CrossfitDan

I haven't talked to her about CF in any sort of depth at this point. It will probably be next week when I see her again. Her daughter and my daughter are in an extracurricular programme together. The mother is always wearing her CF gear tee, advertising it, I think her vehicle promotes it too but I could be imagining that part. She looks great, nice muscle tone. I have never been a fan of women being toned muscularly, but my opinion is changing, as I've been following a friend on Facebook that lives in California and is super competitive - we actually used to train together a LONG time ago doing cross country run. I could probably stand to beef up a bit.

Not sure if this is a caution, warning, criticism or encouragement.
 
"I want to quote Russell Berger from his post on the CrossFit Forum in reply to some of the negative posts about CrossFit going around on the internet. This is his last point and I 100% agree. I couldn't say it any better myself:
"...don’t get too worked up about everything published on the internet.
People feel strongly about CrossFit because it changes their lives. A combination of gratitude and allegiance drives the CrossFit community to defend their own against these types of articles. But the truth is, this type of article is symbolic of our success. No one is writing emotional manifestos against Blackberries, yet it’s hard to keep track of the number of commercials attempting to point out flaws with apple products."
Thanks Russell!
http://therussellsblog.com/

It's been eons since I've checked in, but I met a woman that is a Crossfit instructor, and I think I'm going to look into it further.

Nice article Dan. We could solve a lot of our western health problems if more people exercised. It would be good to have a better sample of what is really going on as the article suggests. There is no doubt that injuries are not at all uncommon in sports in general, which is all the more reason for people to build up strength, mobility, and general condition cautiously before engaging in higher intensity pursuits. For instance I was excited to see that TRX suspension training in a unilateral closed kinetic chain exercise program was shown/estimated to reduce ACL injuries in female athletes by 88%. It is cool to see what proper preparation can do to mitigate risks.
 
I've always maintained that those who are able and willing to engage in activities such as CrossFit should feel free to do so, but cautioned those who lack appropriate ability to build up in safer ways first. 

Didn't see this.
 
 
When I was pregnant I kept working out. I'm not sure I'd call it hardcore but I was constantly moving, many thanks to my husband, that encouraged me to stay active despite having days when my body was just flat out exhausted! But my OBGYN felt strongly that women should continue to be active, at a level comfortable to them while pregnant, because it does the body wonders.

It is NOT selfish to desire wholeness in sexual experience, absolutely not. You know, I use to work with a bishop who use to say "in principle" all the time. In principle, if he had enough faith, if he was righteous enough, if he loved Father enough, IF HE WAS MORE SELFLESS! he could be happy, serve the word more, meet his members needs more, be happy with his wife. The type of language you use is one that I have to constantly break people of. Its self defeating, self betrayal and a type of spiritual manipulation. A question I often ask is, well then how selfless do you need to be to be happy? (I want to be clear, I am not accusing you of any of these things.)
 
We are talking about being whole, not craving more or being selfish! Big difference. "In principle" we could be happy without legs, arms, without hearing, without voice, without sight. Is it "selfish" to desire to be whole again? NO. Its silly to suggest having a car or house is like being sexually whole or rather, whole as a person. I have heard multiple times from husbands, its not a big deal, we can be happy. We have the gospel and have faith.
 
Believe me, Hollywood doesn't need to misguide or inform women to know they are not whole.
 
 
"My comments are meaningless." Thats interesting. "and when I do speak my opinion on a public forum there are those like you to correct me." Yah, because, unfortunately, their are those who don't perceive your comments as meaningless.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your usage of the word "sacred". But the church doesn't teach "proper sexuality" because its between the couple and Father. It may be different for different couples. Not because its sacred, we teach and talk of sacred things reverently and respectfully in the church frequently. Therefore I agree with your last sentence above.
 
 
This is what I am concerned with. Its common in the church to treat something so "sacred" its secret. With your analogy, there is much more we can say about the temple then we ever do. For this fear of saying something wrong or not treating it sacredly. NO sex discussion should not stay in the bedroom. No if what you are referring to is issue and details specific to the relationship, absolutely. They should stay between husband, wife and qualified therapist. However, in general its important to have a reverent, but open dialog with your children and others about intimacy. Again, I am not suggesting sharing details about your couples relation but intimacy in general. 
 

May I also add, that your comments fail to consider a large portion of people who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse as children. Abuse changes the sexual experience in ways, unless you have worked with abuse victims, in ways you could begin to understand. I have never heard of, studied or worked with clients who in these cases just "figured it out". In fact, in these situations, its often the husband I end up having to work with in depth because he has this idea that if he just tries hard enough, has enough faith they will just figure it out. That then create a lot of other problems. Additionally, Women who biologically have issues with orgasms or generally feeling little or no pleasure during intimacy which is very common. Over 40% of women have NEVER orgasm! Also men although less frequently, who have issues biologically too.
 
Its comments like yours that over simplify the issue and unintentionally communicate the wrong messaged.

May I also add, that your comments fail to consider a large portion of people who have experienced abuse, especially sexual abuse as children. Abuse changes the sexual experience in ways, unless you have worked with abuse victims, in ways you could begin to understand. I have never heard of, studied or worked with clients who in these cases just "figured it out". In fact, in these situations, its often the husband I end up having to work with in depth because he has this idea that if he just tries hard enough, has enough faith they will just figure it out. That then create a lot of other problems. Additionally, Women who biologically have issues with orgasms or generally feeling little or no pleasure during intimacy which is very common. Over 40% of women have NEVER orgasm! Also men although less frequently, who have issues biologically too.
 
Its comments like yours that over simplify the issue and unintentionally communicate the wrong messaged.

Absolutely true, but only a part of the problem.
 
 
Sure, people lived without Dr. for many years, their life expectancy was also much lower. Sure people lived without sexual education for many years, but there was also a sexual repression, shaming and a plethora of misconceptions. Beliefs that some sexual activity resulted in insanity, and so forth.
 
 
Not sure what that means? So education isn't needed?
 
 
"...in principle." Well, that can very well be said with anything, when you qualify it with "in principle."
 
 
Oh, the problems were around long before movies and television, this is a gross over simplification. But I agree, its not helped. However, I will tell you I have seen repeatedly in my practice and association families/couples, good, faithful members who do not indulged in the media and would for all intense and purposes have a very healthy relationship. Have very unhealthy and poor sexually lives. This is very common.
 
 
Perception IS reality. Period.
 
 
I don't know what this means....
 
 
Telling someone or a group of people, generally is not the "healthy" approach. Its what most members and to a degree the "church" did between 1963- about 1990 or so. You can go back to many of the leaderships writings in the late 60's and 70's dealing with the sexual revolution and all topics related to it. I by no means criticize the leaderships attempt to educate and compare the upsurge of promiscuity. However, it was a very less effective approach. As a result, when we focus on how others are doing it wrong we inadvertently dilute and confuse the message that its bad.
 
As was pointed out in another related post. Although, the "church" never taught sex is bad its members by focusing on preventing the promiscuity inadvertently communicated a message that sex is bad, should only be done for procreation and most importantly ignored the idea that intimacy is a beautiful and wonderful experience. Focusing on the bad does not teach the good. It only gives more attention to the bad. I assure you, I think it would surprise you. The majority of unhealthy ideas about sex come from messages communicated in the family and at church. NOT Hollywood.

Again, I disagree and there's more than just 'Hollywood' that is a problem but I don't want to risk breaking the rules of the forum so will just hope that you can see that others' experience is not easy or "happy and healthy" (for various reasons).

Though you have some valid points, I don't totally agree with "for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went".  That's quite an assumption.  Unless you've been around that long and in everyone's bedroom, you have no way of knowing that.  For all you know, they would have appreciated a decent book to refer to for a bit of info.

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).

ABSOLUTELY appropriate to be intimate during a "separation", if it is a part of a healthy, loving interaction I would suggest as often as both of you enjoy it too. HOWEVER, I am concerned and I would suggest there are some bigger issues going on here that you might want to explore and soul search other than the sexual part. As a therapist, when I hear "separate but involved", a week maybe a month which is too long, but a year? The intimacy, although very important, might be insignificant compared to you needed to understand what you want (as appose to what he wants) and pursuing it.

Hmm. I think my problem with the concept, overall, is that it is misusing the concept of Faith. Dismissing action because of faith is not faith. Faith is action. Faith that things will work out requires the working of things out. We may not know how to work it out, but ignoring something in the name of faith is faith in name only.
 
Here's my effort at rewording - not perfectly worded (you can do that work yourself.  :)). But I think it puts across my thinking on fear and anxiety:
 
"A spiritual confirmation can lead to clarity of action and choice, though an emotional sense of fear and anxiety may continue thereafter. Without that spiritual confirmation, there is danger that the fear and anxiety may be a witness that something is not right."
 
In other words, I feel that when we ponder, fast, pray, etc., we may indeed have a moment of complete peace and strength, where fear and anxiety dissipate and we know that something is right. However, the next day, being imperfect mortal beings, we may still feel a great amount of fear and anxiety concerning it. Some may not, but to imply that if one does it means the spirit is decidedly giving a stupor of thought could introduce confusion.  I have experienced this personally. There are many wrong choices I have made in my life, of course. But there are a few that I accept as right because of an answer to a prayer, but then still felt anxious about afterwards.
 
I will give an example. We had the chance (my wife and I) to potentially put our house up for sale or rent and move into my parent's home while they were on a mission, basically saving ourselves the mortgage payment for that year. Logically, in almost all ways, this seemed like a wise course to try and follow. However, we prayed, fasted, and attended the temple. In the temple I felt a strong spiritual impression that I was to stay put. So I did. Now, since that time, I have had a fair amount of second guessing, fear, worry that I misread the spirit, etc.  That is just me. It is part of my personality. I am a second-guesser, I guess. But I rely upon the experience in the temple and, accordingly, push forward with faith, in spite of my fear and anxiety. (Point of note, as of yet, I have had nothing occur that helps me to logically understand why I am supposed to stay put.)

You link appears to be broken.
 
404 Error - page not foundWe're sorry, but the page you are looking for doesn't exist.

I think that squatting one's bride is a sin (though bench-pressing a bride -- perfectly acceptable).   Nice avatar though.  Heheh.

Having a thriving, happy, eternal marriage in today’s world seems to be more and more difficult. As a student of gospel doctrines and as a Marriage and Family Therapist I find it my passion and joy to work with couples and guide them on a path to increased success and happiness in marriage.
 
During my time working with clients and teaching the gospel I developed a questionnaire to help individuals and couples explore their individual readiness and marriages. I would value your insight and feedback on the questionnaire. You can remain anonymous if you would like. Or feel free to post your ideas here to this thread.
 
Please rate and comment on the questionnaire here.
 
What are your thoughts on the questionnaire?
Where the question relevant? Helpful? Thought provoking? Dumb?
Would love to know what you believe makes your marriage or future marriage joyous, exciting and profoundly enduring and loving.
 
My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/dbmft