I'm not sure if this is even a thing, or an urban myth

[oursin]

On another paw, we have historically-attested evidence that people in The Past did it, though not quite for the same reasons...

'Soaking', which is allegedly something that young Mormons do so that they can have sex but not actual sex that they'd have to admit to? (Okay, am not entirely up in the spiritual practices of the LDS.)

Anyway, what it is, (apparently) is, intromission without any movement, no thrusting, no orgasm, etc, and, it seems, it does not violate the young woman's status as a virgin? (No, I don't even.)

Well, I have come across this practice before but predominantly in the context of C19th married sex with not wanting to have too many baybeez/weird religious cult territory.

Alice Stockham, author of Tokology (1883) a general guide to women's health, parturition, infant care, and dietetics, also wrote a book on Karezza (1896), which advocates sexual union without ejaculation as a form of spiritual couple bonding as well as promoting health.

She had picked up this idea from John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneida Community, in which a form of 'male continence' was an essential element in the 'complex marriage' system within their community, although it was actually taught to the young men, they weren't expected just to go ahead and do it, there was an assumption that it required practice. It also allegedly paid off in multiple orgasms for the women.

In Aldous Huxley's final novel Island (1962) the practice was identified with a similar yogic one.

However, as far as I can tell from such descriptions of 'soaking' as I can find, there is no indication either that it produces extreme ecstasy for the female partner, or a mystical experience for either/both.

Comments

[sartorias]

My first thought was if it really worked to prevent endless pregnancies, the indefatigable letter writers would have been all over that.

(But maybe they were, and progeny tossed those letters into the fire.)

[oursin]

I can't help worrying about the fact that even if chaps didn't actually ejaculate, there was very likely to be a certain amount of the precious manly fluids which would possibly contain sperm somewhere about...

[tree_and_leaf]

it seems, it does not violate the young woman's status as a virgin? (No, I don't even.)

That had me scratching my head. I mean, I think the idea that oral doesn't count is definitely chopping logic and indulging in special pleading, but at least I can follow the logic of said special pleading. ...

[oursin]

Unsullied by, er, bodily fluids? No, there are all sorts of RONG about it, in terms of theological dubiousness, and, um, not as secure against conception as all that.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah, it sounds like a great way to end up pregnant. And then there's the possibility of STDs, which are obvious and alarming.

[oursin]

Well, I suppose if you Don't Move, like a Victorian Lady, according to humoral theory you probably don't generate enough heat to produce Loathsome Diseases -

No, none of it makes any sense at all.

[lauradi7dw]

The 1966 book "The Harrad Experiment," which I read in about 1970, had a stay-still-inside practice among all the other things that I think were claimed to be from the Kama Sutra, which I have not read. The characters in the book were certainly not claiming to be virgins.
I am skeptical of the "this is what those weird kids do" reporting.

[oursin]

I've a notion that there is a yogic/tantric 'sex trick of Ye Antient Oriente!!!' that bears some resemblance. Probably not what young Mormons are aiming at?

I think I read that book! - so 60s!!

[kerk_hiraeth]

I had to go double-check that last one as it did not seem a likely Oneida name; so I discover it was a 'religious' thing and not the Nation I knew about from my love of westerns ~ not from the movies etc, but from reading about the Indians portrayed, or written about.

Well I guess you learn something new, that's not really new, every day...

Actually my mind kept going to where I wanted to watch Garfunkel & Oates sing 'The Loophole' again.

kerk

[bibliofile]

I think she meant Oneida Community (a religious group), not the First Nations people.

[kerk_hiraeth]

Yeah I got that ~ after I went to check to see if there was an Oneida with that name, the community came up first. Honestly don't think I've ever heard of them before.

kerk

[oursin]

Believe it or not, the cult later went into making cutlery, and this is still a thing. (I don't think complex marriage and male continence are involved, though.)

[tree_and_leaf]

Golly. I think I got given some as a wedding present.

[anna_wing]

And it is indeed pretty nice cutlery. Elegant modern design, very usable and attractive.

[lilliburlero]

I think I remember this being a thing when Sting was going around giving interviews about his tantric sex practices...mid 90s? (not Googling, there are limits even to the disinterested pursuit of knowledge)

[perennialanna]

If you google you will end up with a picture of him posing naked with a theorbo. Don't google.

ETA I did not google myself, but a forum of yore did a version of rick-rolling but with a picture of Sting and his massive baroque instrument. (I'd much rather be truly rick-rolled)

[lilliburlero]

Now you mention it, I think I remember that picture from what they used to call the Sunday Supplements. Here, have a unicorn chaser.

[rose_griffes]

Born and raised LDS. Literally had never heard of "soaking" until I saw that tweet a couple of days ago. Granted, I am a) middle-aged, and b) didn't attend a church university, so I wasn't in a culturally Mormon setting. But I can state with full confidence even without consulting with a church leader that, uh, "soaking" is indeed sex. *facepalm*

I'm willing to bet that this is a very small subset of young people who think they're somehow "outsmarting" the rules. Quite literally rules, since church universities have a standard of conduct & behavior that people agree to when they enroll.

(There's always someone trying to find a loophole in the most ridiculous / embarrassing ways. I have to agree with one of the tweets--wish I could turn back time to un-know this!)

[oursin]

This sort of thing (wiggling round the sex rules) seems to apply across the board - there's an early novel by David Lodge, How Far Can You Go, about young Roman Catholics at uni and afterwards in England in the early 1960s. (Spoiler: the husband in one couple, after marriage and several rhythm method failures, actually goes into a chemist to buy condoms.)

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, although IIRC in that case he and his wife have made an earnest and good faith attempt to follow the rules and do "the right thing", and he's not so much thinking that he's found a way to get round the rules as has resignedly concluded they can't cope with the consequences of following them.

[oursin]

I think that's right - I can't remember whether that happens after the Vatican Council that was expected to say yes to contraception and didn't? and everyone is getting a bit pissed off with the ageing celibate hierarchy?

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, I think that's right - it's a long time since I've read it, I quite want to go back to it now! (I am inclined to argue that the rhythm method is a collective and institutional attempt to find a loophole, combined with an unwillingness to take the consequences of either a really hard line or admitting that they've allowed contraception, just an ineffective kind, but that's not to say that that's necessarily what's at work in the choices individual Catholics made or make).

[oursin]

I think the rhythm method sort of passed muster because it involved discipline and periodic abstention rather than unbridled indulgence? (plus the whole higher mathematics thing.)

There is study of devout Belgian doc who did pioneering work with the Pill because he worked in an area where men did forestry work involving going away for periods of weeks and good luck with wives saying 'it's not the right time' when they came home...

[tree_and_leaf]

Yeah, I know that's the logic, but I can't help feeling that once you've allowed and indeed encouraged people to abstain with the intent of not conceiving (rather than, as Paul suggests, as a temporary measure in order to encourage prayer time), you've really made the decision to allow contraception, you're just arguing about details. But then I'm a married Anglican who supports women's rights to control their fertility, so I would say that....

[silveradept]

The thing I mostly took away from the interest in such things was "if your religious system is so notorious for their young people trying to find ways around having sex according to strictly defined rules, perhaps you should rethink your rules about sex so that so much effort is not wasted in trying to skirt them."