I so appreciate this, brilliantly written-- thank you.
I've struggled to articulate my discomfort with the concept of this show, and your words hit the nail on the head. While I'm unlikely to tell another adult what to do (I've learned that lesson the hard way), there is a deep loss and sadness when I look at these women.
Our personal decisions may seem personal, but after we've married or had children they impact many others. It cannot just be about us. Such a deep level of selfishness and lack of self awareness is alarming to me.
When would you tell another adult what to do? (And I could be misreading what you mean by "telling another adult what to do" so apologies if you don't mean the following: that we shouldn't be imposing our standards of sexual morality on others.) But if we think that this kind of behavior (cheating on your spouse, sleeping around outside of marriage, yes even *before* marriage -- would actually deeply damage children, and our villages, and really have such terrible repercussions in all levels of society both close to the person and far) isn't the onus on us to say: "Hey, don't do that. That's shameful behavior"? i.e. I think there is an argument to be made for socially cutting people off who are behaving terribly, and telling them why, until there's some kind of repentance/reformation in behavior? If we don't say something, then who will? I get that this takes some kind of common culture in which to cut people off, and then a way to bring them back in... but I'm just wrestling with, how do we get something like a healthy culture that protects children, without starting to set strong social boundaries again? Telling and showing people, communally, that Behavior A is reprehensible and foolish, and Behavior B is what will lead to a thriving, fulfilling life, even if it requires sacrifice. I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, just thinking of numerous friends and family members I've known who have suffered terribly because of a lack of guidelines and pushback in society for sexual behavior; many of them suffering deeply because of their parents's or an (ex-)spouse's behavior.
You're right. You're right. I really didn't want to face the wrath of calling out two specific people-- one who cheated on her husband with a gym coach and the other who had a pattern of sleeping with men before her/their divorces were final. Both were upset with me when I said something. But I ultimately agree with you-- if not us, who?
Interesting convo here! I think the idea of calling people out is such a tough one. Like, I do think it's worth doing — and having some sort of mechanism to keep people from hurting each other. But what do you do if you're trying to build back a community from scratch, without a pre-existing set of religious commandments or sort of an unspoken code of what's allowed and what isn't? I really don't know.
After my two bad experiences I never called anyone out again. What I basically ended up doing was self selecting immoral people out of my circle. It means our family's group of friends is more homogenous, but so be it. So like with like, people with start to gravitate towards others with similar morality.
If WE fawn and remaIN complacent and docile — what makes us any BEtter than the sINful act itself?
It’s not so much about “CALLING OUT” — as it IS about “CALLING FORWARD.”
I sense God Purposefully places and Plants us wHere protection and preServation of His commandments and laws are needed.
People-pleasINg IS misplaced fear.
It happens when our Desire to please Man BEcomes greater than our Desire to please the Lord.
It happens when WE Choose to avoid offendINg Man, over offendINg God — focusINg on short-term, temporary gaIN, as opposed to long-term, Eternal consequences.
It happens when our “fear of Man” BEcomes greater than our fear of the Lord.
This is a very insightful essay. I converted to Catholicism as an adult and wasn’t raised religious (my Dad was a secular libertarian who probably agrees with you about most things, and I think he’s a bit mortified that one of his kids turned out to be a “holy roller” 😂).
I know very little about Mormonism and never met a Mormon until I was an adult, but I do think maybe the biggest mistake a lot of religious parents make is sheltering their children so much that they are simply overwhelmed by freedom and even by a diversity of ideas once they leave the nest. I think the other big mistake is caring so much about the appearance of goodness that self-discipline etc. falls by the wayside. I think there seems to be a lot of both among Utah Mormons especially. I see similar issues in certain Catholic communities, especially those that are seen as high-prestige or very traditional.
I agree that this kind of selfishness ruins lives, and in the end it doesn’t even make the selfish person happier. They’re always chasing the next high.
Great points all around and I think you are very right about Mormonism specifically. A significant percentage of my cohort from college has left Mormonism, and it is interesting when folks go from one extreme to another, such as partying harder and longer than non-religious peers. I think being "overwhelmed by freedom and even by a diversity of ideas once they leave the nest" is the perfect way to put it.
As a side note, I'd be interested in your thoughts on converting to Catholicism, if you're comfortable sharing at all. What led you in that direction?
That's a good question - I was always very drawn to religion and spirituality. My parents sent me to Catholic school for a few years because our local public schools were having major problems - kids bringing weapons to school, significant problems with very young pregnancy etc. I went to secular prep school when I was twelve but I always maintained an interest in the ancient traditions of Catholicism and I think that's ultimately what brought me to the fold. I also always loved Pope JPII, even as a kid. He was kind of a celebrity, from what I remember (he died when I was nine) and I saw him as kind of a grandpa figure. I would say those two things influenced me the most. Plus, the fact my parents hated it was kind of a bonus, ha!
You don't seem to have considered something that has been true of several couples I knew who experimented with non-monogamy: maybe they tried swinging because they were unhappy in their marriages, sexually incompatible with the spouses they married at young ages without much romantic experience to inform their choice of spouse, and desperately trying to save a marriage (and save face) in a community where divorce is taboo.
Put another way: I don't think you can blame the swinging for the divorce. Both might have stemmed from a common cause.
I would concede the point but for one thing: There was a big group of people of similar ages, religious backgrounds, geographic locations, and general cultural orientations (the broader MomTok group, which included mostly non-swingers). But the swingers had a 100% failure rate for their marriages while the non-swingers did not. I think that strongly suggests that it was a factor. Not necessarily the only factor, but it is the big differentiator between in this group.
As to whether this particular group was driven to swinging by pre-existing marital problems, I suspect that probably was the case based on some of Paul's comments. But I'd counter that swinging, specifically, does not strike me as a particularly wise way to go about solving some of these problems. I think if you're a parent with a kid you have an obligation to make good-faith attempt to salvage your marriage, and doing something that seems as likely to destroy as save the relationship does not strike me as that. I think they should have known that it was a high-risk behavior.
This is a fascinating piece on the role of moral constraints in safeguarding children, families, and communities. I was raised in a evangelical home and I recognize that there were good things (along with some bad things) about the conservative sexual ethos I was raised with. I agree that there's a tendency to throw out religion and all its trappings without considering what is lost in the process, especially on a social level. I appreciate the way you shift the conversation away from the individual to the community and offer helpful balance in the process.
Thanks so much! I too was raised very religious. I'm considerably less so now (though always flirting with changing that, we'll see), and so I'm always interested in how you can get some of the benefits of a religious environment without some of the downsides. Tbh, I haven't found many answers.
"But I will also say that in my experience most Mormons are not swingers, don’t drink, etc."
One of the features of so-called "reality" TV is that it's intentionally fake because it's designed to maximize the TV viewing experiences. Participants are selected for how they will entertain audiences, not for how much they accurately represent some demographic. On singing contests such as "American Idol", the show runners don't pick the objectively most talented vocalists to appear in the competition -- instead, contestants are chosen because they will provide the most drama, and an inferior or even bad singer who is in some sense "interesting" will be preferred over a vastly more talented singer who is perceived as "boring" or "normal".
Of course most Mormon's don't swing or drink, etc. As a group, they are generally nice, decent, upstanding citizens with stable families. Can you imagine how tedious a show with such people would be?
The primary function of communities is consequence mitigation - it is a form of insurance. These couples were (and in the case of those offloading children onto their grandparents, are still) able to maintain prestige and benefit from a largely intact social environment. The poor anthropological visions within most American church traditions actually encourage this, as many deconstruction narratives show, because collective self-sacrifice is a central tenet. Committing to people with whom you hold significant disagreements can be miserable, but if you are the lowly and oppressed then suddenly the church is, according to common belief, required to serve you and your interests. People often enter or leave faith communities based on who in their life is choosing them, with theology largely as window dressing - "unconditional love" is the spiritual equivalent to "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".
You may not need religion or gods to generate order, but you must attend to the basic consequences everyone accepted prior to religious engagement. As others have mentioned, if community is chosen, then people are always free to not choose you. Being in community means accepting that other people have a final say in your life. This is easiest when you share beliefs about what constitutes a good life and have the resources to promote it. There is a reason that when village disintegration was studied in England the results showed that once people could financially afford to not be under social obligation they jumped ship - people, especially self-important ones, do not like being told "no".
I so appreciate this, brilliantly written-- thank you.
I've struggled to articulate my discomfort with the concept of this show, and your words hit the nail on the head. While I'm unlikely to tell another adult what to do (I've learned that lesson the hard way), there is a deep loss and sadness when I look at these women.
Our personal decisions may seem personal, but after we've married or had children they impact many others. It cannot just be about us. Such a deep level of selfishness and lack of self awareness is alarming to me.
When would you tell another adult what to do? (And I could be misreading what you mean by "telling another adult what to do" so apologies if you don't mean the following: that we shouldn't be imposing our standards of sexual morality on others.) But if we think that this kind of behavior (cheating on your spouse, sleeping around outside of marriage, yes even *before* marriage -- would actually deeply damage children, and our villages, and really have such terrible repercussions in all levels of society both close to the person and far) isn't the onus on us to say: "Hey, don't do that. That's shameful behavior"? i.e. I think there is an argument to be made for socially cutting people off who are behaving terribly, and telling them why, until there's some kind of repentance/reformation in behavior? If we don't say something, then who will? I get that this takes some kind of common culture in which to cut people off, and then a way to bring them back in... but I'm just wrestling with, how do we get something like a healthy culture that protects children, without starting to set strong social boundaries again? Telling and showing people, communally, that Behavior A is reprehensible and foolish, and Behavior B is what will lead to a thriving, fulfilling life, even if it requires sacrifice. I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, just thinking of numerous friends and family members I've known who have suffered terribly because of a lack of guidelines and pushback in society for sexual behavior; many of them suffering deeply because of their parents's or an (ex-)spouse's behavior.
You're right. You're right. I really didn't want to face the wrath of calling out two specific people-- one who cheated on her husband with a gym coach and the other who had a pattern of sleeping with men before her/their divorces were final. Both were upset with me when I said something. But I ultimately agree with you-- if not us, who?
Interesting convo here! I think the idea of calling people out is such a tough one. Like, I do think it's worth doing — and having some sort of mechanism to keep people from hurting each other. But what do you do if you're trying to build back a community from scratch, without a pre-existing set of religious commandments or sort of an unspoken code of what's allowed and what isn't? I really don't know.
After my two bad experiences I never called anyone out again. What I basically ended up doing was self selecting immoral people out of my circle. It means our family's group of friends is more homogenous, but so be it. So like with like, people with start to gravitate towards others with similar morality.
The 9 Ways of participatINg IN another's sIN —
1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By participation.
8. By silence.
If WE fawn and remaIN complacent and docile — what makes us any BEtter than the sINful act itself?
It’s not so much about “CALLING OUT” — as it IS about “CALLING FORWARD.”
I sense God Purposefully places and Plants us wHere protection and preServation of His commandments and laws are needed.
People-pleasINg IS misplaced fear.
It happens when our Desire to please Man BEcomes greater than our Desire to please the Lord.
It happens when WE Choose to avoid offendINg Man, over offendINg God — focusINg on short-term, temporary gaIN, as opposed to long-term, Eternal consequences.
It happens when our “fear of Man” BEcomes greater than our fear of the Lord.
This is a very insightful essay. I converted to Catholicism as an adult and wasn’t raised religious (my Dad was a secular libertarian who probably agrees with you about most things, and I think he’s a bit mortified that one of his kids turned out to be a “holy roller” 😂).
I know very little about Mormonism and never met a Mormon until I was an adult, but I do think maybe the biggest mistake a lot of religious parents make is sheltering their children so much that they are simply overwhelmed by freedom and even by a diversity of ideas once they leave the nest. I think the other big mistake is caring so much about the appearance of goodness that self-discipline etc. falls by the wayside. I think there seems to be a lot of both among Utah Mormons especially. I see similar issues in certain Catholic communities, especially those that are seen as high-prestige or very traditional.
I agree that this kind of selfishness ruins lives, and in the end it doesn’t even make the selfish person happier. They’re always chasing the next high.
Great points all around and I think you are very right about Mormonism specifically. A significant percentage of my cohort from college has left Mormonism, and it is interesting when folks go from one extreme to another, such as partying harder and longer than non-religious peers. I think being "overwhelmed by freedom and even by a diversity of ideas once they leave the nest" is the perfect way to put it.
As a side note, I'd be interested in your thoughts on converting to Catholicism, if you're comfortable sharing at all. What led you in that direction?
That's a good question - I was always very drawn to religion and spirituality. My parents sent me to Catholic school for a few years because our local public schools were having major problems - kids bringing weapons to school, significant problems with very young pregnancy etc. I went to secular prep school when I was twelve but I always maintained an interest in the ancient traditions of Catholicism and I think that's ultimately what brought me to the fold. I also always loved Pope JPII, even as a kid. He was kind of a celebrity, from what I remember (he died when I was nine) and I saw him as kind of a grandpa figure. I would say those two things influenced me the most. Plus, the fact my parents hated it was kind of a bonus, ha!
Thanks so much for sharing!
You don't seem to have considered something that has been true of several couples I knew who experimented with non-monogamy: maybe they tried swinging because they were unhappy in their marriages, sexually incompatible with the spouses they married at young ages without much romantic experience to inform their choice of spouse, and desperately trying to save a marriage (and save face) in a community where divorce is taboo.
Put another way: I don't think you can blame the swinging for the divorce. Both might have stemmed from a common cause.
I would concede the point but for one thing: There was a big group of people of similar ages, religious backgrounds, geographic locations, and general cultural orientations (the broader MomTok group, which included mostly non-swingers). But the swingers had a 100% failure rate for their marriages while the non-swingers did not. I think that strongly suggests that it was a factor. Not necessarily the only factor, but it is the big differentiator between in this group.
As to whether this particular group was driven to swinging by pre-existing marital problems, I suspect that probably was the case based on some of Paul's comments. But I'd counter that swinging, specifically, does not strike me as a particularly wise way to go about solving some of these problems. I think if you're a parent with a kid you have an obligation to make good-faith attempt to salvage your marriage, and doing something that seems as likely to destroy as save the relationship does not strike me as that. I think they should have known that it was a high-risk behavior.
This is a fascinating piece on the role of moral constraints in safeguarding children, families, and communities. I was raised in a evangelical home and I recognize that there were good things (along with some bad things) about the conservative sexual ethos I was raised with. I agree that there's a tendency to throw out religion and all its trappings without considering what is lost in the process, especially on a social level. I appreciate the way you shift the conversation away from the individual to the community and offer helpful balance in the process.
Thanks so much! I too was raised very religious. I'm considerably less so now (though always flirting with changing that, we'll see), and so I'm always interested in how you can get some of the benefits of a religious environment without some of the downsides. Tbh, I haven't found many answers.
"But I will also say that in my experience most Mormons are not swingers, don’t drink, etc."
One of the features of so-called "reality" TV is that it's intentionally fake because it's designed to maximize the TV viewing experiences. Participants are selected for how they will entertain audiences, not for how much they accurately represent some demographic. On singing contests such as "American Idol", the show runners don't pick the objectively most talented vocalists to appear in the competition -- instead, contestants are chosen because they will provide the most drama, and an inferior or even bad singer who is in some sense "interesting" will be preferred over a vastly more talented singer who is perceived as "boring" or "normal".
Of course most Mormon's don't swing or drink, etc. As a group, they are generally nice, decent, upstanding citizens with stable families. Can you imagine how tedious a show with such people would be?
haha, yeah a show about run of the mill Mormons would be pretty dry!
The primary function of communities is consequence mitigation - it is a form of insurance. These couples were (and in the case of those offloading children onto their grandparents, are still) able to maintain prestige and benefit from a largely intact social environment. The poor anthropological visions within most American church traditions actually encourage this, as many deconstruction narratives show, because collective self-sacrifice is a central tenet. Committing to people with whom you hold significant disagreements can be miserable, but if you are the lowly and oppressed then suddenly the church is, according to common belief, required to serve you and your interests. People often enter or leave faith communities based on who in their life is choosing them, with theology largely as window dressing - "unconditional love" is the spiritual equivalent to "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".
You may not need religion or gods to generate order, but you must attend to the basic consequences everyone accepted prior to religious engagement. As others have mentioned, if community is chosen, then people are always free to not choose you. Being in community means accepting that other people have a final say in your life. This is easiest when you share beliefs about what constitutes a good life and have the resources to promote it. There is a reason that when village disintegration was studied in England the results showed that once people could financially afford to not be under social obligation they jumped ship - people, especially self-important ones, do not like being told "no".
lol, yeah seems like everyday there is something else