Juanita Brooks and Fawn Brodie: views on sex

[MikeWaters]

An interesting similarity between the two:

They both did not care for sex.

It's been long enough that I cant remember the details in the Brodie biography, but Newhurst says essentially that she was frigid.

In the Brooks bio, there is an entry recorded in her diary, soon after her second marriage about how awful sex is, that at most there is but a few seconds of excitement.

At least in the case of Brooks, part of her dislike may have been associated with pregnancy. Her second pregnancy with Will Brooks seems to have come as a surprise and disappointment at the time. No sex = no pregnancy.

In both cases, it can be argued that the women were somewhat removed from the expected social norms, and as such, in some way, they have been removed from their own bodies, their own physical experience. Maybe as they were outsiders to societal expectations, they were also outsiders to themselves.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Maybe as they were outsiders to societal expectations, they were also outsiders to themselves.

Wouldn't the argument be the opposite? If they were independent enough to take themselves outside of societal expectations, which reflects a confident sense of self, then wouldn't they be more in touch with themselves, including sexually? You know, maybe they just didn't have good lovers with whom they jived, or maybe their intellecutal pursuits were the recipients of most of their passion -- the thrill of the written product, of breaking new ground, of intellectual satisfaction, was their pleasure, their thrill, and they had less need for sex.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

Wouldn't the argument be the opposite? If they were independent enough to take themselves outside of societal expectations, which reflects a confident sense of self, then wouldn't they be more in touch with themselves, including sexually? You know, maybe they just didn't have good lovers with whom they jived, or maybe their intellecutal pursuits were the recipients of most of their passion -- the thrill of the written product, of breaking new ground, of intellectual satisfaction, was their pleasure, their thrill, and they had less need for sex.

who knows.

but the fact that the two most important LDS woman historians were both frigid is interesting. Or maybe it was that most LDS women at the time (and perhaps today) were frigid.

I don't know.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

who knows.

but the fact that the two most important LDS woman historians were both frigid is interesting. Or maybe it was that most LDS women at the time (and perhaps today) were frigid.

I don't know.

It wouldn't surprise me of LDS female awareness of sexuality is only a recent phenomenon. With the suppression of discussion on the subject and the lack of information in LDS culture, would it surprise you that their experiences may have been more commonplace than we'd like to admit?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It wouldn't surprise me of LDS female awareness of sexuality is only a recent phenomenon. With the suppression of discussion on the subject and the lack of information in LDS culture, would it surprise you that their experiences may have been more commonplace than we'd like to admit?

So given the high reproductive rates in the LDS church, does that mean that men are just more inspired as to when to make their rarely-accepted move?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So given the high reproductive rates in the LDS church, does that mean that men are just more inspired as to when to make their rarely-accepted move?

You're assuming the women could say "no" back then. It's not that men want it any more now than they did back then. The point is that women now enjoy it more.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

So given the high reproductive rates in the LDS church, does that mean that men are just more inspired as to when to make their rarely-accepted move?

I suspect, given the male authoritarian dominated culture, that women's moods probably didn't matter much. It reminds me of an old book on sexuality published in England, probably during the 19th Century, where a daughter was complaining about how horrible sex was to her mother, to which her mother replied, "I know darling, but you must do it for England."

From reading some journals of LDS families, it sounds as if many of the marriage were loveless, joyless divisions of labor and nothing else. Maybe men got their jollies but women were treated as chattel.

[ute4ever]

That's too bad because having sex for 101 straight days is a great way to revive a relationship.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

That's too bad because having sex for 101 straight days is a great way to revive a relationship.

That's too brief.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That's too brief.

That's what she said.