Sunday in Outer Blogness: Women’s Edition!

I hope everyone enjoyed International Women’s Day, a.k.a. “Why isn’t there an International Men’s Day? — oops there is!” Day. There was an international strike (A Day Without a Woman), and we just got around to celebrating here in Zürich this past weekend with another Women’s March.

The Women’s March in January was a profound experience for its LDS participants — just listen to this podcast about it. Also a great learning opportunity for the kids.

While we’re celebrating the 175th anniversary of the Relief Society, let’s not forget that it is a women’s organization that not only has no control over its own budget, but also doesn’t allow women to choose the leaders at any level or even hold a meeting without male supervision, as we’re reminded by the lady infants. And as cool as it is that there’s finally a book of 185 years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women, Geez, what kind of a baby step is that…? Maybe some are finally starting to get bored of white men and of the messages LDS women have been taught.

The biggest Mormon news shocker for me was that apparently LDS General Authority Dallin Oaks made some veiled criticisms of Trump in a recent devotional. (It’s about time, considering) The Zion Moat is still hanging around the news cycle a bit though, for laughs.

Remember that leaked document with that graphic about things leading people to leave the church? Well if you saw it and were wondering (like me!) “Who is Robert Norman?” your answer is here! Also Sam Young found an additional group of enemies of the church that the graphic somehow missed. Also Jack Naneek posted a new funny version.

In scripture study, Alex has just gotten to some really racist parts of the Book of Mormon.

In life journeys Joseph Broom has recounted more scenes from his gay adolescence and from his mission — and he’s not the only one sharing mission memories. Craig is saying goodbye to a friend, and the policy that Mormon funerals need to be about the atonement has traumatized some mourners, as recounted by the Infants.

In books, Dani Addante reviewed The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, Lalove Foster reviewed Hearts of the Fathers, Greg Kofford Books has been publishing publishing a series of nineteenth-century novels with Mormon villains, and Alex posted a short story!

In not-Mormon-related, Dad’s Primal Scream posted about some favorite shows and I posted the last two of my puppet shows from when I was in college.

And now for some fun! Time for some memes! Plus those wacky Utah baby names! And Mormon deepities! And it turns out that the chicken dance has a sinister back-story

Folks, sorry I skipped last week and got this one out a day late! (Did anyone notice?) I’ve been thinking of writing a series on my analysis of the CoJCoL-dS and its strategies — but since I have limited free time, I might do that every other week while doing SiOB on the alternate weeks. We’ll see!

The 8 things I’d like to ask

I know…I have resigned my membership. So why do I care about the new Mormon church policy update that impacts LGBT Mormons? Why bother stressing about it if I don’t even belong or believe?

Because this was my faith community for 46 years. Because it was how I was raised. Because I have active believing children (and now grandchildren), parents, a sister, extended family and friends that do continue to believe and participate. Because the Mormon church continues to impact those relationships. I have a gay brother whose married to a wonderful man and they’ve been together for a lot of years. During my faith transition, I reached out and made many friends online and became aware of their struggles and pain. I’m a Mama Dragon, even if I don’t have any gay children myself, because LGBT issues have impacted my life. I’ve received private messages over the past couple of years about what it means to be gay in the Mormon church. I have listened to stories of unimaginable pain and anguish. And the most basic reason is because I’m human and I care about people.

So I’ve examined this policy, as currently written (with no clarification issued yet), and engaged in a lot of discussions. While doing this, I’ve compiled a list of questions – questions that the video the church released with Elder Christofferson left unanswered. Here they are:

#1 – Since the primary reason for the policy given by Elder Christofferson was to protect the children from mixed messages, how does this policy accomplish that when it only bans them from saving ordinances while allowing/encouraging them to attend church? If this is the primary concern, why not ban them from attending our church services all-together until they’re 18? How does the church reconcile the mixed messaging happening for children in other families that are living in situations where parents are living in ways that don’t align with church doctrines/policies? Like non-members, those engaged in sexual activity outside of marriage, those with addiction issues, those living with partners but unmarried, those that have left the church, apostates, etc. If the church is trying to prevent mixed messaging or family conflict, why aren’t these same rules applicable for all children under age 18? Are they still working on policy updates for those children/families as well? Because there are many children currently participating in the church the hear messages that conflict with what they hear and see at home.

# 2 – Does the church anticipate that the children of gay parents will still attend church with these new rules? Do they hope that grandparents, family members and friends will continue to bring these children to primary, church and youth activities? Will the church be encouraging that? If so, how does the church envision this experience working for both those children and the adults teaching primary/YM/YW? Because the messaging will be the same. And they won’t be able to fully participate in some things (baptism, blessing/passing the sacrament, temple trips, ordinations). Does the church plan on altering the manuals to help teachers and leaders prepare for these situations and how to make the children feel truly involved/included?

# 3 - Since baby blessings are not a saving ordinance, and viewed as a celebration of a child’s birth, and are done for children whose parents are inactive/non-members, why is this different for children with gay parents? The reason given, during the video, was it creates a membership record and starts ward responsibilities for that child. But that happens with other children, as well, whose parents may not even be attending or believe (and living in situations where mixed messaging will happen). Is the church concerned about having the gay couples names on the certificate of blessing? Or in the church system listed as a family unit?  If so, why? Wouldn’t the church want primary/ward leaders and members to reach out to these children, just like they do for inactive families?

# 4 - Why is the church just now enacting these changes when same-sex marriage has been legal in roughly 20 other countries for anywhere between 1 year and more than 10 years? The total church membership in those countries is about 2.5 million. The church has said this is to protect children and families. Was the church concerned about the children and families in these other countries as well? And, if so, why did they wait until marriage laws changed in the U.S. when this is a global church?

# 5 –  How does the church view support of same-sex marriage for members now? In this interview with Elder Christofferson in March 2015, he stated:

“Our approach in all of this, as (Mormon founder) Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate. You can’t compel, you can’t coerce. It has to be persuasion, gentleness and love unfeigned, as the words in the scripture.”
There hasn’t been any litmus test or standard imposed that you couldn’t support that if you want to support it, if that’s your belief and you think it’s right,” Christofferson said after a Jan. 27 news conference.

We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues,” Christofferson said. ” … In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines.

The current policy update states that children with gay parents, in a same-sex marriage, will need to disavow this practice in order to be baptized or serve a mission. Does that mean regular members can support it, but children with gay parents can’t? What about after they are baptized and 18 years old? Or after they return home from their mission? At that point are they allowed to support it like the rest of the members?

# 6 – Now that the church has included same-sex married couples in the definition of apostasy/apostates, are the temple recommend questions going to be altered to reflect this? Especially the question that asks:

“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” 

Does this mean belonging to a group like Mama Dragons is a violation of this? Since they support their children and others that live with their partners or get married? What about parents who support their gay children that are doing this? What about being a member of a LGBT support group that supports these as valid options like Affirmation?

# 7 – We’ve heard rumblings that there will be some clarification or additional training coming forth to help expand on this written policy. If this is the case, and the church was planning on doing this from the start, why didn’t Elder Christofferson mention this during the video? The video was released late the following evening and the media and online discussions had been happening for 24 hours. Many people were upset, confused, surprised and honestly shocked at this update and wording. The church would have been well aware of this by the time they began filming the video. Wouldn’t it have been good timing for the church to reassure the members that further clarifications would be forthcoming? And that the church recognized there were a myriad of individual circumstances that would need to be taken into account? That the church was aware of the pain and anguish this policy was resulting in, and that they would work hard to expand on the language to help local leadership understand how to implement this? The policy change became public on November 5, the video was released on Nov 6, and it is now November 12. There has been no clarification. If the church had these exceptions/clarifications prepared, why is it taking so long to release them? Or is this delay due to not anticipating the need for these?

# 8 – If the church provides additional clarification, and allows exceptions for children who have divorced parents (mixed-orientation marriage), how will these exceptions work? Will it be based on specific percentage requirements for the amount of time they can live in the home of the parent that is cohabiting or in a same-sex marriage? After they turn 18, does this requirement end (say, for instance, a student at BYU that lives with a gay parent during a term break)?

OK so perhaps it was more like 8 groups of questions I’d like to ask!

No Longer Afraid of the F Word

Last year my 20 year old son recommended I read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan. I don’t think I had ever read an explicitly feminist text before that and it was an eye opener. I was surprised by how much the experiences of the women she wrote about resonated with me. Married at age 19, I didn’t complete my college education since my hubby was in school. I was a stay at home full-time mom with four children that had experienced “the problem that has no name.” Learning about some of the early feminists in history that had impacted things that I took for granted was eye opening. I was amazed at their courage and tenacity and the sometimes terrible sacrifices they made. It was also enlightening to learn about the women in early church history and what they were able to do. Some of the well known women’s names were the early church feminist pioneers as they worked to empower women in the church and provide opportunities for them.

During this same period of time I became familiar with the Ordain Women movement and began interacting with some of the participants and supporters online. It took me a while to understand who they were, what they were trying to do, why they felt this was appropriate and their reasons for stretching cultural church boundaries in their methods. I read what they wrote, asked questions, listened and became supportive from a comfortable distance. My family was already trying to navigate a mixed-faith situation after my husband’s and my faith transition; I wasn’t sure I wanted to add anything more to this challenge. I posted, commented, liked and showed support online, but that was as far as I got and I didn’t typically put anything on my personal FB wall.

Their October event came and went and I watched from the sidelines. It was frustrating to see the way they were portrayed and the things being said and written about them. Much of this disturbing stuff came from members! I found myself becoming more and more of an ally as I realized the challenge they were facing and how hard they were working to try express why/what they were doing. In February I finally decided to submit my profile and officially endorse what they were doing and made the plunge into public support. I knew they were planning on asking for tickets in April and really wasn’t sure if I wanted to attend.

Fast forward to Saturday. There I was walking through the rain and hail in a line of supporters headed toward Temple Square. I stood for two hours waiting my turn to speak with Kim Farah, the woman who stood in front of the Tabernacle, whose job it was to tell us that we could not have tickets. As I moved forward I was surprised at the support that people displayed. Several men moved along the line letting us know how much they appreciated what we were doing. One man purchased a bag of new towels and gave them to women who looked cold and wet. Another man stopped to genuinely ask about what we were doing and why. He listened and asked questions and didn’t judge or condemn. Nobody on temple square asked me to leave, gave me instructions of any kind or made it clear in anyway that they wanted me to get out of line. The statement released later in this Deseret News article came as a complete surprise and is disingenuous at best.

When I got closer I wondered what and how I would express myself and why I had driven from Montana to do this. It wasn’t hard to find the words once it was my turn and I shared why this was important to me as a woman, my sadness that leaders were unwilling to actually listen and speak to us like she was doing and my hope that things could change. She asked me questions, told me she cared – that was why she was there – and hugged me. I was surprisingly emotional afterward as I stepped away and found two young women watching the entire scene. They were not members and asked me what we were doing and I explained it to them between wiping my eyes. I described the heartache and difficulty and why so many of these women were trying hard to help change the church that they loved into something healthier.

On my drive home by myself mulling things over for those hours I realized the impact that book my son had recommended had on me. I had just experienced my first true public display at supporting something feminist. It had forced me to step outside my comfort zone and opened me up to criticism and scrutiny. People were now judging my character, motivations and I was being called divisive. Being surrounded by this group of intelligent, articulate, hardworking and savvy women was motivating. Watching them reach out to each other and extend support, empathy, sacrifice and friendship, as they worked to empower and encourage women, was what I felt the vision of Relief Society was about.

I’m no longer afraid of the “F” word…..I’m inspired by it.

My Ordain Women Testimony

The Ordain Women event on Saturday was absolutely wonderful from start to finish.  It was the best Mormon-related thing I have done in ages.

It helped that it was a truly beautiful autumn day, clear and calm, though quite chilly in the shade and downright cold once the sun set.  Salt Lake City was beautiful, so it was just one more reason people were in good spirits.

You can find all sorts of accounts of the event, including something I wrote for Religion Dispatches and this really great Storified account on Exponent II (which includes a great tweet about the infamous garbage truck they parked in front of the door–I hope someone got in trouble for that).  So I don’t feel the need to give another rundown of that sort here.

Things could have turned out very differently.  The church had a number of options.  It could have let us attend the meeting in the Conference Center–not that I ever thought that would really happen. (Though I was the very first person, back in February, to point out that we had to be prepared for that very unlikely contingency.  Before that, everyone worked only from the assumption that we would be turned away.)  They could have let us into the Tabernacle and just had us sit there, out of sight, and then not let us into the Conference Center once the meeting started.  I’m sure there are other things they could have done–apparently the OW planning committee had come up with dozens of possible scenarios.

Once we arrived on Temple Square and were met by Ruth Todd and told, “Nope, you can’t come in,” a lot of people figured we had done all we could.  They were ready to go back to the park and sing more hymns.  Kate Kelly is who said, “No. We’re not done asking.”  She was the one who had us line up and told us, “They’re going to have to turn down each one of us.”

And for whatever reason, perhaps because they were caught off guard, the church let us.

It was…. weird. Shocking. Deeply confusing and utterly intelligible at the same time, this bizarre juxtaposition that caught you off-guard because it was new, but somehow readily recongizable because it mirrored so many other contradictions we were trained to accept.

Many women said that they were surprised at just how much it hurt to be turned away from the priesthood session.  It was strange to see the line get shorter and shorter, to watch woman after woman (and the occasional man) in front of me be turned away, while all these guys just marched right into the Tabernacle.

And yeah, I was surprised at how emotional I was when it was finally my turn.  But part of that emotion was because I felt so empowered.  It was a really big deal to stand there and to force this representative of the church to acknowledge and recognize me on terms I had helped shape.

I looked the smiling, jovial man tasked with turning us all away right in the eye and said, “I have been told that I am physically and spiritually unworthy to attend this meeting, and I am giving you an opportunity to override that immoral and unjust decree.”

He smiled. (He smiled a lot, and it was never a smarny, dismissive smile or a smirk.  He really, truly smiled, for well over an hour.) He told me that he couldn’t imagine who would have said that because I seemed like a lovely person, but that the meeting was only for dudes, so he didn’t have the authority to let me in.

I asked him if he thought that was fair; he said it wasn’t his place to decide.

I told him that Heavenly Father was very disappointed. (I really did.) He just smiled.

I am utterly sincere when I say that I was very impressed that he managed to remain so pleasant after saying NO to well over 100 people. I heard someone say that they overheard him tell someone else that it was one of the most emotionally taxing things he had ever been asked to do in his job.  Not everyone was so good-natured, though: just beyond him stood a grim fellow from Church Protective Operations. (That’s what the church calls its security detail.  Supposedly they planned ahead and had 13 guys, eight of them “under cover,” assigned to monitor Ordain Women. It seems excessive, given that we always said we planned to be well-behaved, but maybe they wanted as many people as were at the Last Supper.)

After that, I walked across the lawn to the bathroom in the Visitors Center because I needed to use it, and I washed my very cold hands for a very long time in very hot water, which felt good, and then I realized how badly I was shaking, and not just from the cold.

I had an hour-long interview with Kate Kelly about a week ago.  She said that she envisioned the Ordain Women action as “a way to assert radical self-respect* and to claim the narrative as our own.”

I figured I knew what she meant: standing up for yourself, claiming your own identity, expressing what you want and how to be treated. It sounded good.

But there was a visceral element I didn’t get at all.  I spent some time yesterday and today trying to process why I felt so different.  And I realized that Kate was right and that the action had radically increased my self-respect.  I felt better, stronger, more connected–in all sorts of ways.

Even though I dropped out of the planning in April because I wasn’t as invested as the women who still go to church, I always planned on participating in the action itself, out of a sense of duty and curiosity and solidarity with my sisters, and because I planned to write about it.  I figured it would be historic and I figured I’d be glad after the fact that I was there. I didn’t expect it to be transformative.  But it was.  It absolutely was.

It was also just fun.  I got to chat with local friends I hadn’t seen in months and catch up with friends from out of town I hadn’t seen in years and meet people I’d interacted with online but never met before in real life.  A couple dozen of us went to dinner and talked, then some of us went to someone’s house and watched and read coverage of the event until the wee hours of the morning.

I am much more hopeful about Mormon women and Ordain Women than I was Saturday morning.  I have nothing but the utmost admiration and respect for Kate Kelly.  She has a vision and a clear sense of how to make it real.  She knows what she’s doing, she is profoundly dedicated and unstintingly generous with her time (I can’t imagine how many interviews she has done in the past three or four weeks), and she has a very pragmatic approach to the spotlight she’s in: she doesn’t seem to mind or crave it–it’s just part of what she has to deal with as part of accomplishing this goal.  This really does seem to be about healthy self-respect and not ego.  That’s remarkable and rare.

I don’t know what’s going to happen next.  I still think it will be at least a couple of decades before women get the priesthood.  But things are possible now that were not possible two and a half days ago (I can’t believe it was only 50-odd hours ago!), and the years until women are ordained will be a lot more interesting from here on out.  This is real activism and it will make things happen.  I can’t wait to see what Ordain Women does next–or how the Church responds.

*

*After the RD piece showed up on Facebook, someone wrote to let me know that I had actually written “serf-respect,” which neither I nor the editor caught when we proofread the piece.  I was mortified and wrote instantly to ask the editor to fix it–that’s one nice thing about writing for the web: you can always edit typos!  Anyway, after slapping my forehead a few times, I realized that serf-respect was a better name for what the church gave me.  Serf-respect is about all the church lets women have.  If they want self-respect, they have to find ways to create and claim it.

the feminists are coming, the feminists are coming!

There’s lots going on at LDS Inc. regarding women.  Obviously the big news is that a woman finally got to say a prayer in conference, which the church is claiming was already on the schedule and had nothing to do with the petitions and letters.  Of course, in her prayer she thanked god for the patriarchal structure of the church, “We are grateful for the restoration of the gospel, and with it the blessings of priesthood power, temple covenants, scriptures, and living apostles and prophets.”  The male leadership can’t let women get too uppity before they slap them down!  I wonder how many versions of that prayer she had to rehearse before the patriarchal octogenarians approved it?!?

On the heels of this milestone comes another concession to women – Mission Leadership Councils.  These sound like nice, token efforts to pretend to include sister missionaries in the leadership of missions, without actually giving the sister missionaries any real authority, influence, or power.  Male missionaries still hold all of the actual positions, they are now just going to let two “sister training leaders” sit in on an occasional meeting with the men who actually have all the authority.  How nice of them…

Some Mormon women have, as was noted in a prior post on MSP, realized that token efforts are just that, token efforts.  They are asking for more – ordination to the priesthood.  Props to them.  I hope they get it, and sooner rather than later.  Alas, that it is all hope, with virtually no confidence that anything will come of their efforts any time soon.

But, again, the patriarchal octogenarians can’t let women get too uppity.  The new young womens leaders announced in conference have all drunk the Kool Aid.  Two are Mormon royalty – a McConkie and a Marriott.  Two had 7 kids; one had 11, for a total of 25 kids between them.  And their primary qualifications – they were good helpers with their husband’s callings.  Of the new president you get this great quote, “She has been a fantastic support for her husband in his responsibilities and is certainly capable of carrying out this important assignment, which, of course, will take her around the world.”  Not only does this illustrate Mormon nepotism, but also the inequality between men and women.  When men are called to positions, their work outside the church is usually described as helping to justify their selection.  When women are called, the emphasis is put on their ability to have kids and support their husbands, though they did at least mention that they all had English degrees.

The Inconvenient Truths about Mormon Lactivism

Recently there has been much talk surrounding a YW leader who is unfortunately threatened of having her temple recommend withdrawn if she does not leave the room or cover herself while breastfeeding at church meetings. (Call to Action – Lactivism)

There are many things wrong with this scenario.  The LDS church is all about the Family, and one would think they would consider the most beneficial options surrounding parenting in their policies and practices to reinforce the “family” way.  We are certainly too uptight about breastfeeding in general in our western society, much less a Mormon one.  The church really doesn’t like being forced, however.  It is a patriarchal authoritarian one and if they feel they are being coerced,  will pull that authoritarian trigger to assert power where they might not normally.  Apparently mitigating factors were omitted from the original petition that would help us determine whether or not this is just a rogue ecclesiastical authority, or if something degraded in the communication between this gal and her ecclesiastical leader that he felt compelled to pull the authoritarian trigger.

Before I explore the nuts and bolts of the topic which has spread like spilt milk across the Mormon social media channels,  I will disclose I rarely breastfed my children in church and when I did, I did it in the nursing room.  I didn’t feel inconvenienced in doing so, in fact I often fled to the nursing room as the perfect excuse to get out of a predicted mundane, repetitive lesson or talk.  I have since left the church for reasons more ancillary to the mundane brain dead aspect and nothing related to feeding my children in a nursing room.  As someone who does not feel the church is ultimately a healthy or authentic belief system, I would be the first to encourage any woman to take her nursing baby and permanently exit the church if she feels strongly enough about the matter.

That said, I have had frustrations trying to engage in a reasonable dialogue about openly breastfeeding in church.  I am a mother of four.  I gave birth to my children naturally and am generally a proponent of all things nature-based.   There are a few main arguments being made in this discussion, however, that must be considered and addressed if the overall point is to be taken seriously.  It is clear there is a bias from lactivists for ignoring certain inconvenient truths about both the biology of the breast and breastfeeding, as well as dismissing clear cultural ramifications along the way.  Ignoring is counterproductive and easily allows anyone with basic knowledge of anatomy to dismiss the argument in its entirety.

Lactivist Assertion One:  Breasts are designed solely to feed the young and any man who looks upon an exposed breast as anything but a pure maternal act is either a pervert or culturally misguided.

Fact one:  Humans are part of the hominid family.  We are the only hominid where the breasts remain swollen at all times.  All other hominids have flat chests, except when lactating.  Furthermore, human hominids walk upright at all times.  As a result of us always being upright and frequently front facing (as opposed to other hominids), humans evolved the permanently swollen breasts as an alternate sexual attractor.  All other hominids use the buttocks as their sexual attractor.  In Desmond Morris’ “The Naked Ape”, he points out the evolutionary design switch of the general shape of the human breasts mirroring the buttocks; rounded with cleavage between them.  The larger the breast, the more closely they resemble the shape of buttocks.  From an evolutionary standpoint, this is the reason why larger breasts tend to be more attractive.  The breasts tend to swell when a woman is ovulating, suggesting fertility.  Additionally, the subconscious part of the male heterosexual mind messages that the larger the breast, the more milk it can produce, thus increasing the survival chance of offspring.

With regards to larger breasts, evolutionary psychology has recently contended men prefer women with larger breasts as it makes it easier for him to judge a woman’s age (and her reproductive value) according to the level of gravitational sag that comes with age (Marlowe,  1998)

INCONVENIENT TRUTH:  Males are designed by nature to find breasts attractive.  To insist they don’t is akin to asking a homosexual to not be attracted to his own gender.  Lactivists may not like this answer, but it is a fact.

 

Lactivist Assertion Two:  The breast is not a sex organ. There is nothing sexual about a mother feeding her baby!(see prolactin’s maternal-inducing traits)

Fact One: Or is it?  They are well connected. If not blatantly sexual,  breasts most assuredly should be viewed as an erogenous zone.   After birth, estrogen and progesterone levels decrease while prolactin and oxytocin levels increase.  Prolactin, which is secreted by the anterior pituitary, stimulates the breasts to produce milk. The prolactin level is very high in the early postpartum period in order to stimulate initial milk production.  Prolactin induces maternal behavior: a lactating mother experiences a form of psychological tension, which can best be described as a feeling or need of always wanting to see and hold her baby (Brewster, 1979).

Oxytocin is the primary connector between the breast and sexual response.  It is secreted by the posterior pituitary, has two major functions in relation to breastfeeding: a) a new mother feels her uterus contract during breastfeeding, and b) it is responsible for the milk ejection reflex during breastfeeding and orgasm. Oxytocin has the opposite psychological impact as prolactin does: It calms the physiological tension induced by prolactin. Consequently, while breastfeeding, the mother will experience a sense of well-being and contentment. The consequences of these hormones are that each time a woman breastfeeds, she derives great pleasure from the experience and contact with her baby. As a result, all or a very great part of her needs for affection are met through breastfeeding even if she is only partially breastfeeding.  This is obviously healthy and normal. However, one result is that the breastfeeding woman will likely have a decreased need to seek out her partner for pleasure and affection (Also referred to as affection anesthesia).

Oxytocin produces striking parallel effects between breastfeeding and coital orgasm:

  • Both stimulate uterine contractions
  • Both cause nipple erection
  • Breast stroking and nipple stimulation occur during both breastfeeding and sexual foreplay
  • Hormonal emotions are aroused by both types of contact in the form of skin changes
  • Milk let-down or milk ejection reflex can be triggered during both

 

According to some researchers, anywhere of 24% – 29% of women can experience orgasm solely as a result from oxytocin released during nipple stimulation. The percentage may increase if the woman has her legs crossed, as the uterine contractions released by the oxytocin can trigger a physiological sexual response.  This is otherwise known as a breast orgasm. Nipple stimulation activates the same region of the brain as clitoral, vaginal and cervical stimulation. (Journal of Sexual Medicine, Volume 8, 2011)

Another clear biological lactation/genital connection is the lack of vaginal lubrication when the breastfeeding mother becomes sexually excited.

INCONVENIENT TRUTH:  The breast is connected to sexuality.  It is simply unreasonable to expect all of humanity to treat it otherwise.

 

Lactivist Assertion Three:  Our culture is uptight and just needs to get over it.  Especially Mormon Culture.

Fact One:  There are three uphill challenges in overcoming breast issues in the church.

1.  Modesty in dress, particularly for females is pervasive in Mormon culture.  A quick search for modesty related information on LDS.org yields 451 results.  This should be a self explanatory challenge for those who are LDS.  Modesty is tied to cleanliness, chastity and purity.  For a cultural environment who emphasizes coverage of shoulders and knees, as well as garments, it should not be surprising they would be less relaxed about having exposed breasts at church.  Regardless of the wholesome reason that may be behind it, exposing a breast for ANY reason is going to fall outside of normal range and the tribe will react as such.

2.  Recent research from University of Westminster, Archives of Sexual Behavior just last month revealed interesting information about the type of man who favors larger breasts.  Researcher’s found that the largest percentage of participants (32.7 percent) rated medium-sized breasts as “most attractive,” followed by large (24.4 percent), very large (19.1 percent), small (15.5 percent) and very small (8.3 percent). However, a preference for large and very large breasts was significantly correlated with overt sexism, benevolent sexism, female objectification and hostile attitudes toward women. This connection was strongest when it came to benevolent sexism [emphasis by Froggie]. In other words, men who tend to idealize “traditional” femininity and perceive women as meek and weak, are also the most likely to prefer big breasts. “It is arguable that benevolently sexist men perceived larger female breasts as attractive because larger breast size on a woman is associated with perceived femininity.”

3. Western culture has made progress regarding breastfeeding.  It does, however, have secondary side effects of pornography, even maternal breast-targeted pornography such as pregnancy or nursing fetishes, that provide a less conducive climate to just simply “understanding and getting over it.”

INCONVENIENT TRUTH:  When you add the aspect of “benevolent sexism” along with the already existing Mormon-centric  puritanical, patriarchal, rigid gender role defined environment, layered with a coating of broader Western culture, this is no small uphill battle.  To quote Sun Tzu, “Know your enemy.”  Trying to leverage the breast as a tool when the tool itself has an enormous amount of already existing stigma may not be the best strategy.  It isn’t a situation that one just wakes up and “gets over.”

Conclusion:  If productive dialogue is to occur with the church on the matter of transitioning the cultural climate to allow for ease of breastfeeding at church,  one must acknowledge the above-listed inconvenient truths and be prepared to include them as part of the discussion.  Not ignore them or be blissifully ignorant of their impact.   A special nod of acknowledgement must be given to the current cultural norms within Mormonism  as well if one wants to effect change on this front.

References:

Komisaruk, Barry R., and Beverly Whipple. “Functional MRI of the brain during orgasm in women.” Annual Review of Sex Research 16 (2005): 62.

Levin, R. J. (2006). The breast/nipple/areola complex and human sexuality. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 21, 237-249.

Marlowe, Frank. “The Nubility Hypothesis.” Human Nature 9.3 (1998): 263-271.

Sex and Breastfeeding:  An Educational Perspective. J Perinat Educ. 1999 Winter; 8(1): 30–40.doi:  10.1624/105812499X86962

Sholty, M. J., Ephross, P. H., Plaut, S. M., Fischman, S. H., Charnas, J. F., & Cody, C. A. (1984). Female orgasmic experience: A subjective study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 13, 155-164.

The Journal of Sexual  Medicine. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02388.x. Surprise finding in response to nipple stimulation Lay summary – CBSnews.com (5 August 2011).

http://LDS.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/sexist-men-big-boobs-breast-size-study_n_2792287.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jill-di-donato/breast-orgasm_b_1871581.html

 

(edited to fix list marker)

LDS Knickers in Knots Over LDS Sisters in Pants

A Facebook group called All Enlisted (as in “we are all enlisted until the conflict is o’er”) states on its about page that

It is intended to be a place of action where active LDS men and women can engage in acts of peaceful resistance to gender inequality in the LDS church. Drawing inspiration from suffragettes and civil rights leaders, we aim to display a respect for personal revelation and community strength as we seek to build Zion, a place where we fully realize and embrace the truth that all are alike unto God.

Accordingly, it created an event for this Sunday called Wear Pants to Church Day.  Peaceful resistance to gender inequality, right?  No one is advocating picketing or throwing stuff. They’re not even suggesting that people stay home!  Show up and worship, teach Primary, take the sacrament. It’s just that if you’re a sister, you might consider doing it in pants. If you’re a dude, maybe you could “show your support by wearing a purple shirt, tie, socks, or ribbon, purple being a color historically associated with the suffrage movement.” Just a small gesture by a Facebook group with fewer than 400 members, most of them in North America if not Utah, right?

NO!  To some members of the church, it’s a harbinger of the end of times.  Seriously: check out this comment, for starters:

I’ll say this, everyone get your food storage and your oxen ready. If this is what is happening in the church, we are officially out of problems and at the top of the pride cycle…… get ready for a crash back to earth

People are quoting the Proclamation on the Family and Gordon Hinckley’s statement on why women don’t have the priesthood and calling to repentance everyone who supports the action.  Typical of the comments is this:

Doctrinal inequality? Why do you belong to a church you don’t believe… I think you need to work on your testimonies…

There even memes: Boromir from the Lord of the Rings saying, “One does not simply wear pants to church” and so forth.  The best response, though, is another Facebook group: Mormons Against Women Wearing Pants to Church.

Though I care very much about gender inequality in the church, I really don’t have much of a dog in the specifics of this particular fight. I hate pants and quit going to church over 20 years ago.  Frankly one of the only things that made the weekly three-hour block of meetings bearable for me was getting super overdressed, wearing cocktails dresses and bejeweled peau de soie pumps.  Were it not for the opportunity to wear clothes too fancy for school or work, I could hardly force myself out the door to attend something as morally and intellectually vacuous as relief society, Sunday school and sacrament meeting.  After I quit going to church, the only things I really missed were singing hymns (“We Are All Enlisted” was always one of my favorites) and my Sunday wardrobe, which I suddenly had nowhere to wear.

But I recognize that there are women who hate wearing skirts as much as I hate wearing pants.  I hate wearing pants so much that I sometimes avoid activities that supposedly require them, like, I don’t know, hockey games. The first hockey game I ever went to, in 1988, I just wore what I had on that day, which was a dress.  I ran into one of my (male) students, who informed me that it’s uncool to wear dresses to hockey games. Whatever. Perhaps there are women who avoid church because they resent the dress code, so why not make them feel like what they wear doesn’t REALLY matter, and people can just deal with their idiosyncratic sartorial tastes?

I also recognize that there are Mormon feminists who find attending church almost as rewarding as I find skipping it.

So I’m supporting this.  I even thought briefly of finding a ward and showing up in pants (I do own a few pair; I just don’t like wearing them) but there’s no reason to go to extremes.  Still, it’s quite a hoot to visit the page and see people acting like this really is the end of the world.

(Note: at the time I publish this, the event has 1,075 people attending. I hope it gathers even more attendees. Can’t wait to see what happens after that.)

 

 

Mormon Moment Series on poetrysansonions.blogspot.com

Ahhhhh! The smell of fresh, juicy, slightly wrong Mormon blog posts. It must be Sunday!

I have been doing a series of posts related to Mormon and Post-Mormon issues that seem to be *hot* this year. With more and more people interested in Mormons, and now the change in rules for when male and female missionaries are allowed to serve, the Bloggernacle keep heating up! So, if you missed the first posts in the series (because I was a slacker and wasn’t cross posting) here is your chance to catch up. If you have been catching them on my blog, you will notice they are a little different. Thanks to Kevin who suggested that I should include the topic of the post in the title, and not jsut which post number it is. Ahhhhh, aren’t friends great for helping you see your blind spots? I am glad I have so many friends looking out for me.

I am using the same introduction for each post, both because I think that it helps keep them uniform, but also so I don’t have to try to come up with 20 ways to say the same thing!

What this series is about:

If you are Mormon, you are probably sick of hearing about the Mormon Moment. There are so many people who are suddenly interested in Mormon culture, and there are lots of Mormon bloggers that are cashing in and sharing their stories. Some of the stories end up being kind of silly, but if you are simply trying to get people to read about what is important to you, the Mormon Moment is one way to draw people in.

I do not want people to think that I don’t respect the bloggers whose posts I am sharing. All of them are good bloggers, and most of them write about Mormon topics all of the time. I have no doubt that they would have shared these thoughts and stories at some point, but as one friend told me the other day, “in the race to the election, bloggers are pushing hard to attract new readers before the Mormon Moment is gone.” So, to help you, I sifted through hundreds of posts to share the ones that I still remember. (This group of posts are nowhere near a complete view of Mormon bloggers. All of the bloggers are either Mormons, post-Mormons, or write about Mormon issues, even when it isn’t election time.)

So, what have you missed?

Mormon Moment Series – Part One – Mormon Mind Control?

Mormon Moment Series – Part Two – Ayn Rand and Quirks in Mormon Culture

Mormon Moment Series – Part Three – Modesty, Perfection and Secrets

Mormon Moment Series – Part Four –Why can’t we seem to say what we mean?

Mormon Moment Series – Part Five –Fasting For Followers!

Mormon Moment Series – Part Six – Who is a Mormon?

While it is not officially part ofmy Mormon Moment Series, please take a minutes and check out this post about Mormons, Masterbation, and the story of a teenager driven to attempt suicide, because of his wet dreams.

But for the Grace of God….

This post is about a teen suicide attempt and some of the actions that led to it. The language is not vulgar, but it is specific. Please read only if, it is emotionally safe for you. A few days ago, I sent an email out to several family members and friends about a post on the Mormon Therapistblog. It deals with a sensitive subject, so please understand that this particular linked post is not g-rated, although it will not include any explicit language either. If you are uncomfortable with discussions about sexuality, masturbation, how to teach adults and children healthy sexual attitudes, or the negative impacts of shame, I suggest you skip this post, and not click onto the linked article.”
You can go here to read the entire post, including the responses from TBMs who are supportive of Mormon Therapist’s view, who also explain how the email about this young man touched their lives, and the lives of their children. This is a bold stand from all sides, as Mormon Therapist boldly proclaims, “Masturbation is not sinful behavior in of itself nor is it a transgression.”
We live in a time of great turmoil, and out youth especially need to love and support to deal with a variety of challenges. From masturbation to Coke, homosexuality to the age of sister missionaries, the church is changing or softening on a number of important issues. I believe that we need to support those who are members of the church, who continually ask questions and look for answers. I also believe that current and former members need to find common ground, in as many areas as they can, and work together on those shared goals. Almost every post-Mormon still has family or friends who are members of the church. Almost every member of the church knows someone who has left, been kicked out, or is inactive. While there are very real hurts on all sides, I believe that coming together and being the chance we want to see in our own lives, the lives of our family members, and in the lives of all of the children we love, can make that change a reality.
Whether you are celebrating General Conference today, or are in mourning because of it, there are always ways to find a little common ground, a little place of friendship, a little piece of shared light. We do not have to change our minds about our belief or lack thereof. What we can do is put the first brick into creating a bridge, that will help span the gap between us, and the children and youth who need to know that it gets better, no matter what your sexual orientation or habits!

One last link. If you have a talent to share, leave a comment, and you could be the lucky winner of a pair of pearl stud earrings!

a couple articles I noted this week…

Some good pieces out this week focusing on gender in the Church.

(For a classic lengthy article on Mormon masculinity, check out this old Sunstone article from 1992.)

This piece is neat:

A couple passages from the interview stuck out for me —

My gut told me differently: […] if I kept [my sons] around Belmont, they would leave the Church because this group made them feel unusual. There were times when I would ask the congregations Boy Scout troop leader how my boys were doing, and he would say pretty good, considering. And I would ask, Considering what? and he said, Considering they dont have a father. This was in the 1980s.

This hit close to home for me. I remember feeling uncomfortable as a kid in the 1990s Church when elders would tell me to “look after my mother” and how I was “the man of the family” when I attended church with just my mother and my little sister. It’s so true… the idealized gender dynamics can really make kids feel like their family is broken if their family doesn’t match up to the ideal. The funny thing was, my parents were actually still married at the time; my father simply wasn’t interested in Mormonism. Either the elders didn’t know that, which I’m sure they did, or they were trying to plant seeds in me that my father was like some kind of parasite — for if he wasn’t “the man of the family,” then what was he?

Sister Dushku, youre right. He [Romney] treats women from outside [of Mormonism] wonderfully and with such respect. Women from the New York Times and businesses in Boston come, and he is the most respectful and relaxed person. He says hi to us but we are so clearly on the sidelines. Were not criticizing him, and we still support him, but we do think of you when it happens.

I had asked in a previous post whether Romney was capable of choosing a female VP. My answer was no — a Mormon man would not invite a woman into that powerful of a position. A commenter disagreed with me, stating that Romney has shown himself to work well with powerful women when he was governor.

It seems that there is a balancing act performed by powerful Mormon men with regards to their treatment of non-Mormon women versus Mormon women. Choosing a female VP would have brought this tension to the forefront, I think, maybe even for the Church as a whole — but I don’t see Romney being the kind of person to push that envelope. He just seems to be embodying the gendered tension his church has with America at large. Ann Romney, too…goodness, did anyone watch her RNC speech? It was uncomfortable to watch.