I actually was told about the term by a friend in 2007. I remember very clearly
As I posted above, I don’t think they would because that would mean they are planning to have sex.
Oh, OK. But recent is a relative term. It’s not like it’s from the 19th century.
Sorry, I wasn’t questioning you. I just thought it was cool that I might have known of a dirty term before most other people.
Or maybe I invented it 
Orville “the soakster” Mogul
No problem. My post was in reply to someone who was questioning if it were an obcure practice from some other branch of Mormonism, and it looks like soaking is a modern term.
Oh, and since this thread is petering out, I have to include this bit about Mormons and TikTok from a few years ago.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but it’s amazing that Mormon swingers can have 3.5 million followers, although it seems they build up their base before revealing they were swingers. Not typical Mormon fare.
Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled soaking program.
Knowing no morman people at all, my only opinion on the matter is that I would be unable, given the alleged circumstance, to avoid premature ejactulation.
Those older, wiser and better at controlling their orgasm (Sting tantric sex style - safe for work link - Sting Talks 7-Hour Tantic Sex With Trudie Styler - ABC News ) may differ.
I would thinking that “soaking” would be the normal practice of Mormons.
No, wait, I’m thinking of “mermen”. Never mind.
We all see what you did there.
As someone who grew up Catholic I’ve definitely heard both “Anal doesn’t count as sex” and “Soaking” we rule loopholes before, but it wasn’t called soaking it was called something else.
Pregnancy?
which bears the question:
what happens next? … do they e.g. then (with PiV) binge-watch S3 of Seinfield together?
Guess I must have led a sheltered life.
I’ve been active in the Church for almost thirty years, and this is the first I’ve heard of it. On the whole I doubt if I have missed much.
Are you saying it’s a cockamamie story?
I’ m saying it’s the first I’ve ever heard of it.
I’ m saying it’s the first I’ve ever heard of it.
i can’t flatly deny its existence, as it does sound like the sort of rather childish thing that college students and the like might possibly concoct,
However, in the course of my membership I have watched fifty or sixty General Conferences (ie from SLC) and attended similar numbers of Stake and Ward Conferences. In all that time I’ve never heard “soaking” so much as mentioned. I might add that we LDS are a chatty lot (I’ve even heard members jokingly call us “natter-day saints”) so I don’t see how I could have avoided hearing about the practice were it at all widespread. So mark me down as a sceptic.
I think it has been fully established (repeatedly) that it is not part of Official Church Doctrine, and thus not discussed at Official Church Meetings, establishing that it doesn’t Officially Exist.
Ever open a thread out of shear boredom and immediately regret it?
Uh… I have, we’ll say.
It’s not official existence that I was thinking about, but rather awareness of it among ordinary members.
Thus the Church has never taught that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are the Lost Tribes of Israel, or that the AIDS epidemic was a punishment from God, yet I have come across members who believe one or both of those things. OTOH I have never heard a word about “soaking” - sympathetic or otherwise - from anybody, and I’m pretty sure that if it was at all common I would have heard someone say something on the subject.
I disappear for a week and there’s almost 80 replies. Holy smokes, I wasn’t expecting this thread to blow up like this! And I actually learned some things.
I think those who said that “soaking” exists, but it isn’t widely practiced or acknowledged are probably on the right track. Even without “failure” I can’t see how this is acceptable in Mormonism. But I bet someone somewhere within the vast deserts of Utah has tried it!