MrShorty

The Folk Prophet, on 16 Apr 2014 - 09:20 AM, said: This is helpful to understand the direction you'd like the discussion to go. I think that, quite commonly, expectations are not properly set for either the male of the female. Men, I think, tend to go into marriage thinking they'll have unlimited access from that moment on. Women, in some cases that I know of, might go into marriage thinking things even along the lines of how they'll only have sex when they want to have a baby. As to the potential solution? Complicated. Many men are unlikely to believe it or accept reality even if taught it. It's like how I believed I'd be rich someday when I was a teenager, and no amount of reasonable talk meant a thing to me. I was different. I was special. I think that some of this is about maturity and self-knowledge. At what point in our progression/development/growth as singles will we be mature enough and know ourselves well enough to be able to state our sexual expectations with finality? Part of me wants to say, never, and maybe this is an important thing to realize. Dr. Schnarch in particular I think hits on this point very well in the way he talks about marriage as the ultimate people growing machine. In many ways, including sexually, marriage forces us to reach beyond ourselves and grow. Many marriage problems are rooted in this failure to "grow" with the marriage/spouse. Perhaps we need to teach our youth and ourselves that sexuality is not a static something we can label ourselves with. Part of understanding and expressing our expectations for sex in marriage will be what changes do you expect and how will they be handled? Quote With the converse problem it becomes a challenge as to how to speak to sons and daughters openly about sex and yet still maintain propriety and sanctity of the subject. There are those that would discard all decorum in favor of the solving of the above problems. And yet we learn from the Book of Mormon "And also it grieveth me that I must use so much boldness of speech concerning you, before your wives and your children, many of whose feelings are exceedingly tender and chaste and delicate before God, which thing is pleasing unto God;" (Jacob 2:7) Tender, chaste, and delicate feelings are good. Yet this conflicts, in many cases with the problems discussed in the thread. Should we tear down our daughter's inhibitions with frank talk at the expense of also damaging their tender, chaste, and delicate feelings? I dunno. In many ways I agree that this is a significant part of the challenge of teaching our youth. Sometimes we try to simply push it off onto the parents as if the Church should have no place in this issue, but I think the Church should put some thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. For example, your final statement, in some ways, sets up a "false dichotomy" between "tender chaste and delicate feelings" and "sexual feelings" Do we really believe that tender, chaste, and delicate are always non-sexual, or is there room in tender chaste and delicate for sexuality?

Yes, it should be obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. So, if complete refusal to engage sexually (or at least engage in a discussion find a middle ground sexually) is selfish (and maybe that is a big "if"), then, this obligation to be selfless might lead into an obligation to engage the sexual relationship somehow. For some dealing with illness, injury, or abuse, this may start as seeking treatment/therapy to overcome the roadblocks to sexual expression, rather than immediately having sex. Do we think they can just selfishly ignore the issue? Perhaps when framed in this way, the question of "sexual needs" vs. "obligation to have sex" is merely two sides of the "selfishness" coin. Yes, the sexual pursuer will have to sometimes selflessly defer or abandon perceived sexual needs in favor of what the relationship needs. On the flip side, the sexual distancer will have to find ways to selflessly stretch themselves to meet the pursuer's needs for the good of the relationship. Does this sound like something we would believe?

To the question of "obligation" then. Is "selflessness" an obligation in marriage?

On communicating sexual expectations before marriage: As true as this may be, I found this part difficult in practice. Mostly because I entered marriage not fully understanding my expectations for sex in marriage. I entered marriage with the "intellectual" expectation that sex was "disposable" (like I so easily pulled it from anatess's post -- even though she apparently did not mean it that way) in marriage. Years later, as it devolved into sexlessness, I could not understand why I was so resentful and frustrated. In many ways, this thread is an outgrowth of and a stepping stone along my journey to try to understand my own sexual expectations in marriage. I guess the main point I would make here is -- are we teaching our youth real "truth" about sex in marriage so they can formulate and express their real expectations before they get married? I'm not always sure that we are. On "wedding vows not an oath to celibacy": I will agree with this statement wholeheartedly. My follow up question (and I will probably get the rhetorical concept wrong), is the "converse" also true? Are wedding vows an oath to engage sexually with your spouse?

The Folk Prophet, on 15 Apr 2014 - 5:53 PM, said: Expressing a strong desire (or "need") for something is not selfish. If I tell my wife, for example, that I want a new truck it is not selfish for me to tell her that. If she disagrees, we work it out together and come to a decision that we can both be comfortable with. But the desire, even very strong desire, to buy a truck is not selfish in and of itself. Is there a parallel between your example of wanting a new truck and sex? Looking specifically at the question of "obligation", would your wife have an "obligation" to work it out together if she disagrees, or can she simply exercise veto power and say "no truck and no discussion about a truck and no mutually agreeable solution on a truck. just no"?

I will agree with you that sexual frequency is not the only measure of the health of a relationship. It is possible to do it daily and still have a terrible marriage. I think I would "generally" disagree with you, though, on the "lower than normal" frequencies. Therapists I have read on the topic of sexless marriages generally define a sexless marriage as 10 times or less per year (a few put it at 7 or 8). Allowing for the occasional exception and extenuating circumstance (illness etc.), these therapists seem to say that a couple doing it quarterly or semi-annually probably do not have a phenomenal marriage. Statistically, those with phenomenal marriages tend to do it at least monthly and probably more frequently than that. To your final point, yes, sex and love are not synonyms. But they tend to be related. Part of my own study on this topic over the years has been to try to understand how they are related. They clearly are not "polar opposites" the way I learned in my youth. And clearly, as you say, they are not synonyms. But somewhere in between is a relationship that seems to be muddled and messy and challenging to understand, but there is some kind of relationship. A lot of people describe this relationship the way spiritdragon and anatess have above -- the sexual relationship flows naturally out of the rest of the relationship (sex is "caused" by intimacy, if you will). I'm not sure it is that simple. What is clear to me is that sex and intimacy are "correlated". In this correlation, I do not know if we can really say definitively that one causes the other. On one hand, sometimes the "sex as barometer" begins to sound to me like "when the husband/wife/relationship is 'perfect', then we can condescend to have sex." It tends to also neglect some of the non-relational problems that get in the way of sex (hormonal imbalances, etc.). Undoubtedly, a good therapist treating a sexless marriage will consider the sexual relationship within the context of the larger relationship and adjust treatment accordingly. At the same time, I don't think they will "ignore" the sexual relationship until the rest of it is fixed, either. I would expect them to treat it "holistically."

In many ways, I will agree with you. The entirety of the marriage relationship is very complex and next to impossible to reduce to a single aspect. Sex is not the end all be all of marriage, just as parenting is not the whole thing, just like buying flowers is not the whole thing. Building a strong marriage involves the cumulative effect of many big and little things. However, specific to the questions I'm asking to explore here, I think it can still be fairly simple. As you say, adultery/infidelity is the result of one spouse's choice to engage with someone sexually outside of the marriage. On the other hand, sexless marriages are about one spouse's choices to disengage sexually. He stays up late playing a video game in hopes that she will go to bed and be asleep before he comes to bed. She chooses to "have a headache" to rebuff his advances. Just as adultery is often the cumulative effect of small decisions about the relationship with a "friend", sexless marriages are the cumulative effect of multiple small refusals. In terms of pursuing, nurturing, and growing the sexual relationship, is there an obligation for both spouses to be actively work on the sexual relationship, or should there be no obligation at all?

So, sex becomes a "disposable" aspect of intimacy? As Miley Cyrus explained last fall, she wants to "live it up" while she can because sex ends before 40"? Is there a "rush" to get to the point where sexual intimacy is no longer important? How does a couple know when they are beyond having sex? When we talk about needing to cease sexual activity due to age/health, I am reminded of an article by Dr. Harley. In one article discussing sex and disability, he explains that much of our frustration with unmet needs is when we perceive that our spouse is unwilling to meet our needs rather than unable. There is less frustration/resentment when a spouse "would if he/she could but cannot" than when "he/she cannot and would not even if they could." He suggests that much of our perception of "willingness" will come from the spouse's behaviors/attitudes before the illness/injury/aging took place. Recognizing that the sexual relationship tends to decline with age, is there importance in prioritizing the sexual relationship while we can? Or are we supposed to anticipate and even "hasten" the day when we can cast off the sexual relationship?

I find the topic of selfishness/selflessness very interesting -- especially in the context of these kinds of discussions. I am reminded of a discussion I started a couple of years ago about "how a little selfishness can help your marriage" based on something I read by Dr. Gottman (http://lds.net/forums/topic/40772-how-a-little-selfishness-can-help-your-marriage/). Without repeating the whole discussion, Dr. Gottman explains how it can be important for a spouse to have enough "selfishness" to speak up for things that he/she "needs" in the relationship. Sometimes, failure to express these needs/desires (perhaps for self-sacrficial reasons) leads to frustrations and resentments that erode the marriage. So, as it applies to this topic: do you think that only the spouse expressing a "need" for sex is being selfish? Is there any selfishness in the "I have no sexual obligation to you"? Is their any importance in how a couple negotiates the sexual relationship, or is the sexual relationship in marriage truly at the whims of the "lower libido" spouse?

So you are seeing "needs" as referring to the things needed to keep a person alive. As you say, clearly sex is not needed in terms of someone surviving from day to day. Pres. Kimball is often quoted as saying that the most common cause of the divorces he was seeing was disagreements over sex -- "not getting along in the bedroom." Therapists say that by far the most common "sexual dysfunction" they see is differences in libido. An individual husband or wife can certainly continue living without sex, but if their marriage is dying because of a lack of sex, does that make sex a "need" for the marriage? (Because singles/unmarrieds are not in such a covenant relationship, this need would still not apply to them.) Analogous to the "real needs" you describe (a person needs to eat to stay alive and healthy), many claim that marriage "needs" sexual fulfillment for the marriage to stay alive and healthy.

estradling75: I figured it was borderline from the get-go. Considering the "generic" nature of the questions, I'm hoping there is no need to go into any details that would necessitate shutting this down. I, for one, appreciate the admins' tolerance in letting the discussion continue. Folk Prophet: Why do you think that "People in relationships have sexual needs" is entirely contradictory to the law of chastity? One of the first books I read on the subject was Mom's Needs Dad's Needs by Dr. Willard Harley. He places sexual fulfillment as one of the most important "needs" in marriage.

It seems that we frequently talk about that kind of loyalty in terms of "thou shalt not commit adultery" or anything like unto it. Does that same loyalty come into play when we talk about "leave father and mother and become one flesh"? When Paul talks about "the wife's/husband's body is not her/his own" in 1 Cor 7, is he suggesting that the same loyalty that prevents us from going outside the marriage obligate us to seek/provide sexual fulfillment in marriage? I have seen some who have suggested that, along with the promise not to go outside the marriage is also a promise to be sexually available to each other. Do you see both promises as a valid part of the marriage covenant (though the latter tends to be more implied)?

Bini: I agree with you that there is no valid reason for going outside of the marriage for sexual \"needs\" -- that there is a clear boundary there that cannot be justified away. What do you think this means for the interplay between \"legitimate sexual needs\" (if they exist) and a spouse\'s \"obligation\" (if any) to meet those need? Lakumi: I\'m not sure what you mean in terms of honour? Are you trying to say, like Bini, that there is no justification for adultery -- that we should make keeping that part of the covenant absolute?

Note to moderators: In reading the rules for sexual discussions, I hope this will be allowed as a discussion topic here on lds.net. If not, I understand. I came across this blog post today from a secular philosopher (I guess is what you would call him). http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201404/does-sexless-marriage-justify-adultery-part-1 It got me thinking, and I thought I would post it here to get some reactions from conservative LDS (and the other conservative Christians that frequent this group) on the things he discusses. By way of \"disclaimer\" I guess, I would start by saying that I have no idea where he is going to go in part 2 when he expects to discuss whether chronic sexual refusal justifies adultery. I\'m not sure I care what his conclusion is in that regard. As I interpret the marriage, baptismal, and other covenants we make with God, sex outside of marriage is a violation of those covenants. With those covenants in mind, I cannot see sexual refusal as a justification for adultery. The part that really got me thinking was the interplay of the three \"contradicting\" statements he makes towards the end: 1. People in relationships have sexual needs. 2. They are restricted from satisfying those needs outside of their relationship. 3. Their partners have no obligation to satisfy these needs for them within the relationship. I suppose we could discuss/debate statement 1 -- Is sex a \"need\" in marriage, or is it more of a \"want\"/nicety? It seems that the bulk of Dr. White\'s discussion focuses on #3 -- Is sex \"obligatory\" in marriage? In the spirit of trying, not only to understand the psychology behind sex in marriage, but also to understand and discern the truths of our theology around sex, I would love to discuss reactions to this article.

As small as Wyoming is compared to Canada, it is still a fairly large state. Where in Wy would you go? Yellowstone/Teton/Jackson area? Devil\'s Tower/Black Hills? Oregon/Mormon Trail sites (Fort Casper, Martin\'s Cove, South Pass, Ft Bridger)? If you decide to emphasize history, you might try staying in Casper and exploring the Oregon/Mormon trail in Eastern Wyoming. Several sites to see, and maybe even some \"toddler friendly\" rock climbing at Independence Rock.

I\'m not sure what to make of that statement, Maureen. In the written version available on lds.org, he gives several references, including past statements from GC by Pres. Kimball and Pres. Lee asserting the same thing. It still seems to me like it is all based on Elder Talmage\'s interpretation of D&C 20:1.

If your experience in church/religious communities has been 100% free from incorrect teaching around sex, you have led a charmed life (IMO). My experience has been full of challenges discerning truth from error as it relates to sexuality, and I\'m afraid I can\'t claim that my discernment has been 100% error free. I will agree with you that these incorrect teachings are not coming from God, but they still seem to creep into the church through various cultural inroads. Elizabeth Smart, amongst others, has spoken out against the false \"chewed gum\" type analogies that creep in through the \"abstinence\" movement that we so want to promote amongst our youth. It seems that, no matter how often we \"refute\" these analogies, they keep creeping back in. The falsehood that I think really got a hold of me was the \"lust (and all sexual desire was lustfull) is the complete opposite of true love\" and \"anyone who wants to have sex with you cannot possibly love you\" kind of teaching. I brought that belief into marriage. So, when frequency started to drop off, I figured it should be easy to let it drop off, because I was not so selfish and lustful as to expect any minimum level of sexual interaction. After a few years, the frustration reached a breaking point and I started studying the true relationship between sexual desire and true love. Still not sure I have fully worked it all out, but I do feel like I am getting closer to understanding it than I was when I first got married. In many ways, I think the real challenge here is a principle I have seen attributed to Pres. Harold B Lee. Something along the lines of -- \"We need to not only teach clearly enough to be understood, but clearly enough we are not misunderstood.\" IMO, much of our effort at teaching about the relationship between sexuality, marriage, and spirituality has not been clear to never be misunderstood.

In many ways I think you are right -- in the same sense that we might say that \"most\" people don\'t need to use insulin to manage blood sugar or \"most\" people don\'t need anti-depressants/therapy to be reasonably happy. I saw a statement by Michelle Weiner-Davis suggesting that only about 1/3 of couple really struggle with \"desire discrepancy\". Other studies suggest only 15-20% of marriages are clinically sexless (10 or fewer sexual encounters per year). It seems to me that you are correct in that a majority of couples probably don\'t need a lot of \"educational material\" to come together and figure out what a healthy and satisfying sexual relationship looks like. I also agree that Hollywood (and other media: porn/romance novels/etc.) has contributed a lot of incorrect teachings around sex and relationships. On the flip side of that, though, is how the way we tend to teach about sex and relationships in the Church/religious people in general also contribute to sexual dysfunctions (what Laura Brotherson has called \"good girl syndrome\"). Ideas like \"sex is a necessary evil to be minimized\" or \"true love does not have a sexual component to it\" or \"sex is only for procreation\" show up in many different within our Church/religious culture. Some of us need real help to understand the \"truth\" that seems to be somewhere between what Hollywood seems to teach and what the Church often seems to teach.

No, my background is in the physical sciences, not the social sciences. My studies on this topic were/are inspired by several years in a sexless marriage. Over the years, I have had to study to try to understand God's real purposes for sexuality (still learning and unlearning all of the "good boy syndrome" things that I thought the Church was trying to teach me about sexuality). Over the course of that time, I have come across these authors/therapists who have taught me a lot about sex and marriage. There's a possible avenue for an additional question to explore. Explore whether someone believes that any education about sex in marriage has to come from "the Church", from Christians, or if secular sources are appropriate (within certain limits). If I remember the comment about doing x correctly, it was in reference to some of Dr. Schnarch's ideas -- and Dr. Schnarch is decidedly secular. The first of his books I picked up, I quickly dismissed, because I didn't think I should be learning anything from someone who believes "that" about homosexuality (for example). Had I maintained that aversion to his writings, I think I would have missed out on some valuable teaching (because LDS sexual education materials have nothing that even begins to approach the way Dr. Schnarch approaches those kind of issues).

I went through the survey and left several comments on several questions. A lot of my comments were about how should the person taking the survey define words (I particularly didn't like the use of the word "struggle" in many of the questions). There were also a few questions that I wasn't sure how the answer would have been useful.

The thing that strikes me about Brother Midgley's article in the OP -- his view of theology kind of runs counter to the way we do science as well. He seems to be suggesting that our theology prefers "anecdotal evidence" to promote and develop its ideas. Science, though it may use anecdotal evidence, seems to prefer other types of evidence (sometimes using elaborate statistical methods) to sort through many anecdotes to determine truth.

As I perused these videos: here are my thoughts: 1) I would agree with him that believing in God "just makes sense." However, in this life while we must walk by faith, I don't see us ever coming up with truly rigorous, logical proof of God. 2) I would agree with him that refusing to forgive our neighbor his trespasses against us in essence is refusing to accept Christ's atoning sacrifice for our own sins. 3) and 4) are interesting. I assume as an Evangelical/Protestant, he subscribes to the idea of sola fide -- salvation by faith alone. He goes on to say that true faith should/must be evidenced in our works. IMO, LDS theology, though it emphasizes the importance of faith in Christ (1st principle of the gospel in our 4th article of faith), it rejects the idea that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. As I have listened to Evangelical pastors, I do see some variation in how they interpret the idea of by faith alone. Some insist that there will be many in heaven who are "saved" but have no good works to show for their saving faith (their faith did not produce any real fruit in their life). Others, like Pastor Chaddick does in the 4th video, seem to suggest good works must (or almost must) follow or be an outgrowth of true faith. Another response to this approach sometimes is around the question of free will. If good works are only an outgrowth of faith, should a Christian sit on the couch until moved upon by the Holy Spirit to do something, or should he exercise his own free will (if there is such a thing as free will, which also seems to have a variety of opinions) to perform good works? As I see it, LDS theology teaches that faith and good works are both essential for salvation and that men should exercise their own free will to grow their own faith and to bring about much righteousness (see D&C 58) 5) LDS believe that Christ will return to Earth in a literal way and will reign as King. At some point in time, we will each make an account of what we believe, what we do, and what we have become. With that background, I would agree with Pastor Chaddick that it is important to treat each day as if that accounting/judgement could occur at any time. Sometimes we need to be careful that this doesn't lead to a fear based approach to God, as if He is constantly on the verge of punishing us. Rather, we need to develop our relationship with Him constantly, knowing that we will stand before Him where He will be able to perfectly apply mercy and justice to our personal situation.

More question than answer: How do these people view the Earth? Is there enough communication around the moon for all to know about the earth, or is there a "conflict" between the earth side people and those on the other side who would never see the earth?

It is an interesting idea. My first thought (maybe it was the reference to a girl climbing a rope between the two worlds) was of Lewis Carrol's "Wonderland" universe or L. Frank Baum's "Oz". A world where things and "people" are fantastical and whimsical and completely different from what is on Earth. I know, not really much specific to help with. It still sounds like it could be an interesting project.

In many ways, this is the heart of the question I asked over on the latest "how to sustain general authorities" thread. How to deal with those things taught be GA's that we as individuals don't quite agree? I don't think I have figured out the whole thing, but I think this idea what exactly is the eternal, unchanging doctrines might hold some key to the idea. I notice that this thread seems to have focused a lot on those latter-day situations where it seems that things have changed. The other day in the shower, I thought of a scriptural example of this, and wondered if it could be instructive. For thousands of years, the true "doctrine" was the law of Moses, with all of its performances and ordinances. Then Christ came, suffered, died, and was raised the 3rd day, which atonement "fulfilled" the law of Moses. By fulfilling the law, the performances, ordinances, and sacrifices of the law were no longer required. Of course, many of the Jews in the old world were so focused on the law that they could not see the symbolism behind it, or could not see Christ as the fulfiller of the law, and so they rejected the dramatic change. The Book of Mormon describes a group of Nephites who were too quick to give up the law, wanting to abandon the law of Moses at Christ's birth rather than waiting for the complete fulfillment that came with his death. I'm not sure I'm enough of a scriptorian to fully develop the idea, so if someone can see an application to the way the practices of the Church have changed since the Restoration, I would welcome any comments.