She Said: Giving the P+()rn Talk to the Young Men

Last night the Aaronic priesthood youth were asked to attend a fireside at our ward building. Due to some confusion as to whether it was supposed to be a family or a priesthood-only activity (and my general reluctance to change back in to my dress clothes), Dr. B. took our 14-year-old son to the fireside. I can only thank my lucky stars that I was not in attendance.

Apparently the activity WAS directed toward families, but with an emphasis on the YM. In fact, two of the boys who were not there at the appointed time received phone calls from the Bishop telling them to come down, he was waiting for them, and that the meeting would not start without them. Since I was not there, I will let Dr. B. elaborate on what was said, but I heard enough when they returned home to be extremely concerned about what is being taught to our youth in the name of morality.

The one sound bite which really got my goat, and toward which I would like to direct this blog post was that the audience was told that "anything which causes someone to become aroused is P+()rn." When I heard that this was being said, I sat my husband and my son down as calmly as was then possible and explained my disagreement with this statement. I said that a young man can very easily become aroused. He can become aroused by looking at anything from a girl's big toe to, I don't know, a fence post. He should not feel ashamed of this very natural response.

It is perhaps not fair for me to criticize this particular activity, since I was not there to judge the tenor of the event. But I have attended many such meetings in the Church and I am displeased with the outcome of our interpretation of chastity. Doctrinally, I think that the Mormon Church has a healthy outlook on $exual intimacy within marriage. The Church Handbook of Instructions states:

"...$exual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a means of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife." ("Church Policies," section 18 of the Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [1998], 156).

Another good explanation of the doctrine comes from a talk by Jeffrey R. Holland called Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments. This talk explains that:

...such a total, virtually unbreakable union, such an unyielding commitment between a man and a woman, can only come with the proximity and permanence afforded in a marriage covenant, with the union of all that they possess--their very hearts and minds, all their days and all their dreams. They work together, they cry together, they enjoy Brahms and Beethoven and breakfast together, they sacrifice and save and live together for all the abundance that such a totally intimate life provides such a couple. And the external symbol of that union, the physical manifestation of what is a far deeper spiritual and metaphysical bonding, is the physical blending that is part of--indeed, a most beautiful and gratifying expression of--that larger, more complete union of eternal purpose and promise.

Elder Holland's talk gives sobering but important reasons why the Church stresses the importance of reserving $exual intimacy for marriage. But for some reason, the filtered-down version of chastity that our youth is getting is repressive and restrictive. Bishop and youth leaders: I DO NOT want my son, (or any of my daughters) being taught that the physical expression of love is bad. I don't want them feeling guilty about the natural functions of their bodies. I don't want them to shy away from the nudity in classical art. I don't want $ex to be something they are afraid of. I think great care needs to be taken, in explaining that there can be dangers in p+()rnography or indiscriminate $ex, that these messages are not given inadvertently.

I'm not saying that our youth don't need education, morals, laws, or commandments. But for every caution about p+()rn, for every restraint placed on our exhuberant youth, I would like to see some joyous affirmation of the life-giving powers we hold within our bodies. We are in dire need of some celebration of our hormone-driven physical beings. Let's marvel at the beauty of the human form. Let's acknowledge the excitement and the wonder of arousal.

UPDATE: It has been pointed out to me that the exact statement that was made in the above-referenced fireside was:

"Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings."

This statement comes from the Gospel Topics manual and is available on the website lds.org under Pornography. I understand that our local leaders were using approved materials from the Church in preparing their fireside. However, I do not believe that the change in wording affects any of the points I made in this post.