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?

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?