically lose your temple recommend over romance novels?  Just curious if this actually happens in reality or not.

I hope so. They're nothing but porn for women.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

Is [Lhei] the French-Canadian version of your name?

No, it's the fat-finger version.

Lehi

[SpiritDragon]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@SpiritDragon,

I had trouble with this one.  I first had to get past the nature of the question.  How often are you going to find such individuals?  But once I got past that and recognized it as the hypothetical it is...

We're talking about two who are fully repentant.  What does that mean?  We can repent and still have some tendencies that will lead us back to the path.  If I give up smoking, I can stop smoking for 10 years and still possibly have yearnings for the nicotine buzz.  Am I repentant?  As some say, once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic.  But such are considered members in good standing.  The Church is a hospital for sinners.

When you're talking about books, as @LiterateParakeet says, there is a wide range.  So, where on the spectrum was her focus?  I'm assuming (to make the comparison fair) that the focus tended towards the 50 shades end of the spectrum.  Now they're making a sequel.  Ugh.

I eventually took the one who slept around as my choice.  The reason is that given nothing more than what was written, I'd have to make assumptions.  A person who slept around but fully repented would be more likely to fully repent and less likelihood of relapse.  But the one who spent a lot of time reading lady-porn (I'll call it) will have a lot of lingering thoughts and ideas in her head.

I'm assuming that the one who slept around didn't find any meaning in it.  How could you with that much sleeping around?  But a person who reads 40 books that indoctrinate to a particular mindset... that's difficult to get out again.

 

While I personally would lean strongly toward the romance novel user on account of not worrying about being compared to other "realities" but only fantasies and not worrying about the past literally popping up one day - I can totally appreciate where you're coming from. It does seem plausible that the first choice is more likely addicted to the act than the second although neither is explicitly stated.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Edited July 18, 2016 by SpiritDragon

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sure. But the only proper answer is neither, in my opinion. It's like asking me to choose between Trump and Hillary. Neither. Period.

While it might be the only proper answer for you it is far from the only proper answer for everyone...

The Proper answer for everyone is to pray and seek the Lord's will in the matter...  Because the it was clearly given that they were fully repentant and temple worthy... That means they are currently entitled to all the blessings the Lord offers including marriage to a faithful spouse...  The timing and the person might only be known to the Lord... but if it is you(in the generic everyone sense) its really not a good idea to rebel against him

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

withering height well written but wow, that story is so weird! Loved Moby Dick especially the intro. Not the chapter on white! Still a lot of novels are romance novels and very g rated.

It depends if they have artistic/literary merit or not. Macbeth from Shakespeare is very violent but if you prudishly don't read it because of content-you are the problem. Not Shakespeare. 

Not you meaning Sunday of course 

Edited July 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I'm assuming that the one who slept around didn't find any meaning in it.  How could you with that much sleeping around?  But a person who reads 40 books that indoctrinate to a particular mindset... that's difficult to get out again.

While I understand not everyone that fornicates has a indoctrinated mindset...  The frequency described (a new one about every 3-4 months) strikes me as someone that does have a messed up mindset/indoctrination (male or female).  So to me both types are already there in being messed up.  Of course repentance points to them understanding and resisting this.

And while it might be technically easy for the romance novel user to relapse... someone that has the skills/talent to go through a person every 3-4 months isn't going to find it all that difficult should they choose to resume.

And finally if they do succumb only once...  Both will have set back their repentance... but only one will have escalated to adultery.  

[MrShorty]

A very interesting question, that has echos in my mind to this discussion from some time ago:

My thoughts before I vote:

Initial, before I think too hard about it is that I would much prefer a wife who enjoyed smutty romance novels to a wife who had actually slept around. Perhaps I have an overinflated fear of STD's, but that is the key thing that sticks in my mind. A woman with 10+ previous partners runs some risk (and I admit I am not aware of exactly how much risk) of carrying something.

As I think further, my thoughts go somewhat further. In some of the internet circle I move in (discussions often dealing with sexual disfunctions, frustrations, "good-girl syndrome", and the like), I find many who, rather than choosiing TFP's "neither" attitude who would prefer a wife who dabbles in smut -- just to know that the woman he is marrying is not afraid of her sexuality. Some would even prefer an experienced woman (previously married at least, and a few even want want with multiple previous partners). Most of these men are divorced whose ex was very sexually repressed or who were otherwise very sexually frustrated in their previous marriage.

I don't know how much it matters what form your sexual frustrations and disagreements take, sexual issues are a common issue in marriage (Pres. Kimball even went so far as to blame a majority of divorces on sexual issues). I don't know how significant these two issues are and how much they contribute to normal sexual development or how much they take away from normal sexual development. I have a hard time choosing because the sexual frustrations I deal with are different from those described in the comments, and I don't know how the two options really contribute to them or could help resolve them (I have seen some good things said about bibliotherapy for low sexual desire. If true, bring on the smutty romance novels).

[SpiritDragon]

4 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think we need to be more clear what we are talking about here. 

The term "romance novels" is a really broad topic.  I mean the movie "You've Got Mail" Is romance that is completely innocent and fun.  I know it's a movie, not a book, but it's more likely to be something everyone here is familiar with than any book I can think of.  So on one end of the spectrum we have books like "You've Got Mail", I would put Twilight closer to the middle, and then far on the other side I would put 50 Shades of Gray.  Note, I haven't read 50 Shades of Gray, but based on what i've read about it,  I never will.  I have seen You've Got Mail and read the Twilight series.  Basically there's :

romance without even a hint of sex....You've Got Mail

romance with hints of sex....Twilight 

romance that is simply a frame for talking about sex and describing it in detail....50 Shades

That's a pretty wide spectrum, especially when 50 Shades of Gray includes BDSM....that can hardly be compared to You've Got Mail.

To me porn is porn and while it also has a wide spectrum, from bad to really, really evil....none of it is innocent.  But not everything is port.  If a guy goes to the swimming pool, and sees girls in their bathing suits, that's innocent and not porn, even if he enjoys seeing women in their bathing suits (that's natural) still innocent in my mind.  I judge Sports Illustrated as a bit inappropriate because it's intent is clearly to tintilate, but still I don't think of it as porn.  In my definition porn is actual nudity.  Then on the far end of the porn spectrum I put things I can't even talk about here . . . (including but not limited to BDSM).  

 

Edited to add: I don't read romance novels, generally, because I'm not interested in "fluff".  I prefer classics, historical fiction, non-fiction...just clarifying that I'm not trying to excuse my personal romance reading.  

I agree that the clarity makes a difference. I did leave it open to interpretation, largely because I felt the other thread was also largely open to interpretation... is a pornographic movie only counting movies rated X or XXX or does it include R movies with lots of skin and sex? Does Titanic count because it has that "artistic" scene - I mean everyone has a different level of what they consider appropriate or not - sometimes people will be deeply involved in something and not think it's all that bad, that's where recognizing what we did was wrong is such an important step in the repentance process. It can be easy to justify things away as not actually pornographic, but it really depends on intent. The guy going to the pool because he wants to swim, but also notices that there are beautiful girls all around without much clothing is certainly different than they guy that goes to the pool to look at the girls and justifies it as just going swimming - only the individual and the lord can know what's truly in the heart. Further the one going to the pool to swim may also find himself struggling to keep his thoughts clean even though that wasn't his original intention... could the same be said of "innocent" romance? I think it really depends on the individual's tendencies. The trick is just like you don't know if you'll be addicted to alcohol until you take your first drink... you can't know if you'll have troubles with other areas either until you're in trouble.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

While I understand not everyone that fornicates has a indoctrinated mindset...  The frequency described (a new one about every 3-4 months) strikes me as someone that does have a messed up mindset/indoctrination (male or female).  So to me both types are already there in being messed up.  Of course repentance points to them understanding and resisting this.

And while it might be technically easy for the romance novel user to relapse... someone that has the skills/talent to go through a person every 3-4 months isn't going to find it all that difficult should they choose to resume.

And finally if they do succumb only once...  Both will have set back their repentance... but only one will have escalated to adultery.  

Yup, I can see that.  I also had to make some more assumptions that led to my position.  But, yes, given more details, either choice would be justified.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

Initial, before I think too hard about it is that I would much prefer a wife who enjoyed smutty romance novels to a wife who had actually slept around. Perhaps I have an overinflated fear of STD's, but that is the key thing that sticks in my mind. A woman with 10+ previous partners runs some risk (and I admit I am not aware of exactly how much risk) of carrying something.

One in three Americans (not American adults--Americans) has, or has had, an STD.  I haven't seen a detailed statistical analysis; but I imagine that once you factor out for non-sexually active children and healthy, monogamous adults--I'll bet any member of the remaining pool of potential sexual partners, probably has better-than-even odds of being infected.

[NeedleinA]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One in three Americans (not American adults--Americans) has, or has had, an STD.  I haven't seen a detailed statistical analysis; but I imagine that once you factor out for non-sexually active children and healthy, monogamous adults--I'll bet any member of the remaining pool of potential sexual partners, probably has better-than-even odds of being infected.

Lovely stats.
This puts all the "Free condom and STD testing" commercials on the Radio each day into a better perspective. 

[Wheats]

Whichever one is better looking. Fully repentant? Good enough for me.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, estradling75 said:

While it might be the only proper answer for you it is far from the only proper answer for everyone...

The Proper answer for everyone is to pray and seek the Lord's will in the matter...  Because the it was clearly given that they were fully repentant and temple worthy... That means they are currently entitled to all the blessings the Lord offers including marriage to a faithful spouse...  The timing and the person might only be known to the Lord... but if it is you(in the generic everyone sense) its really not a good idea to rebel against him

Sure...of course. But as a "general" answer, the "proper" choice is still neither.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

A very interesting question, that has echos in my mind to this discussion from some time ago:

My thoughts before I vote:

Initial, before I think too hard about it is that I would much prefer a wife who enjoyed smutty romance novels to a wife who had actually slept around. Perhaps I have an overinflated fear of STD's, but that is the key thing that sticks in my mind. A woman with 10+ previous partners runs some risk (and I admit I am not aware of exactly how much risk) of carrying something.

As I think further, my thoughts go somewhat further. In some of the internet circle I move in (discussions often dealing with sexual disfunctions, frustrations, "good-girl syndrome", and the like), I find many who, rather than choosiing TFP's "neither" attitude who would prefer a wife who dabbles in smut -- just to know that the woman he is marrying is not afraid of her sexuality. Some would even prefer an experienced woman (previously married at least, and a few even want want with multiple previous partners). Most of these men are divorced whose ex was very sexually repressed or who were otherwise very sexually frustrated in their previous marriage.

I don't know how much it matters what form your sexual frustrations and disagreements take, sexual issues are a common issue in marriage (Pres. Kimball even went so far as to blame a majority of divorces on sexual issues). I don't know how significant these two issues are and how much they contribute to normal sexual development or how much they take away from normal sexual development. I have a hard time choosing because the sexual frustrations I deal with are different from those described in the comments, and I don't know how the two options really contribute to them or could help resolve them (I have seen some good things said about bibliotherapy for low sexual desire. If true, bring on the smutty romance novels).

The answer to marital problems stemming from sexual repression is not dabbling in smut.

[copic_crack]

As a romance author, I find this discussion really, really interesting.

Edited July 19, 2016 by copic_crack

[Blackmarch]

On 7/17/2016 at 5:36 PM, SpiritDragon said:

Assuming you're in love with the ladies in question and all things being equal except for the difference in the poll. Also these differences are clearly mutually exclusive - the one doesn't read escapist smut and the other has never slept around. Please share your perspective and why.

either one. If they have repented I am not their judge. as for the rest of why, that's a story for another day.

[Blackmarch]

On 7/17/2016 at 5:36 PM, SpiritDragon said:

Assuming you're in love with the ladies in question and all things being equal except for the difference in the poll. Also these differences are clearly mutually exclusive - the one doesn't read escapist smut and the other has never slept around. Please share your perspective and why.

either one. If they have repented I am not their judge.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Blackmarch

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I agree that the clarity makes a difference. I did leave it open to interpretation, largely because I felt the other thread was also largely open to interpretation... is a pornographic movie only counting movies rated X or XXX or does it include R movies with lots of skin and sex? Does Titanic count because it has that "artistic" scene - I mean everyone has a different level of what they consider appropriate or not - sometimes people will be deeply involved in something and not think it's all that bad, that's where recognizing what we did was wrong is such an important step in the repentance process. It can be easy to justify things away as not actually pornographic, but it really depends on intent. The guy going to the pool because he wants to swim, but also notices that there are beautiful girls all around without much clothing is certainly different than they guy that goes to the pool to look at the girls and justifies it as just going swimming - only the individual and the lord can know what's truly in the heart. Further the one going to the pool to swim may also find himself struggling to keep his thoughts clean even though that wasn't his original intention... could the same be said of "innocent" romance? I think it really depends on the individual's tendencies. The trick is just like you don't know if you'll be addicted to alcohol until you take your first drink... you can't know if you'll have troubles with other areas either until you're in trouble.

My comment was a general one to all, not just directed at you,    

Good points.  FWIW, when I think of "porn movies" I mean X and above.  I don't have a problem with a guy who goes to the swimming pool because he likes to see girls in their bathing suits, that's normal.  I'm not thrilled about Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, but I don't think it's porn.  I don't mean someone that accidentally stumbled upon porn on the Internet, or someone who struggled with viewing porn for a short time (less than a year, if I had to put a time on it.)  My concern is about X-rated and above movies watched for hours and hours . . . it causes real mental and physical damage. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I agree that the clarity makes a difference. I did leave it open to interpretation, largely because I felt the other thread was also largely open to interpretation... is a pornographic movie only counting movies rated X or XXX or does it include R movies with lots of skin and sex? Does Titanic count because it has that "artistic" scene - I mean everyone has a different level of what they consider appropriate or not - sometimes people will be deeply involved in something and not think it's all that bad, that's where recognizing what we did was wrong is such an important step in the repentance process. It can be easy to justify things away as not actually pornographic, but it really depends on intent. The guy going to the pool because he wants to swim, but also notices that there are beautiful girls all around without much clothing is certainly different than they guy that goes to the pool to look at the girls and justifies it as just going swimming - only the individual and the lord can know what's truly in the heart. Further the one going to the pool to swim may also find himself struggling to keep his thoughts clean even though that wasn't his original intention... could the same be said of "innocent" romance? I think it really depends on the individual's tendencies. The trick is just like you don't know if you'll be addicted to alcohol until you take your first drink... you can't know if you'll have troubles with other areas either until you're in trouble.

My comment was a general one to all, not just directed at you,    

Good points.  FWIW, when I think of "porn movies" I mean X and above.  I don't have a problem with a guy who goes to the swimming pool because he likes to see girls in their bathing suits, that's normal.  I'm not thrilled about Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, but I don't think it's porn.  I don't mean someone that accidentally stumbled upon porn on the Internet, or someone who struggled with viewing porn for a short time (less than a year, if I had to put a time on it.)  My concern is about X-rated and above movies watched for hours and hours . . . it causes real mental and physical damage. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

16 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

I agree that the clarity makes a difference. I did leave it open to interpretation, largely because I felt the other thread was also largely open to interpretation... is a pornographic movie only counting movies rated X or XXX or does it include R movies with lots of skin and sex? Does Titanic count because it has that "artistic" scene - I mean everyone has a different level of what they consider appropriate or not - sometimes people will be deeply involved in something and not think it's all that bad, that's where recognizing what we did was wrong is such an important step in the repentance process. It can be easy to justify things away as not actually pornographic, but it really depends on intent. The guy going to the pool because he wants to swim, but also notices that there are beautiful girls all around without much clothing is certainly different than they guy that goes to the pool to look at the girls and justifies it as just going swimming - only the individual and the lord can know what's truly in the heart. Further the one going to the pool to swim may also find himself struggling to keep his thoughts clean even though that wasn't his original intention... could the same be said of "innocent" romance? I think it really depends on the individual's tendencies. The trick is just like you don't know if you'll be addicted to alcohol until you take your first drink... you can't know if you'll have troubles with other areas either until you're in trouble.

My comment was a general one to all, not just directed at you,    

Good points.  FWIW, when I think of "porn movies" I mean X and above.  I don't have a problem with a guy who goes to the swimming pool because he likes to see girls in their bathing suits, that's normal.  I'm not thrilled about Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, but I don't think it's porn.  I don't mean someone that accidentally stumbled upon porn on the Internet, or someone who struggled with viewing porn for a short time (less than a year, if I had to put a time on it.)  My concern is about X-rated and above movies watched for hours and hours . . . it causes real mental and physical damage. 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

either one. If they have repented I am not their judge. as for the rest of why, that's a story for another day.

Yes, you most certainly are their judge in one, very, very important matter. The whole idea that we are not judges as to whom we marry is almost unfathomable to me. Of course we are supposed to judge who we do and do not marry. That is a different matter than judging whether they are saved or not. And by choosing to marry someone you ARE judging. You're just rendering a different verdict.

[estradling75]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yes, you most certainly are their judge in one, very, very important matter. The whole idea that we are not judges as to whom we marry is almost unfathomable to me. Of course we are supposed to judge who we do and do not marry. That is a different matter than judging whether they are saved or not. And by choosing to marry someone you ARE judging. You're just rendering a different verdict.

He is not the judge of them... which is 100 percent correct...  He is 100 percent the judge of if he wants to deal with the conquences that will affect her and him (if he marries them) due to her past.

If he is 100 percent on board with dealing with either one then it is simply not a factor...(I would just hope he has is eyes open to what they could be)

If someone is 100 percent against dealing with either then they should choose neither. 

God will respect our agency in either case...  But he strongly councils us to talk with him about decisions we make, because sometime his will is quite a bit different from ours