Banner of Heaven
Mammary, All Alone in the Moonlight  September 27, 2005

Jenn/Steve — September 27 @ 9:32am

The Church pamphlet “For the Strength of Youth” states:

Because sexual intimacy is so sacred, the Lord requires self-control and purity before marriage as well as full fidelity after marriage. In dating, treat your date with respect, and expect your date to show that same respect to you. Never treat your date as an object to be used for your own lustful desires or ego. Improper physical contact can cause a loss of self-control. Always stay in control of yourself and your physical feelings…The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including…petting.

Why do I think that it’s not such a big deal to get felt up?

Jennketeers, some of you may remember Brian, the object of a pity date the Bishop foisted on me a few weeks ago. Well, Brian has stuck. I wouldn’t say that I love him or anything, but he has stuck. That’s about the best adjective I can use. Brian is something of a weirdo, you see; he is studying sociology at NYU and has really strong feelings about social justice and a myriad (new word!) of causes. Needless to say, Brian hates my new job at Altria. Brian reminds me of Ned Isakoff.

Anyhow, on to the petting. Brian and I went to a concert last week in Central Park. It was a nice night, a bit chilly but a good show. He was standing behind me and had his arms around me as we both faced the stage and listened. It was nice to have him hold me. All of a sudden, I noticed that his arms were a little high, and there was… cupping. No squeezes, nothing beneath my blouse, but his hand was like a little shelf under my boob. I didn’t do anything; this is something of a new experience for me, and I didn’t know whether it was an accident or not.

First, I have to say that it didn’t really affect me very much. Boobs don’t turn ME on, and I didn’t really care. But should I? What if Brian is a pervert? What should I have done? I talked to Melanie and she said it was probably an accident, but even if it doesn’t it’s not a big deal. Is she right?

This leaves me with serious questions about my future. A liberal AND a groper? Too much. Why is petting such a big deal (assuming we’re talking about the “light” variety)?


  1. Jenn, there’s a reason chastity belts only go around the waist.

    From your story it doesn’t sound deliberate, but beware! Guys like boobies. Women don’t seem to think it’s such a big deal, but guys sure do.

    Steve Evans — September 27, 2005 @ 9:58am
  2. Make no mistake, Jenn: the placement of Brian’s hand was no accident. Whenever a guy is touching a girl anywhere for the first time (whether it’s on the cheek or the shoulder or someplace else), he is always aware of where his hands are. Not only that, but he’s carefully gauging her reaction.

    The Strength of Youth pamphlet is correct. Unless they’re your baby, your husband, or your doctor, nobody has any business touching you below the shoulders. It’s an erogenous zone, and mortal probation is all about controlling the appetites that confront the mortal body. Moreover, avoiding petting puts you in a much better position to maintain your chastity. Lastly, petting is something that you must confess to you bishop–that should be deterrent enough.

    DKL — September 27, 2005 @ 10:09am
  3. It seems odd to so rigorously apply to single adults what is good advice for youth. A grown man shows some natural affection to a grown woman on a date and he’s a pervert? Bear in mind he’s getting bombarded by his non-LDS buds telling him if he’s not in the sack by the third or forth date, the relationship is going nowhere and it’s time to dump before getting dumped. If he’s moving too fast on the physical side, and you still what to continue the relationship, just tell him.

    Steve EM — September 27, 2005 @ 10:17am
  4. Steve EM, not all non-LDS buds give advice like that to their Mormon bros. Jenn, don’t lower your standards. That’s one of the things that is most intriguing about Mormon women–that they have respect for themselves and their boundaries. That makes me respect them, and it makes me act better around them. Take yourself seriously enough to make him take you seriously. And since when were you soliciting advice from Melanie? I thought you hated her.

    Greg Fox — September 27, 2005 @ 10:35am
  5. My husband is a very respectful guy, balding now, but still gorgeous. He’s all about the white shirt and tie and is a faithful priesthood holder, all that stuff. If he touches my boob, he knows he’s doing it.

    He told me he thinks about sex all the time and he’s almost 60! I just stared at him, because there’s so much else to think about.

    Has he kissed you yet? The only advice I can give is try to get to know him as well as possible before it turns physical because after that, it’s all about the making out and the getting to know you part is over and you could be married 6 months before you find out he’s a serial killer with bodies in his basement.

    We’ve been married 24 years and I’m just discovering he’s a terrible nag.

    annegb — September 27, 2005 @ 10:53am
  6. I’m with Steve EM on this one. Does the “no petting/short kisses only” rule apply equally to 50-year old divorcees and widows? I hardly think the “kiss your girlfriend as you would your mother” concept applies to grown adults. I’m with Jenn: what’s the big deal about cupping? And while he’s at it…shouldn’t it be tit for tat?

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 11:03am
  7. I fully agree with DKL. He knew exactly what he was doing. It could be an accident if you had three or four rolls of fat below your shoulders and he mistakenly gripped the wrong one, but we know such is not the case. I also agree with DKL that you shouldn’t go down that path. That slope is entirely too slippery.

    And regarding Steve EM’s response, he’s not a pervert, just a horny guy. Not the same thing.

    Rusty — September 27, 2005 @ 11:10am
  8. Erin, I just can’t believe that the standards we teach our youth should disappear once we become adults. To the contrary, we should keep on the path we’ve been taught! Clearly, we need to understand human sexuality and be attentive and responsive to each other’s emotions, but outside of marriage I don’t think that sexual relations are appropriate.

    Steve Evans — September 27, 2005 @ 11:10am
  9. Not an accident. Initial contact may be accidental, but if the hand is there for longer than three tenths of a second, it knows where it is.

    Eric Russell — September 27, 2005 @ 11:13am
  10. Just hard to belive that grown adults are expected to comply with the FtSoY booklet as long as they’re single, no matter how old they are, and run to the bishop if someone touches their boobies. Oh the horrors!

    I just think this is another impossibly ridiculous double standard: how would married people (of any age) feel if they had to run to the bishop for something vaguely sexual (whatever it is). Sure, anything goes between spouses, but isn’t this another reason for quickie mismatched marriages in our church?

    And how is kissing or cupping boobs “sexual relations”? Are you saying that people who do even that (i.e. touching over clothing) have broken temple covenants? Yikes!

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 11:27am
  11. “how would married people (of any age) feel if they had to run to the bishop for something vaguely sexual (whatever it is)”

    If it involves someone with whom they are not legally and lawfully married, they do. No double standard at all.

    Eric Russell — September 27, 2005 @ 11:32am
  12. Erin, as a married man it’s tough for me to analyze. But if I were single, and rubbed a woman’s breasts or crotch over her clothing, or if she did something like that to me, yes, I think that’s a form of inappropriate sexual relations. There’s a reason the wording in the temple is vague.

    Steve Evans — September 27, 2005 @ 11:33am
  13. Which is “more sexual” then; a twenty minute makeout session, or a ten second boob-cupping?

    If the answer is (a), they should extend singles’ ward meeting times to 24-hour marathons to give bishops time to hear all the “confessions.” And if the answer is (b)–why oh why???? (especially if it’s over clothing)

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 11:43am
  14. When my husband and I were dating we watched a movie and I had him lay his head on my chest. He said he just couldn’t do it because of the closeness to the boobs. I said, “Just treat ‘em like a pillow. That’s one of their purposes.” He just couldn’t do it. (Now I laugh at my dorkiness)

    My point is guys know where the boobs are at all times. Anytime my breasts get near my husbands hands he’s gotta grope, it’s more than he can resist.

    I bet that guy was just hoping you wouldn’t notice the sly placement of his hands (as if).

    Sorry if this comment is TMI

    kristen j — September 27, 2005 @ 11:49am
  15. TMI? That was hot. kirstenj likes to party.

    Septimus — September 27, 2005 @ 11:53am
  16. Uhhh… I believe the proper term is “cop a feel” — nope “grope”. Sheesh!

    Geoff J — September 27, 2005 @ 12:07pm
  17. Hey, it’s not just us! I’ve seen guys in my ward “cop a feel” when there wives happen to reach for a hymn book, grab a kid, etc.

    Like Steve Evans said, men like boobies. Like I said, they are always aware of where the boobies reside.

    kristen j — September 27, 2005 @ 12:09pm
  18. Maybe, then, they should rename the For the Strength of Youth booklet, “For the Strength of All Single People from Puberty Onwards, Whether You are Sixteen or Ninety Six.”

    I still have a hard time believing that what Jenn describes is considered sinful enough to warrant confession to the bishop! And maybe a breach of temple covenants!

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 12:22pm
  19. Jenn,

    He was acting deliberately. This jury of his male peers has found him guilty. Cross examining the defendant would only be a sadistic waste of time. If it was an accident, he wouldnt have formed a “shelf”, he would have moved his hand back down a bit and said “Whoa, sorry” in a geunuinely embarassed sort of way.

    It is safe to assume, given your relative positions, if you had reacted “positively” to his first gesture he would have spooned you or was hoping you would reciprocate by backing into him.

    Try practicing some Judo throws on him, or monkey steals the peach, or a nice donkey kick. Any one of these will resolve the problem permanently. OK, OK, just kidding there. But, you should directly confront him over the phone about it and pull the plug if youre not completely 100% comfortable with the situation. Better safe than sorry.

    Kurt — September 27, 2005 @ 12:25pm
  20. Why is the one who’s blushing also the one who’s not Mormon? I don’t think Jenn meant this to turn into a discussion of her body, and I hope you’re not offended or embarrassed, Jenn. Come on dudes, why isn’t anyone commenting on Miranda’s attempt at introducing culture and intelligence into this blog?

    Greg Fox — September 27, 2005 @ 1:07pm
  21. As soon as I saw the title, I knew this post would get 80 or 90 comments. (As Greg is fond of pointing out, we Mormons loooove talking about sex in any form.)

    To sum up, yes, he knew exactly what he was doing, but it wasn’t in a very sexual context. If it didn’t bother you, why worry about it? The idea that this warrants confession to the bishop is laughable. On the other hand, if it did bother you, you should say so. It sounds like you don’t like this guy too much, so it doesn’t seem like there is too much at stake.

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 1:18pm
  22. “monkey steals the peach”


    Geoff J — September 27, 2005 @ 1:19pm
  23. OK that monkey thing was great.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 1:24pm
  24. By all means dump him immediately. Who needs a guy who likes you and dared to show the slightest bit of physical intimacy?

    No, it’s best to find a guy that is as repressed as possible. Preferably one with serious mother issues. I mean, if your man doesn’t break down crying on your wedding night from the guilt of what a dirty boy he’s been, file for divorce the next business day.

    And if you do have the kind of sexual hangups that turn a boob cupping into a blog posting, don’t discuss it with him. Oh, no. Let the internet solve your problems for you.

    If this dude has any brains, you won’t “stick” for long.

    ChirsO — September 27, 2005 @ 1:27pm
  25. I’ll chime in and say that he knew exactly what he was doing. Either that or he is completely clueless. So clueless that you might not want to date him if this is the case. An experiment is in order! Next time he does it, give him some subtle positive feedback, see if reacts in kind. A nickel says he will, assuming he isn’t reading this. If he doesn’t react that doesn’t prove that it wasn’t on purpose, only that he won’t go any further for now. I encourage you to run this experiment and post detailed results!

    I for one was hyper-aware of the relative position of all body parts while dating. Probably to the point of distration. This probably didn’t help me in dating at all.

    Assuming it was on purpose, should you care? That is up to you, you’re an adult, right? Should we care? Ummmmm…. honestly this seems like a private matter, one that shouldn’t be worked out in front of strangers, though I got enough of a kick out of DKL’s bishop comment and the monkey thing that I say keep sharing.

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 1:58pm
  26. I’m surprised to see that the girls’ comments are so much more liberal then the guys’. One would think that it would be the other way around.

    First of all, I would like to say that most Mormons are very naive when it comes to sex. Before getting married, most of us have only IMAGINED what it must feel like to grab a breast (or have ours touched). We build up these exaggerated ideas of what “sexual contact” is all about - and many of those ideas come from things we hear from teenage friends, see on TV or daydream about. WE ARE SO OFF COURSE and are not prepared for the reality of it all once we’re married and suddenly free to do WHATEVER. Sex is great and all, but it’s not worth the amount of attention that it gets from the media and whatnot. Perhaps a safe amount of exploration gives us a better appreciation for the reality of sexual contact and what it’s all about.

    Give me a break - having your breast cupped at a concert equals breaking your temple covenants and needing to talk to your bishop?!? Not quite. I think that a lack of charity and pride and sacrifice will have more lasting repercussions than a quick feel. I was in no way an “easy” teenage girl - but I will agree that WAY more passion is pumping during a 2-hour kissing session than a mere grab of the boob. It all goes back to the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

    Sara — September 27, 2005 @ 2:03pm
  27. So it looks like most of the guys say that Brian knew what he was doing when I got…fumbled. What should I do? Just ignore it? I am at a loss here.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 2:04pm
  28. I’m surprised to see that the girls’ comments are so much more liberal then the guys’.

    I’m not. The single female really has NO IDEA how differently-wired the male of the species is. Really. I’m sure his heart rate and testosterone were absolutely skyrocketing. There is no such thing as accidental “groping.”

    All the girls I’ve known well enough to talk to about it in their married stage have expressed something like the following- “I guess in retrospect all those comments from my Mom that I thought were so silly when I was single make sense now that I’m married.”

    Ben S. — September 27, 2005 @ 2:07pm
  29. Jenn - I wouldn’t ignore it, but I also wouldn’t turn it into a huge “discussion” with him at this point. And there’s no need for you to instantly loose all respect for him. Just don’t let it happen again or go any further. He’s obviously very attracted to you (which is a good thing) and he has a sexual drive (which is also a good thing), but keep it in check and if it happens again let him know that you’re not into that and you would hope that he would be more respectful of your morals. It has been proven time and time again that the guys are the weak ones and the women are the ones who always have to put on the breaks at the right point - they’re counting on us :)

    Sara — September 27, 2005 @ 2:17pm
  30. Sara, you may be right that there’s more passion in the average 2 hour makeout session, but I think there’s something furtive and disagreeable about the calculated grope. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with telling the guy it’s not cool.

    And count me in with the group who believes that yes, the standards of chastity for older single adults should be no different than for sixteen year olds. If anything, more mature LDS should have better self-control.

    Allison — September 27, 2005 @ 2:29pm
  31. Sara,
    You’re kidding right? I hope so because if I counted on the girl to put the breaks on I’d have a couple kids right now (not with my wife).

    Rusty — September 27, 2005 @ 2:32pm
  32. So if the sin is in the “furtive nature” of the “grope” and not the touch itself, what’s the difference between that and a stolen kiss? Or a hug for which one isn’t ready? What if that kiss turns into a ten-minute makeout session? Should that be reported to the bishop?

    And it’s pretty ridiculous IMO to imply that a worthy (or perfect) LDS person who never gets married should not only be a virgin at death, but this person would never have passionately kissed ANYONE (too “sexual”), never had a boob touched, never been more than platonic with anyone else. That’s pretty sad.

    For that matter, what’s a “chaste”/non-sexual kiss, anyway? How can couples be attracted to each other and not kiss passionately? Why would they want to? Isn’t that dysfunctional?

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 2:37pm
  33. Yes, the more mature LDS should have better self-control, so they should not need every little detail of do’s and don’ts written out for them. I was a vibrant teenager, and in my profession I have had a great deal of experience working with difficult or troubled or rebellious teenagers in a formal setting. Teenagers require a different level of structure than adults. They’re just wired differently. It’s not the same as when we’re adults. I will never let my child watch a movie that is littered with F-bombs because they are so much more malleable at that age. But language honestly does not affect me as an adult New Yorker. It’s similar with physical contact. Teenagers do not have as much self control or foresight or logical understanding of consequences. Adults do. The youth pamphlets are for the youth. Of course they’re good guidelines for adults, too, but it’s not the same.

    Sara — September 27, 2005 @ 2:38pm
  34. Ugh, that sounds like I’m having extra-marital relations. What I meant was that I’d have children from women I dated before my wife.

    Rusty — September 27, 2005 @ 2:40pm
  35. No, furtive stuff isn’t more sinful. I didn’t mean to imply that. What I said was that the deliberate grope is disturbing. My roommates and I used to talk about “lip rape” — unwelcome kisses from guys we never would have kissed voluntarily (they tended to be fairly sloppy, too. Ick). These guys tended to be losers. Ditto with the boob groping — if a guy decides to just grope out of the blue, it seems a bit creepy to me. I can understand things getting slightly out of hand while both parties are kissing, not that it’s any less of a problem from a chastity standpoint, but it’s less creepy to me personally.

    Allison — September 27, 2005 @ 2:42pm
  36. The vibe I get from you Jenn is that you’re not really all that thrilled with this guy. You seem kind of creeped out by the whole issue.

    I’m just thinking that if you were passionate about this guy the whole “cupping episode” would be a non-issue. You said that “boobs don’t turn ME on” but if you really liked this guy then having him cup your breast would be turn on to you.

    Oh man, I need to just stop. Pretty soon there will be posts here about banning me from BoH.

    kristen j — September 27, 2005 @ 2:47pm
  37. BAN HER!

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 2:50pm

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 2:55pm
  39. easy, you bloodthirsty pirates!

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 2:57pm
  40. She turned me into a newt!

    Kurt — September 27, 2005 @ 3:00pm
  41. Allison — “things getting slightly out of hand” would have been an improvement.

    I know this thread is turning silly, but it raises a couple of important questions for me:

    1. Does “For the Strength of Youth” apply to adults? If so, to what extent?

    2. Are perceptions of sexuality THAT different between single men and women? It seems that there is an awakening or loss of naivete that comes with marriage — that suddenly as a woman you can finally see the machinations of men. It honestly didn’t occur to me that Brian’s swipe was on purpose until you all insisted it was. I mean, I thought it was possible, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 3:12pm
  42. IMO, that pamphlet definitely does not apply to adults. Otherwise, it implies that all people who are married, for whatever reason, are suddenly okayed for affectionate and sexual activity, and all thyose who for whatever reason are unmarried are summarily denied physical contact.

    It could be said that a very young couple who gets married just to have sex (or to legitimize sexual activity) is more “immoral” than a thirty-year old couple that pets occasionally.

    Real life doesn’t work that way, and people (especially grown adults) shouldn’t be made to feel like sinners for kissing for five minutes instead of five seconds, or whenever sensual feelings develop. People aren’t androids or inanimate objects, and just because contact occurs doesn’t mean the instigator is an evil lech.

    It was flattering, and you should feel flattered.

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 3:20pm
  43. Jenn,

    Don’t ask us, ask you bishop!

    Maybe the church should put out a “For the Strength of the Not So Young”, complete with illustrations of what is and isn’t appropriate. Given that there is no such manual I am guessing that they are giving you some discretion in the matter.

    Here’s a question for you. If you were 17 and out on a date and the same thing happened what would your reaction be? Why?

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 3:20pm
  44. First of all, I have to agree with Allison’s statement that getting “handsy” without any encouragement is creepy. I don’t know if Jenn should really be flattered if she’s not into this guy.

    Secondly, I think you’re on the right track about married people, Jenn. We men can be depressingly simple to figure out.

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 3:30pm
  45. Am I into him?

    ….. yes. But let’s keep that a secret for now.

    It’s nice to feel attractive, I must say.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 3:35pm
  46. If this were a first or second date, it might be creepy. If this were under clothing, in the dark, while they were alone, it would be creepy (and scary). If this were a “palming the grapefruit” kind of grope, it might be nasty. But, come on! Sounds affectionate and close to me. Either they’re dating or they’re junior-high friends.

    It’s pretty sad when indoctrination leads to uncertainty and infantilization of what should be natural, fun, and pleasurable interactions in dating. The rest of you/us married folks, ‘fess up–who DIDN’T kiss passionately, cop a feel (or try to), etc. before marriage? I would think most of us have/did. And we weren’t struck by lightning, and were the better for it.

    It’s one think to have “standards” and have those standards “suggested”–whether you’re a teenager, young/older adult or divorced grandma, but when that pamphlet says things like “The Lord specifically forbids” boob-touching (okay, “petting”) that makes for some serious dysfunction and religious guilt.

    Erin Paulsen — September 27, 2005 @ 3:38pm
  47. Jenn! I don’t know what you mean by your last comment about “feeling attractive”, but in light of this post, I hope it doesn’t mean that you feel attractive because a man was groping you. Don’t feel so special -guys will pretty much do that to anyone they think they can get away with.

    But the good news is that you’re attractive no matter what guys say or do. So, good luck with your dating adventures. By the way, what do you think Brian would say if he found this discussion about your date?!

    Tess — September 27, 2005 @ 3:38pm
  48. Jenn,

    If you like him, and are flattered by the attention, and are confused about this apparent slip up, then you should talk to him about it. Be frank, let him know you enjoy his company, but that if it was intentional it is unwelcomed and you expect it to stop.

    I hope the guy will be man enough to apologize and confess he is attracted to you and was acting foolishly because he is digging your stuff, and promises not to do it again. If he doesnt, and he plays dumb and says it wasnt intentional and it never happened, that would be a black mark against him as far as I am concerned.

    We men are weak and carnal animals, thats all there is to it. Some men are struggling to overcome their natural man tendencies, and some arent. If he is the former, he will apologize. If he is the latter, he will backpedal, blame you, and generally act like a cur.

    Kurt — September 27, 2005 @ 3:42pm
  49. Kurt,

    You are assuming that it was unwelcome and that she expects it to stop. That said, I agree that they should talk about it.

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 3:47pm
  50. Tess, it’s a good thing I’m not using his real name (or mine!). We should be just fine.

    I may try talking to him about it. It’s awkward, frankly. Maybe we’ll see — he’s otherwise been a perfectly normal and kind person (for a communist).

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 3:49pm
  51. …and for the record, I don’t think Elder Eyring would have tried something like that. Just in case you were keeping score.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 3:50pm
  52. If the discussion is too awkward, just invite him to participate here! I’m sure that people here have some kind words for him.

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 3:56pm
  53. Don’t do it Jenn! Someone is sure to bust out a “monkey steals the peach” move on him or something…

    Geoff J — September 27, 2005 @ 3:58pm
  54. arJ,

    Yes, I am making certain assumptions based upon what little bit I know about Jenn. If she were OK with the manually improvised shelving, I dont think she would have ever posted on the subject in the first place.

    As for why a little light petting isnt a good idea, here are my thoughts on a related thread.

    Kurt — September 27, 2005 @ 4:00pm
  55. Out of curiosity, does Brian still work for KPMG as well as going to school?

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 4:28pm
  56. Random John, I don’t want to out him. But yes, he still works part-time.

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 4:36pm
  57. I’m not trying to out him, just trying to make sure we’re talking about the same “Brian”. What does he think about his job?

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 4:40pm
  58. Communists do not work for KPMG. Marx and Lenin are rolling in their graves at the thought!

    Tess — September 27, 2005 @ 5:02pm
  59. Who better to understand the power of capital than the bean counters?

    Actually, Brian’s not an accountant (whew!).

    Jenn — September 27, 2005 @ 5:09pm
  60. A consultant then?

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 5:17pm
  61. Random John is the Encyclopedia Brown of the internet — trying to solve all mysteries! This is the Case of the Pseudonymous Groper.

    Steve Evans — September 27, 2005 @ 5:22pm
  62. You’d better watch it Steve. Someday I might figure out where you work or live and track you down!

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 5:31pm
  63. Why do so many of the threads that you guys participate become a flame war?

    DKL — September 27, 2005 @ 5:39pm
  64. Am I the only one disappointed that this thread wasn’t entitled “Thanks for the Mammaries”?

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 5:40pm
  65. “Am I the only one disappointed that this thread wasn’t entitled “Thanks for the Mammaries”?”

    That’ll be the groper’s guest post.

    Allison — September 27, 2005 @ 5:45pm
  66. DKL,

    You’d better cool it too! I already have a rough idea of where you work!

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 5:45pm
  67. a random John, why come after me when there’s a ruthless breast cupper lurking somewhere at KPMG?

    DKL — September 27, 2005 @ 5:55pm
  68. I really hope that Jenn’s real name isn’t Ruth…

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 5:58pm
  69. Jenn, guys are territorial about women, and that includes their bodies. There’s a reason why virgin means “not yet captured.” Men view everything related to women’s bodies as a kind of conquest. If you let him feel your breasts, you’re just becoming one more proverbial notch in his bedpost. Draw the line hard and fast. You’ll be much happier with yourself if you give him something to remember you by that is meaningful to both of you.

    Miranda PJ — September 27, 2005 @ 6:01pm
  70. You’ll be much happier with yourself if you give him something to remember you by that is meaningful to both of you.

    Didn’t Kurt already suggest the “monkey steals the peach”?

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 6:06pm
  71. With all this talk of martial arts moves, this seems like an appropriate time to repost the link to The Ninja Power web site.

    DKL — September 27, 2005 @ 6:10pm
  72. Didn’t Kurt already suggest the “monkey steals the peach”?


    This has now become my favorite thread in the bloggernacle.

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 6:41pm
  73. Boobs are evil.

    Goofus — September 27, 2005 @ 6:51pm
  74. I agree with aRJ. It is hard to deny that sharing an experience like this would ensure he would always remember you…

    Geoff J — September 27, 2005 @ 7:01pm
  75. Just remember sisters, when it comes to boobs, it’s ok to add to what the good Lord has given you, but never taketh away.

    Goofus wasn’t breast feed.

    Steve EM — September 27, 2005 @ 7:05pm
  76. Enough with the peaches!! Ok, not really, it’s just too funny.

    Anyway, I agree with Kurt talk to him, find out what is driving his groping on the sly. If you decide you still like him than say something like, “I understand you’re attracted to me and I appreciate it, but you must keep away from “the girls” for now.”

    kristen j — September 27, 2005 @ 7:21pm
  77. “It is hard to deny that sharing an experience like this would ensure he would always remember you… “

    Too true. Tell him he can always have plenty of progeny in the Celestial Kingdom. All things will be restored!

    NFlanders — September 27, 2005 @ 7:22pm
  78. I think someone’s just trying to get in on next week’s Zeitgeist.

    Kim Siever — September 27, 2005 @ 9:03pm
  79. Reading this debauched thread, all I can say is: Words fail me.

    (I seriously doubt the Lord’s mighty wrath and sense of righteous judgment will fail him when it comes time to reduce all you sexual deviants to piles of smouldering ashes.)

    Prudence McPrude — September 27, 2005 @ 9:07pm
  80. BAN HER!!

    a random John — September 27, 2005 @ 9:27pm
  81. Yes, the wicked find the truth difficult, and will do whatever they can to protect their guilty consciences from exposure to truth and light. Typical.

    Prudence McPrude — September 27, 2005 @ 9:40pm
  82. I couldn’t bring myself to say that Prudence should be banned since she ate my cheese and drove me to my hotel.

    Kim Siever — September 27, 2005 @ 10:02pm
  83. I’ve known at least one guy to do something like that by accident, lots not to, and much of what is going on is in nuance and detail, more than ought to be discussed on a blog.

    Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 27, 2005 @ 10:48pm
  84. And please, Random John, let’s not name names. We don’t want to get anyone blacklisted from Hop Sing’s.

    NFlanders — September 28, 2005 @ 12:05am
  85. Kim,

    Why would anyone want to be featured in Shystergeist? Who would deliberately seek to be the object of Steve’s ridicule…er…I mean…vain attempts at humor?

    Hey BofH Admins,

    Whats the policy on posting pseudonymously? Aaron Brown is posting as PMcConstipated and probably as Goofus as well as some others. How many psuedonyms are allowed and whats the variety? Molly Chastity McPrude posted last week and got deleted. Clarification please.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 8:00am
  86. Even if the thread has unraveled and become too personal or silly or whatever, the original question is still intriguing:

    At what point does the “For the STrength of Youth” pamphlet become irrelevant for adults?

    People who watch R rated movies are often fond of saying, “If you read the talks carefully you’ll see they were given to teenagers; I’m a grown up now and can handle whatever is in those movies; obviously those messages do not apply to those who live outside the US, etc.”

    And yet some people insist that juvenile dating rules apply to grown adults, no matter what their age or unmarried cirumstance (i.e., if someonw is recently divorced after being married for 30 years, how realistic is it for them to go back to FSOY rules?).

    Why is this? The pamphlet (and most of the advice and opinion about chastity is aimed at TEENAGERS, just like advice about rated R films. It’s obviously the same principle.

    Erin Paulsen — September 28, 2005 @ 10:09am
  87. There’s a very erotic scene in The Horse Whisperer where Kristin Scott Thomas’ character is dancing with Robert Redford’s character. Nothing is going on, yet everything is going on. Private parts, on one hand, have nothing to do with passion. It’s that most private of parts, the brain.

    A totally unrelated story, I met this older guy at AA who was a friend’s sponsor. He was very nice and jovial and likeable. I thought we were friends. I ran into him once and being a hugging person, gave him a big hug. Wo! Bad move. He changed. He started wanting hugs from me all the time and got very handsy. It happened twice and then I yelled at him in front of everybody and he never spoke to me again.

    I guess he thought something, I thought something else. Men and women are different. Who knew? Jenn, you could be thinking roses and moonlight, he’s thinking “boob.”

    annegb — September 28, 2005 @ 10:20am
  88. Erin,

    I dont see any reason why the spirit of the law contained in FSofY wouldnt apply to everyone regardless of age. People who make excuses, are just making excuses.

    As far as rated R movies, or whatever the rating, we Americans indescriminantly consume media the same way we indescriminantly consume twinkies and McDogfood. We, as LDS, are supposed to be different. But, alas, we are too often not.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 11:13am
  89. Kurt, you and I may not get along all the time (”shystergeist”? uncalled for). But I agree with your latest comment. The spirit of the law shouldn’t dissipate as we get older.

    Steve Evans — September 28, 2005 @ 11:27am
  90. Steve,

    Making light of people’s difficulties, which is what you did in your most recent post, is hardly fair play. You may find it amusing, but I can hardly believe Kim, Max, or Miranda do, or any of the other targets of your op ed comments. So, what really is “uncalled for”?

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 12:16pm
  91. Kurt, I don’t want to threadjack here (the point of my comment was that I AGREED WITH YOU).

    But in defense of Zeitgeist: the entire thing is in jest. No part of it is serious, factual or informative, nor is it meant to be. If you are offended by it, you’re the first I’ve met. Ask Kim, Miranda, or any of my other “targets” if you like — they laugh along with everyone else.

    Steve Evans — September 28, 2005 @ 12:30pm
  92. BoHers: I nominate that we ban Kurt. He has posted several off-topic and abrasive comments on this thread, not at me but at other readers, which I don’t believe we should tolerate going forward. Any objection?

    Jenn — September 28, 2005 @ 12:35pm
  93. Steve,

    I’m flattered that you AGREED WITH ME.

    What leads you to believe anyone is even laughing? Besides you that is.

    Kim, Miranda, did you enjoy being lampooned in the most recent round of Bloggernakkle Zeitgeist?

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 12:37pm
  94. BAN HIM!!!

    And while youre at it, ban Aaron Brown and all his pseudonyms, which go unprotested.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 12:39pm
  95. That’s one of the things that is most intriguing about Mormon women—that they have respect for themselves and their boundaries.

    Yes, because no other religion teaches morals.

    It has been proven time and time again that the guys are the weak ones and the women are the ones who always have to put on the breaks at the right point

    This is laughable. The comment itself suggests that everyone sets their own limits as to how far is too far. Exactly where is the “right point”?

    It honestly didn’t occur to me that Brian’s swipe was on purpose until you all insisted it was. I mean, I thought it was possible, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

    You were the only one who was there, so you would know. If it seemed innocent it probably was. If it wasn’t and you liked it, then whats the harm? You said yourself it made you feel attractive. There is nothing wrong with having your attractiveness validated. I admit that the normal course of action would be to start with holding hands, kissing and cuddling before going for the cup, so if he takes you out again, and all he wants to do is try and cop another feel, then there is a problem.

    All of the guys here seem to be so adamant that this guy is some kind of deviant groper. Perhaps its because they are guys, and did exactly the same thing in High School and University. Apparently it has filled them with a sense of profound shame, and they feel it is their duty to keep you from making the same mistake. Or perhaps they are just jealous of this guys moves.

    fess up—who DIDN’T kiss passionately, cop a feel (or try to), etc. before marriage?

    I didn’t see any answers to this question, so I guess I’ll be the first. I have copped many a feel. Not bragging, just answering the question. And I have to say that at least 80% of the time it was the girl who initiated the contact. And in the other 20% of cases, I never once had a girl tell me to stop, or push my hands away. Again not bragging, just trying to dispel the myth that evil uncontrollable men, driven to maddness by the female bossom are always the ones coercing young women into forbidden paths.

    Best comment ever heard from a Bishop, to my friend who was confessing to petting: So what were you thinking other than “wow! these are soft.”


    Talon — September 28, 2005 @ 12:40pm
  96. Thank you Dr. Kinsey. But I’m afraid that no amount of commonness, naturalness, frequency, or harmlessness will ever justify the breaking of the law of chastity.

    Eric Russell — September 28, 2005 @ 12:50pm
  97. Of course it won’t. But cupping a boob is not the same thing as having sexual intercourse, which is the tone many have taken on this thread. If that were the case the temple would be empty of anyone except married couples.

    Talon — September 28, 2005 @ 12:57pm
  98. If you ban Kurt, I’ll quit visiting.

    Steve EM — September 28, 2005 @ 1:01pm
  99. Steve EM, there’d be no need to ban him if he would stop ranting at Aaron Brown and Steve Evans. His comments are otherwise very thoughtful and welcome.

    Jenn — September 28, 2005 @ 1:09pm
  100. Jenn,

    There’d be no need to rant about Aaron Brown if you guys had a consistent policy dealing with pseudonymous posts, which you dont. You delete some pseudonymous posts and not others. Totally inconsistent. Thats your problem, not mine.

    This is the first time I ever said anything to/about Steve Evans on here, and I’m not the one who brought it up, Kim did. And I am defending Miranda from his less than charitable remarks, which he makes in jest at her expense.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 1:15pm
  101. Kurt, how do you know we aren’t already doing our best to discourage pseudonmyous posters? You have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes here. You’re right, it’s our problem, not yours. We welcome people who want to read and comment here, but that doesn’t give you the right to tell us how to run things. Or to be rude to other commenters.

    Mari — September 28, 2005 @ 1:33pm
  102. Uh, Talon, I’m not bragging either, but I’d still be there.

    Eric Russell — September 28, 2005 @ 1:43pm
  103. I like Steve’s Zeitgeist. But I get the humor so of course I’m going to like it.

    I object to banning Kurt, I like him. However, I object to Kurt’s ludicrous excuses for being abrasive (i.e. “Kim brought it up”). I also object to his juvenile ranting about Aaron Brown’s juvelity.

    I also think the Prudence McPrude thing is sooooo not funny anymore. It hasn’t really been funny since his first half a dozen remarks. Who really cares about multiple pseudonyms if none of them say anything interesting.

    Rusty — September 28, 2005 @ 1:50pm
  104. Mari,

    How do I know? You guys leave some pseudonymous posts up and delete others. Thats not me telling you what to do, thats an easily established fact. So how is that a defensible position for you?

    I never told you how to run your blog, other than when I made suggestions when they were explicitly solicited by Sep. The comments I made above clearly werent there to tell you how to do things, theyre made to point out your lack of internal consistency, and thats all. If being abrasive and posting off topic qualify one for banning, then Jenn is cherry picking in nominating me while ignoring others who do the same, in this very thread. I would point you to my comment in Sep’s thread where I told him that its your business and not everyone elses when it comes to moderating.

    And, by Jenn’s standard, you are now violating the new blog policy by posting off topic and being abrasive, since you are making accusations that are not borne out by fact. Shouldnt you therefore, for the sake of consistency, be nominated for banning? Or are you exempt from the rules?

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 1:55pm
  105. Uh Talon, I’m with Eric too. Your anecdotal experience doesn’t hold up, I’m afraid.

    Rusty — September 28, 2005 @ 1:59pm
  106. I’m kinda tempted to go for that Steve EM/Kurt two-for-one deal, but I’ll hold off.

    If we delete a comment from a psuedonym, it’s not because it was a psuedonym, it’s because the content was offensive. Duh.

    Any chance we can go back to talking about boobies?

    Septimus — September 28, 2005 @ 2:00pm
  107. ER - And I have the greatest respect for you.

    The point of my post was not to advocate for petting (I draw a distinction between innocent cupping and petting). I was just answering the question that no one else wanted to fess up to. Nor did I advocate for not repenting, including going to the Bishop if you feel it neccessary.

    Repentance is what make me as spotless as you when I stand next to you in the Temple, even though we may have taken divergent paths.

    My hat is off to anyone who can refrain from petting prior to marriage. I freely admit, I couldn’t do it. I also admit I didn’t go any farther than that, because that’s where my line was. To those who maintain self control - keep up the good work! To those who don’t - there is peace after petting through repentance, and in my case marriage.

    Talon — September 28, 2005 @ 2:04pm
  108. Rusty,

    Do you think Steve’s Zeitgeist comments regarding Kim, Miranda, and Max were in good taste?

    I am not seeking to excuse my abrasiveness, I am 220 grit all the way when people come at me. No excuses there. The point I was making was that if “off topic” is the offense, there is plenty of “off topic” around that hasnt been tagged, and there is also plenty of “abrasive” around which goes unpunished. Yet, in some fatal way, I put it together in a combination that is somehow more offensive than others.


    Thats not whats happening. How have the Molly Chastity McPrude comments been any more or less offensive than the Prudence McPrude comments? Molly gets deleted, Prudence doesnt. This isnt a matter of offensiveness, its a matter of inconsistency.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 2:06pm
  109. You might have a valid point there, Kurt. I’d be glad to look into it. If you could just e-mail me what Molly originally said and on what thread when, plus, a few Prudence comments as a basis of comparison I’d be glad to correct this oversight if I feel there is a real inconsistency. Check with Molly first and let me know.

    septimush at gmail dot com

    Now can we talk some more about boobies?

    Septimus — September 28, 2005 @ 2:19pm
  110. I agree with Talon, and I think even MORE kudos are in order for those who can make it beyond age 28, 30, 35, 40, etc. who are still single/never-married and have never passionately kissed or petted anyone (or themselves). I would think the number of people in this category is very, very, very, very, very small, yet they are expected to abide by a pamphlet written for teenagers.

    I think that in the same way that people consider the R rated movie suggestion for teens to be a “rule” “good advice” or “just an opinion”, after a while (say, after the teen years) the FSOY pamphlet should be considered in the same way, and grown adults should go about their lives without feeling thary have to run to a bishop after every makeout session or occasional affectionate cupping.

    Erin Paulsen — September 28, 2005 @ 2:27pm
  111. Kurt,
    Good taste? Hmmm, not sure. But in the context of the Zeitgeist I don’t think it was out of line at all. The column is NEVER respectful, that’s the territory. Plus, he was right. Three bloggers have officially announced their exit from the ‘nacle and two of them (Kim and Miranda) have returned. There’s plenty of room for jest, especially because the tone of two of them (Miranda and JMW) were so self-righteous and accusatory of the rest of the Bloggernacle. The fact that Miranda fits into both of those categories opens the door to ridicule even wider.

    Boobies are awesome!

    Rusty — September 28, 2005 @ 2:42pm
  112. FTR record, I like boobies (well, two specific ones) and I have never laughed at a single Zeitgeist post. As well, I was not offended by the latest Zeitgeist post. Not amused, but not offended.

    Kim Siever — September 28, 2005 @ 3:28pm
  113. Talon,

    I should have been more clear earlier. When dating I never grabbed anybody anywhere or cupped anything. I was however hyper-aware of the relative position of all relevant body parts. You can bet that if I had cupped somebody I would know about it. I did accidentally touch someone once when tickling them and I felt bad about it and it led to a discussion. So I will admit that accidental touching is possible (having done it) but not likely in these circumstances.

    a random John — September 28, 2005 @ 3:31pm
  114. Rusty,

    So, when being deliberately disrespectful, Steve’s ridicule and mockery of other people’s difficulties is contextually consistent. OK, that does nothing to address the ethics of the situation. You appear to submit it is warranted to mock people when they broadside the bloggernacle. Got it. So, in other words, Steve is acting as proxy for the bloggernacle denizens in providing a tit-for-tat slap back at those who criticize them. Yes? Am I reading that correctly?

    I would point out to you that Miranda apologized in her return, and she apologized quite graciously at that. How is it not in bad taste to mock that and punish her after such an apology? And Steve can mock Max, Miranda, and Kim, but I cannot mock him by relabeling his diatribe “Shystergeist”, because thats “uncalled for”? Got it. Well, if we are going to be contextually consistent, then lets dish out heaping helpings of mockery for one and all, shall we? Or are the Bloggernacle Old Timers exempt, because they are more equal?


    Ever the comedian. As soon as you guys restore the Molly Chastity McPrude comments, I’ll forward them to you.


    If you expect people to observe your rules, you need to publish them and enforce them consistently. If you ban DKL without addressing the pseudonym issue, he will be able to come back if he wants. He can change his name (he has in the past) and he can spoof his IP address if he chooses to, he has the capability.

    Kurt — September 28, 2005 @ 3:51pm
  115. Kurt,

    First, this is a threadjack. Second, it seems difficult for BoH to have a no-pseudonym rule if all the perma-bloggers are operating under pseudonyms.

    a random John — September 28, 2005 @ 4:03pm
  116. Kurt, please stop the threadjack already. My advice to you: let it go. It’s only blogging, and you’re out of control.

    Jenn — September 28, 2005 @ 4:14pm
  117. Kurt,
    Whoa, slow down there little buddy. I think you’re reading way too much into the frivolous tone Steve injects into his Zeitgeist. I didn’t read it as anything more than a little hardy-har, wink-wink comment in the first place. And for the record, when someone makes a critical statement about those in the bloggernacle (without being specific), I become defensive (as I did when both JMW and Miranda said goodbye). To part in such a manner, in my opinion, is bad form and I don’t think Steve was offensive at all in the way he addressed her parting shot. Yes I understand Miranda apologized, but that was after Steve had already written the Zeitgeist (which is obvious if you read it).

    I think Steve said it was uncalled for because he feels that his post was written lightheartedly and yours was not. But I guess it’s obvious that’s in the eye of the beholder. Before this thread I had no idea someone would take the Zeitgeist as anything other than a sarcastic overview of that week in the Bloggernacle. It seems ironic that of anyone here, Kurt is the one to be most ruffled by Steve’s tone.

    What’s funny is this reminds me of how me and my wife argue: more about the way we argue than the content of our argument.

    Rusty — September 28, 2005 @ 4:15pm
  118. Sep needs a LIIT.

    Steve EM — September 28, 2005 @ 4:58pm
  119. Getting felt up isn’t a big deal but going too far can turn into one.

    Andy — September 29, 2005 @ 2:49am
  120. […] Jenn at Banner of Heaven gets felt up. […]

  121. Wow, this site is really something! This quote of annegb back in comment five had me laughing so hard my gut hurts.

    “He told me he thinks about sex all the time and he’s almost 60! I just stared at him, because there’s so much else to think about.”
    Oh, I still hurt.

    Matt Evans — October 7, 2005 @ 11:05pm
  122. […] Since my last awkward encounter with my boyfriend Brian, I’ve decided to be a little more wary and on the lookout for more accidental “shelvings.” So far, so good — he has behaved himself nicely (a little too nicely, in my opinion), and we’re really getting along. He’s a great guy. […]

    Pingback by Banner of Heaven » Defensive Mechanisms — October 11, 2005 @ 7:38pm
  123. What is the zeitgiest?

    annegb — October 12, 2005 @ 10:44am
  124. Anne, funny you should ask! It’s my weekly column at the Bloggernacle Times.

    Steve Evans — October 12, 2005 @ 10:54am
  125. I may seem sharp on the draw for an old broad, but I have truly had some cognitive loss, my term, because it’s so mysterious. It could be that I was so smart before that it’s more noticeable to me, but…it’s some sort of physical thing. Tia’s or something. I miss things I never used to miss. I mean, we (me and the doc) know it’s physical, could be several things, but never mind, it’s an old age talk about your health thing.

    Steve, I have noticed references to the Zeitgeist, but didn’t process them. I’ve never seen that blog before. I will pay attention.

    Matt, you know, as I was scrolling down, I read some really funny and also embarrassing things. Not mine, but others.

    I was thinking about how I love my grandchildrens’ little bodies, the little ones. They are soft and squishy and smell baby-ish. Maxwell used to say, “Grandma, don’t queeze me!” I’m wondering if that’s what men feel. A tender thing. Well, I’m hoping that’s it.

    annegb — October 13, 2005 @ 7:23am
  126. OK, I got it. Now this whole stupid thing makes sense. Steve Evans is Jenn, thats why “Jenn” nominated me for banning (see 92) after I dissed Steve (see 85), because they are one and the same.

    And this is why Steve slammed Jenn her for whining, because its himself, a sham. And its why Steve made fun of Miranda for leaving BofH with impunity, because it was all just a sendup of JMW.

    And Aaron Brown is Aaron B. Cox, which is why Aaron Brown is permitted to poop all over Banner of Heaven with impunity, while my sendups of PMcP get deleted. Because he is one of them, and they will not delete his PMcP, Goofus, Gallant, and whatever else he posts under.

    It all makes sense now. Its just a sham offshoot of BCC’rs lampooning stuff from T&S.

    Kurt — October 25, 2005 @ 9:39am
  127. Kurt, you are mistaken, and your off-topic comments aren’t appreciated. There are threads at nine moons for this kind of stuff.

    Banner of Heaven — October 25, 2005 @ 10:35am
  128. If I am mistaken, then prove it. Its obvious Steve Evans and Aaron Brown are complicit. Its time to come clean.

    And as far as it being off topic, it isnt at all. Its directly addressing the material posted into this thread, namely why “Jenn” nominated me for banning, because its Steve. If it isnt Steve, then prove it.

    Kurt — October 25, 2005 @ 10:46am
  129. Kurt, please consider this your second warning. We have other threads here, and there are other threads at other blogs where you can discuss your ideas.

    Banner of Heaven — October 25, 2005 @ 12:08pm
  130. Speaking of Boobs,

    Has anyone but me noticed how many women are getting augmentations? They are popping out everywhere. I think that when most women get super - size they forget to get larger clothes, because their shirt buttons looked strained. As a male with testosterone poisioning I find these tight round after - market chests distracting, especially in church. What is the goal? Do women want men to hit upon them? It seems to me that the natural course is get an augmentation to feel better about themselves, then they get attention, then they have an affair, and then they get a divorced. Why don’t any of our leaders talk about this form of body modification? They like to talk about pearcings, and tatoos….Maybe a double standard.


    Kirk — November 20, 2005 @ 3:44am
  131. Kirk, Mari actually had a post/discussion devoted to that very topic here:

    Allison — November 20, 2005 @ 10:01pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comments are closed for this post.

Best Viewed with
Firefox: Safer, Faster, Better
Generated in 0.209 seconds (64 queries) | Powered by WordPress