Guest Post: In Defense of Soaking

Guest Post by Juliet Miller

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Mormons love urban legends.

Disobedient missionaries forming secret combinations and calling themselves “The Twelve Apostates.”  A temple being spared from a natural disaster in which every building surrounding it was flattened.   A child announcing something scandalous about his family in testimony meeting, only to have his embarrassed parent follow with a detail that makes the account perfectly innocent.   We love to hear them.  We love to tell them.   But there might be one we love to hear and tell more than any other: Soaking.

“Soaking” is the alleged sexual loophole exploited routinely by BYU students.  To be blunt:  Sexual intercourse wherein the penis is inserted into the vagina but no thrusting occurs.  (It’s often accompanied by “jump-humping”, which we’ll have to get to on a different day.)  Soaking is performed in order to prevent the sin or risk of church discipline that comes with…movement, I guess.

Faithful members scoff at the idea that such a clear violation of the law of chastity would be overlooked by God, while exmormons seem to delight in the naïveté of such a sexually-repressed group of young people.

But like all urban legends, soaking exists in second- and third-hand accounts.  In all my internet searching, I found one anonymous Reddit comment that stated that they themselves participated in it.  I’ll take their word for it.  But soaking seems to me a phenomenon that…simply isn’t real.  It’s not all the rage at BYU.  It isn’t “this one weird trick” making the rounds in YSA wards.  Priests aren’t texting Laurels asking them to meet up for a soak after mutual.

So why is this urban legend so persistent?  I think it’s because idea that one can best God at his own game by getting off on a technicality seems evil to some, pitiful to others, and absurd to all.

But- and here is my defense of soaking- are we not a religion that thrives on technicalities?  During my time as an ordinance worker, I monitored patrons for technicalities in language, dress, and actions.  One would never address God as “you” in prayer.   It must be “thou,” which means the same thing as “you,” except fancy.  Every hair must go under the water at baptism.  The bishop must verify that the sacrament prayer was recited perfectly before the ritual can continue.  A motion, a word, and a hair all matter in Mormonism. God requires technicality.

Here on earth, God takes the form of a suited man sitting across the desk from you in his office down at the ward building.  Or the stake center.  Or the mission home.  And when it comes to sex, things can get awfully technical.

Were your nipples hard?  Where and how did he touch you? Did you orgasm?  Did you ejaculate?  Where did you ejaculate?  How many times did you ejaculate?  Did you get wet? What color were your panties?  Did you like it?  And, importantly, was there thrusting?

These are all questions that members of the church have reported being asked by priesthood leaders in worthiness interviews.  They’re our judges in Israel.  They hold the key to our community and acceptance in the present and are salvation and exaltation in the hereafter.  If the answers to these questions matter to them, they must matter to God.

So, if I’m 20 years old and finding myself in a sexual encounter (which, for purposes, is consensual), I need to remember to have on the right color of panties, to not let my nipples get hard, to not quite orgasm, to only let him touch me in the ways that aren’t quite as bad, to not get too wet, to not like it, and importantly, to make sure there is no thrusting.

And then, though I might still be bad, I won’t be as bad.

Urban legend or not, soaking makes sense.

Juliet is a Mormon convert, a midwife, and an unapologetic feminist.. Check out her hot takes at @angryfeminjstcookies on IG.