Here's a very sensitive subject - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Archaea · 08-15-2005, 05:26 PM

one which I probably shouldn't breach, but what the heck, I will.

Does anybody else remember the 1982 policy statement against oral sex?

Those of you who do, do you remember if there was an equal memo rescinding it? It seems there must have been because I heard from stake leadership a change in view.

What seems odd is a couple of things.

First why is oral stimulation of a woman "unnatural"? The reason this perplexes me is, is it shouldn't be unnatural to kiss boobs, legs and what not.

However, oral stimulation is necessary for many woman, in fact most woman to climax. So what makes it unnatural, if it's done consensual and to please the woman.

It seems more like a vestige of culture than a determination of "unnaturalness".

The Church seemed to abandon that position almost as soon as it was released.

Anybody have more information on that?

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:31 PM

Hmm, never heard of it.

Archaea · 08-15-2005, 05:34 PM

"Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord. All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it."
- Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church - Including Gordon B. Hinckley, January 5th, 1982

fusnik11 · 08-15-2005, 05:34 PM

i dont know much about what you posted but i do know that there is a large group of women, men, leaders in the church who look down on oral sex...

what did the memo entail?

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:35 PM

Was this read over the pulpit? Press release? How did they get this info out? Direction to Bishops?

Are you sure it wasn't a letter specifically directed to one person (you)?

I can't imagine them reading it over the pulpit. I would have probably giggled.

Archaea · 08-15-2005, 05:38 PM

it was given to leaders as guidance for them in interviewing leaders.

I really wish I could understand its origins because analytically it makes no sense.

The only thing I can imagine is some husbands "forcing" wives to go down on them. Then it would be demeaning and not loving. So they took a WoW approach of banning it temporarily for the weakest of the Saints.

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:41 PM

that would be unbelievably weird to be called in by a gen. authority or stake president and be asked if I did that.

I think they might ask something like "is there anything between you and your wife that is demeaning or degrading?"

I could see how for some people the act may be exactly that, and for others it would be perfectly lovingly appropriate. That's my opinion anyway.

fusnik11 · 08-15-2005, 05:42 PM

that in dating i ask girls if they are ok with oral stimulation?

i dont see the unnatural, or unholy aspect of it, but my opinion is pretty stupid since im not married....

SoCalCoug · 08-15-2005, 05:42 PM

I have had two Bishops (at BYU) specifically asked the question about oral sex. Their reply is that it is between the husband and wife to determine if that is appropriate for them.

Archaea · 08-15-2005, 05:43 PM

asked about it.

So I quit asking.

However, at our ages, any sex will do.

08-15-2005, 05:26 PM	#1
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Here's a very sensitive subject one which I probably shouldn't breach, but what the heck, I will. Does anybody else remember the 1982 policy statement against oral sex? Those of you who do, do you remember if there was an equal memo rescinding it? It seems there must have been because I heard from stake leadership a change in view. What seems odd is a couple of things. First why is oral stimulation of a woman "unnatural"? The reason this perplexes me is, is it shouldn't be unnatural to kiss boobs, legs and what not. However, oral stimulation is necessary for many woman, in fact most woman to climax. So what makes it unnatural, if it's done consensual and to please the woman. It seems more like a vestige of culture than a determination of "unnaturalness". The Church seemed to abandon that position almost as soon as it was released. Anybody have more information on that?

08-15-2005, 05:34 PM	#3
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Here it is "Married persons should understand that if in their marital relations they are guilty of unnatural, impure, or unholy practices, they should not enter the temple unless and until they repent and discontinue any such practices. Husbands and wives who are aware of these requirements can determine by themselves their standing before the Lord. All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church to put their lives in order before exercising the privilege of entering a house of the Lord. The First Presidency [including Gordon B. Hinckley] has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice. If a person is engaged in a practice which troubles him enough to ask about it, he should discontinue it." - Official Declaration of the First Presidency of the Church - Including Gordon B. Hinckley, January 5th, 1982

08-15-2005, 05:34 PM	#4
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	orally pleased to be talking about this.... i dont know much about what you posted but i do know that there is a large group of women, men, leaders in the church who look down on oral sex... what did the memo entail?

08-15-2005, 05:38 PM	#6
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	As I understand it it was given to leaders as guidance for them in interviewing leaders. I really wish I could understand its origins because analytically it makes no sense. The only thing I can imagine is some husbands "forcing" wives to go down on them. Then it would be demeaning and not loving. So they took a WoW approach of banning it temporarily for the weakest of the Saints.

08-15-2005, 05:42 PM	#8
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	is it bad.... that in dating i ask girls if they are ok with oral stimulation? i dont see the unnatural, or unholy aspect of it, but my opinion is pretty stupid since im not married....

08-15-2005, 05:31 PM	#2
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Hmm, never heard of it.

08-15-2005, 05:35 PM	#5
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Was this read over the pulpit? Press release? How did they get this info out? Direction to Bishops? Are you sure it wasn't a letter specifically directed to one person (you)? I can't imagine them reading it over the pulpit. I would have probably giggled.

08-15-2005, 05:41 PM	#7
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	that would be unbelievably weird to be called in by a gen. authority or stake president and be asked if I did that. I think they might ask something like "is there anything between you and your wife that is demeaning or degrading?" I could see how for some people the act may be exactly that, and for others it would be perfectly lovingly appropriate. That's my opinion anyway.

08-15-2005, 05:42 PM	#9
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	I have had two Bishops (at BYU) specifically asked the question about oral sex. Their reply is that it is between the husband and wife to determine if that is appropriate for them. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

08-15-2005, 05:43 PM	#10
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	that's the current response I received when I asked about it. So I quit asking. However, at our ages, any sex will do.