non mormon woman been seeing someone not seriously for a while. he's not RM and claims to be getting out some day. however, he has a tendency to make comments like "if YOU seduce ME you MIGHT get some." In the boards opinion does this seem like P-hood entitlement programming he needs to shake or is he just an arrogant jerkwad?

trying to put the blame on the woman for possible future "sinning" Sounds like a p-hood copout to me. My friend dated a similar guy. He was okay with heavy petting and finally sex...but only if SHE initiated it. She was under the impression they would get married. He met with his bishop, explained how she was under the grasp of satan and had tempted him and then promptly dumped her. He got married in the temple to a virgin he barely knew 2 months later.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2014 09:34AM by Tupperwhere.

Wow Tupperwhere... did you know my roommate in college? That is EXACTLY what happened to her with her RM boyfriend. Sad, sad, sad.

Oh, he wants to blame you if you take charge. Nice. I would dump him immediately.

Wow! not one but two women whose opinions I respect!

He's mind-fucking you.

He doesn't take responsibility for his own needs and desires, but instead wants to "blame" them on someone else, and right now in his life, that is YOU.

This is highly likely to be the pattern of his entire life--never take responsibility for ANYTHING.

When it comes to this particular guy, it's time for you to cut and run.

Yep! difficult for me to admit when someone is hopelessly broken since I'm a big believer in a God of redemption. actually been stalling on a very nice work mate who's been politely hitting on me for a while. think it's that time!

there's a happy ending to my friends story. She met her husband (an exmo) about 6 months later and they are still happily married 16 years later. The p-hood idiot is on his 3rd temple marriage now lol

Hey Tupperwhere! Washing my sheets even as we speak! You never know! :-D

you can do it! I personally would be turned off by a guy that doesn't take charge. I like the macho, take charge type of guys :) I don't want the responsibility of having to "seduce" you. ew.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2014 09:56AM by Tupperwhere.

I'm no shrink, but that would be a red flag to me. It smacks of a sort of passive-aggressive mormon cop out.

It's how he was raised. Mormon boys seem to either become dominant a-holes or wimpy little turds that blame everyone else for everything...

I would tell lover boy to hit the road, and don't come back until he grows up. His brain has been scrambled.

Like i've always told my kids (like a broken record), when someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time. It will save you a lot of misery.

You are a genius!!

Was he thinking about something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_sex_in_chains_case

that it was up to us to keep men in line because they had such a high sex drive. I've seen many girls who were blamed for tempting the guy.

It was my job to save my gay ex--I was told by many leaders.

When I found out he was cheating, a bishop friend of mine (long-time friend) told me that I hadn't been giving him enough sex so that is why he cheated WITH OTHER MEN. My ex told me that when I did things like not go to church or drink diet coke that I was lowering his ability to resist temptation.

IT is all on YOUR shoulders.

See? There's that diet coke sinning again.

I think he wants to be seduced but only if he can blame you for sinning. He will wind up marrying a young virgin tbm he barely knows. This is a no win for you; I agree, you should dump him. And don't feel the least bad about it.

Note: If you did seduce him he would wind up dumping you anyway because you are tempting him to do evil. That's what I mean by no-win.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2014 11:18AM by shakinthedust.

Lack of personal responsibility = fatal personality flaw. Throw him back and get your line back in the water. This is a bad fish!

I have a friend who got divorced last year after 15-some years of marriage and two children. He popped in for a visit last summer and, as tactfully as I could (And turns out, I didn't need to be; he WANTED to talk about it), I sort of, in a roundabout way, asked what ended the marriage. I wanted vague generalities, not specifics, i.e., "one of us cheated" would have been sufficient for me.

He gave me a non-answer at first; perhaps he hadn't really thought about it. Finally, later, he said, "Well, she would get angry because I couldn't answer simple questions like, 'Should we have another child?'"

And I said, "Well, no answer is pretty much a no, isn't it?"

He nodded.

Now I've known this guy for more than 10 years (college buddy) and always thought very highly of him, but in that brief exchange, I saw him for who he really is. He refuses to take responsibility for any decision, ever, because he doesn't want to be the bad guy if things go south. So he claims to be "laid back" which I've found is a code for "I will sit back and abdicate all personal responsibility, letting you make all my choices for me. And when something goes wrong, I will blame you and not do a damn thing about rectifying the situation. I will just criticize YOU until YOU fix it."

So that's what life is like with someone like that, after about 15-20 years. You will always be the bad guy. Everything that goes wrong will be your fault; he just went along with it to please you. It puts you in an unteneble position to always make the difficult choices and always be the one to pay the prices. So yes, it's priesthood entitlement programming AND being an arrogant jerkwad.

DTMFA.

ETA: Actually, if it was me, I would make good and damn sure this guy had sinned BADLY before I left him. ;>) Because, after you dump the mf already, he will still have to go confess to the bishop about YOU seducing him. Since you aren't a member, no repercussions for you and now he has to go through the guilt/shame/repentance process. Serves him right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2014 10:16AM by dogzilla.

Hard to tell if he is a jerk or lacking confidence to make a move. Of course even if it is lack of confidence, it may cause major relationship problems.

I'll echo what was said above, this guy wants it but he's programmed to think that "it" is bad, so he wants the initiative to come from elsewhere.

It could be that he's a jerk, it could also be that the programming is so strong that while he wants something, he's scared to seek it out. He may just need to have you take initiative, then see it's actually safe in the deep end, and be willing to dive in after that.

That said, it could go either way. While you may want to take initiative and push him in the deep end, don't stick around too long if he always insists you take the initiative.

I don't think we have enough information to give any of this advice. Saying something like that might be a sign of some serious problems, sure, but it is more likely to be part of the flirting process. It is a common thing to dare the other person to seduce or to make a move while flirting.

Let's change some of the words around:

"If YOU kiss ME I MIGHT kiss you back," said with a wink.

Harmless flirting? Probably.

All I am saying is that we need more information before we give the relationship destroying advice that is being given here.

If I ever want to kiss someone and say something as stupid as

"If YOU kiss ME I MIGHT kiss you back," said with a wink

Please just kill me and put me out of my misery.

A) I have no confidence
B) That would just be pathetic

(Unless I am already in a relationship and we have kissed many times and it is in context of being a joke.)

Upcoming Threat Hijack:

Remind me never to date you. It'd be rough to have to live up to your rule about who is and who is not pathetic.

That kind of flirting isn't my style, but what other completely benign things would you also use as a justification for thinking your partner is pathetic?

My thinking is that if you are not ready to take the initiative, you are not ready for sex, period. His approach is very passive.

One possible response to him might be, "Well, do you think we are ready for sex? What shall we do about birth control?" or, "Why don't you seduce me if you're so interested?"

I still say that he wants to blame her for succumbing.

The entire point of my post was that neither you, I, nor anybody else here knows enough to tell if the guy is being passive, priesthood-ish, or anything else. Any advice we give is going to be bad advice because of that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2014 12:56PM by snb.

Didn't Adam use this line on Eve?

Seriously? This is a moot point because… it has nothing to do with p-hood, as a never-mo she assumes

Wanted to respond the other day but the boards were closed, and, since I seduced her this morning, or was seduced- it’s hard to tell sometimes- (I made the bed and she made the coffee) [woman’s role? Please! man’s “ responsibility”? come on!]) I was too busy to respond until now. When it happens, it happens, and who is counting? Do you and your lover keep track of who says something nice first, who lights the candles, brings flowers, makes the bed, and puts on sexy clothes or attitude first? Btw, I often set the tone with a gesture, flowers, candles, setting up and cleaning up, etc. I expect her to come onto me if she wants to (and vice versa) and I rarely refuse- while she expects me to make all the moves. She says she tried the first few years but now seldom, if ever does. (She criticizes my shape or something insignificant and I could say the same about her). What’s up with that? At least all the Mormon girls I knew who had sex (with a lover or spouse), mixed up as they may or may not be about the subject, figured they had to do something to get it. Are non-Mormon or never-mo girls any different in their entitlement or expectations than Mormon or LDS chicks when it comes to sex? Do only p-hood men suddenly take charge when a normal man won’t? Note: I never held the priesthood but dropped it as soon as I “got it”. Does the p-hood give a man power or authority or sudden interest in his lover he did not previously possess before TSCC?

Besides…
What it's the difference between p-hood entitlement and m-entitlement (and for that matter, women's entitlement- her thinking the male has to do all the coming-on)? If both partners are equally interested, loving and/ or sexy, fit, awake, and desirous, what could keep them apart and who would care or matter why it came on? You couldn't tear them apart and it wouldn't matter who had the ball because they would both be in the same court.

A little background, clarification, filling in the blanks and adding some details since it helps to have all or most of the facts or hear both sides right? Then your response/ comments may be different:

“non mormon woman been seeing someone not seriously for a while. he's not RM and claims to be getting out some day. however, he has a tendency to make comments like "if YOU seduce ME you MIGHT get some." In the boards opinion does this seem like P-hood entitlement programming he needs to shake or is he just an arrogant jerkwad?l get laid tonight...”

Nothing to do with arrogance, brainwashing, entitlement or anything of the like but more accurately care and sharing and friendship and beauty and love. My words: Lovers Seduce Each Other!!!

Actually! - Left TSCC at 16 (a few decades ago), inactive ever since, (“resigned” rather recently officially after finding this board and much other stuff, like, coke-WoW, Romney, family bs, bishop bs, eq bs, Bednar video, etc., etc., etc…and she knows that [I am OUT!] but she is perhaps just trying to stir the pot). Met anon sex? a few years ago, were lovers maybe, now fwb (to put it bluntly, simply and mostly accurately & while she tells numerous people we are friends or roommates/ ex-roommates, blah, blah, blah), still semi-lovers part-time, when she wants it and isn’t after someone else (she come onto who she wants to - when she wants to - “Yep! difficult for me to admit when someone is hopelessly broken since I'm a big believer in a God of redemption. actually been stalling on a very nice work mate who's been politely hitting on me for a while. think it's that time!” & “Washing my sheets even as we speak! You never know! :-D” - in case he wants to seduce me or I want to seduce him – another man maybe), she isn’t tired, we have the time, are in the mood, is available (ie., not red), has the energy and somebody seduces somebody… still have love for each other. FWB is no guarantee one will get laid- just that they might. They could be your spouse and still there is no guarantee you'll get laid. Somebody still has to come on to/ "seduce" somebody. Even if you are gay, there must be one or more seducers. Duh. Is this sexism on her part? You both have to do work or earn it. Right?

Update: (Yes, I put the clean sheets on this morning or we both may have gotten laid on Sunday) [we were both too busy, tired, away, on the phone or pre-occupied to do it yesterday + the stupidbowl was on (though we didn’t watch it, everybody else did).

Last point: Clean sheets don't alone get a woman (or man) what they want but it is better than dirty or no sheets.

“… the board thinks I (she) will get it tonight.” To that I said yay, naturally, because that meant that I might also. Anyway…

Some call it black and white while wise others see it how it is - gray.
To paint a proper picture people need all the colors, textures and contrasts.

Man’s job? Woman’s job? Mormon or not, what difference does it make.

Smart = snb

Non-Mormon girls are used to initiating sex. The thing is, whoever initiates sex, *own it.* Being that level of coy in a grown man ("if YOU seduce ME you MIGHT get some") is nothing short of ridiculous.

The same God that "programs" men programs women: nature