Husband And Wife Are One. Believe It?

[Fiannan]

I was actually watching a Dr. Phil the other day. Phil asked a couple to state how many times they think sex should occur. The man thought everyday, the woman thought once in a while.

My question is, due to the teaching in the New Testament referring to a husband and a wife submitting to each other's needs, is it no sin, a small sin or a major sin for one person in a relationship to say no to the other person's sex drive?

I really loved a comedy show in which the popular comedian basically blamed the whole problem Bill Clinton had on Hillary. If she were doing her job...

Well, is that correct? If a woman wants sex more than her husband is he not setting her up for infidelity? And if a man wants it more than the wife...?

I know of two couples in which the women think they are righteous members but one made her husband move into another room (no night-time visits) and another woman "gives in" about twice a month. If either husband did something contrary to the commandments should they really get a severe punishment?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 16 2005, 03:41 PM

I was actually watching a Dr. Phil the other day.  Phil asked a couple to state how many times they think sex should occur.  The man thought everyday, the woman thought once in a while.

My question is, due to the teaching in the New Testament referring to a husband and a wife submitting to each other's needs, is it no sin, a small sin or a major sin for one person in a relationship to say no to the other person's sex drive?

I really loved a comedy show in which the popular comedian basically blamed the whole problem Bill Clinton had on Hillary.  If she were doing her job...

Well, is that correct?  If a woman wants sex more than her husband is he not setting her up for infidelity?  And if a man wants it more than the wife...?

I know of two couples in which the women think they are righteous members but one made her husband move into another room (no night-time visits) and another woman "gives in" about twice a month.  If either husband did something contrary to the commandments should they really get a severe punishment?

←

Personally I take being one with my husband very seriously. We always ask each other if we have any 'needs'... and we know even if the other is tired... we can get what we 'need'... it has never been... a choice to say no to each other... it is part of being considerate and loving... then again... my hubby never has asked me for it when he knew I was really exhausted because he wants me to enjoy it as much as he does.. and then if he can help do something so that I am not so tired... like doing the dishes after dinner... or helping kids with their school or whatever... he does that...

If my husband is hungry... I don't say no... I don't feel like getting dinner foryou...

sickness has been the only reason we have ever said no... but then we really didn't have to say no... we already knew having that particular need fulfill wasn't an option.

I don't feel married partners have the right to be selfish... they both have to give 100%

[USNationalist]

Please is 100% right. They belong to each other now, slaves to each other. They do not have the right to say no and it is a sin to say no (of course its also a sin to be an inconsiderate jerk when asking- basicaly don't be a ######- if she is tired, dont force it or whatever)

[Ray]

I agree that a husband and wife should totally give themselves to each other, doing whatever they can to help meet each other’s needs for happiness, but I also believe there is never a reason to justify adultery. And giving someone everything they want every time they want it isn’t the best way to help meet someone’s needs for happiness either.

For instance, taking that food example, I don’t believe it would truly make me happy to have my wife make desserts for me every day, even though she truly enjoys baking, and I truly enjoy eating everything she bakes. I believe there needs to be some moderation in everything, otherwise a person may become dependent or addicted to something, and that would not be good.

Or in other words, an addiction to sex is not good, even if that sex is always with your spouse, just as an addiction to anything is not good. Which reminds me, I think it’s time for me to try to break my addiction to this board again.

See you later. :)

[dizzysmiles]

your stepping into fire on this question, From personal experience and i dont want this to make my husband sound like a jerk, but when i gave birth to my first kid my mother in law came over and told me some advice and i was shocked it was to always give sex and youll always be happy, i got all upset and thought whatever! guys just want some and they can handle their emotions.. well ppl I came to think her advice is sorta right, REAd the five love langauges and it makes it easier to understand everyones love langauge and how to met it, now im not saying do it cause he wants it cause sometimes that can be just wanting sex and not love making, when his needs werent being met which i thought they were and i was preg with our sec at the time he went elsewhere... the computer yeah that sounds funny but it really wasnt i remember being in labor and him wanting sex and i still gave it to him so he could see what a jerk he was being.. dumb dumb dumb of me to do when in labor... but anyways our sex life is better now becasue we read thatr book and talked about our needs, i started doing pole dance excersizes and carmen electra;s strip to fit videos for exercise and it boosts our sex life.. yeah if you knew me personally i wouldn't ever tell you any of that.. but you gotta be careful and make each other happy and when you do that it makes you want it more as well.. and btw we were doin it like 3-5 times a week when i "wasnt meeting his love langauge" and was nine months pregno.. so you both have to understand and both grow up and get in tune with each other,. no the man shouldnt have the say all the time when he wants it and neither should the women withold it becasue of selfish reasons. it all boils down to selfishness even if you dont know.. so communicate

[Guest Ari 2]

A woman shouldn't have sex when she doesn't want to.

And nobody owns the other.

[Fiannan]

Ari, do I detect some hostility there?

[Guest Ari 2]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 16 2005, 09:22 PM

Ari, do I detect some hostility there?

←

________________

None whatsoever...just stating facts.

[Fiannan]

So how do you deal with the scripture in Corinthians in which Paul makes it clear that you are to submit to each other's sexual desires? Don't you think the reason some people turn to porn or have affairs has a lot to do with their spouse not fulfilling this marital obligation? I thought you were hard-core on scripture and attacking the evils of modern society.

Sorry, gotta side with Chris Rock on this one. Anyone hear his Bigger and Blacker presentation? I love the way he puts the responsibility for the whole Monica affair right on Hillary Clinton's shoulders. I won't reprint it but all you have to do is google Chris Rock Monica Hillary and read the transcript. It is hillarious and great social commentary.

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 17 2005, 04:14 AM

So how do you deal with the scripture in Corinthians in which Paul makes it clear that you are to submit to each other's sexual desires?  Don't you think the reason some people turn to porn or have affairs has a lot to do with their spouse not fulfilling this marital obligation?  I thought you were hard-core on scripture and attacking the evils of modern society.

Sorry, gotta side with Chris Rock on this one.  Anyone hear his Bigger and Blacker presentation?  I love the way he puts the responsibility for the whole Monica affair right on Hillary Clinton's shoulders.  I won't reprint it but all you have to do is google Chris Rock Monica Hillary and read the transcript.  It is hillarious and great social commentary.

←

__________________________

We are taught as members of the Church to control our appetites. If married couples have difficulties, they are free to discuss it with a therapist.

BTW, Paul was unmarried.

Being unmarried, Paul never experienced a wife with a headache.

And if I were married to Paul, I'd have a headache every night.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

I wonder if the principle behind this doctrine is applicable here:

Luke 6: 38

38 aGive, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Because the more I do for my husband... even sacrifice... in fact especially sacrifice, the more I receive back into my marriage.

I teach my kids that if they want to prosper in the spirit in their homes they must build those homes on giving and loving freely... stingy and selfish people have the hardest marriages... from my experience over the years.

This principle also works well in the world... the more I give away... the more I have sufficient for my needs and the more blessed are my efforts.

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 17 2005, 09:35 AM

I wonder if the principle behind this doctrine is applicable here:

Luke 6: 38

38 aGive, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Because the more I do for my husband... even sacrifice... in fact especially sacrifice, the more I receive back into my marriage.

I teach my kids that if they want to prosper in the spirit in their homes they must build those homes on giving and loving freely... stingy and selfish people have the hardest marriages... from my experience over the years.

This principle also works well in the world... the more I give away... the more I  have sufficient for my needs and the more blessed are my efforts.

←

____________________________

Pres. Kimball stated that divorce is the direct result of selfishness...on both parts. Husbands are advised to be sensitive toward their wives. I think this is especially applicable to impregnating women. After my second C-section (with my husband present in the operating room), he was horrified and said he would never ask me to repeat the experience ever again. But then again, I come from good pioneer stock (it just skipped me lol). My cousin bore 21 natural living children...and lived to tell about it. lol

[Guest bizabra]

I also come from good pioneer stock, boasting 14 mormon pioneers in my family tree. I am a card carrying member of Daughters of Utah Pioneers.

Go Pioneers!

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by bizabra@Nov 17 2005, 09:48 AM

I also come from good pioneer stock, boasting 14 mormon pioneers in my family tree.  I am a card carrying member of Daughters of Utah Pioneers.

Go Pioneers! 

←

_______________________

WoooooHoooo! You go girl!!

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Hey I don't carry any cards... but my great great great granny was one of the first to be sealed in the Navoo temple... I have only one ancestor who was poligamous... and my mum was told we had Cherikee Indian in our blood... but can't find the doner... LOL

Hey... my grandmother on my father's side came from Holland and was taught and baptised by LeGrand Richards... does that count as pioneer? Or... am I only half pioneer stalk? LOL

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 17 2005, 11:07 AM

Hey I don't carry any cards... but my great great great granny was one of the first to be sealed in the Navoo temple...   I have only one ancestor who was poligamous... and my mum was told we had Cherikee Indian in our blood... but can't find the doner... LOL

Hey... my grandmother on my father's side came from Holland and was taught and baptised by LeGrand Richards... does that count as pioneer? Or... am I only half pioneer stalk? LOL

←

________________________

I'd say all of the above qualifies you to be a full fledged pioneer. :)

I don't have any LDS heritage to report...but we are related to Nathan Hale ("I regret that I have but one life to give for my country") and also to Sir William Wallace (FREEEEEDOOOOOOOM!!!)

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by LDSister+Nov 17 2005, 11:12 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Please@Nov 17 2005, 11:07 AM

Hey I don't carry any cards... but my great great great granny was one of the first to be sealed in the Navoo temple...   I have only one ancestor who was poligamous... and my mum was told we had Cherikee Indian in our blood... but can't find the doner... LOL

Hey... my grandmother on my father's side came from Holland and was taught and baptised by LeGrand Richards... does that count as pioneer? Or... am I only half pioneer stalk? LOL

←

________________________

I'd say all of the above qualifies you to be a full fledged pioneer. :)

I don't have any LDS heritage to report...but we are related to Nathan Hale ("I regret that I have but one life to give for my country") and also to Sir William Wallace (FREEEEEDOOOOOOOM!!!)

←

Welll now we know where you get your stubborn streak from!!!! LOL

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by Please@Nov 17 2005, 11:14 AM

Welll now we know where you get your stubborn streak from!!!! LOL

←

______________________

Hehehe

[USNationalist]

ari-

Marrige exsists for one reason only. To keep each other from sexual immorality. It is a mortal union that ends at death (im protestant)- You do belong to each other- you are no longer your own person. You become ONE flesh. You can cause other people to sin- which is a sin for you. Not to say if you hold out and your husband sleeps withsomeone else he didn't sin- because he did- but you are also guilty of sin. Married people should "bump uglies" as often as either wants it- thats what marrige exsists for.

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Nov 17 2005, 01:10 PM

ari-

Marrige exsists for one reason only. To keep each other from sexual immorality. It is a mortal union that ends at death (im protestant)- You do belong to each other- you are no longer your own person. You become ONE flesh. You can cause other people to sin- which is a sin for you. Not to say if you hold out and your husband sleeps withsomeone else he didn't sin- because he did- but you are also guilty of sin. Married people should "bump uglies" as often as either wants it- thats what marrige exsists for.

←

_____________________

Please read what Pres. Hinckley has to say on the subject of marriage:

"The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations."

Sorry, I don't hear anything in that about "bumping uglies"... lol.

Slavery was abolished; husband and wife do not own one another's thoughts, feelings, emotions, or bodies.

We are each unique, free agents, sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.

We belong to him.

And marriage is an eternal unit, continuing beyond the grave.

Isn't it a wonderful plan? You needn't be alone throughout eternity.

[shanstress70]

Don't go yet, Ray! I wanted to say I agree with you... FINALLY... every word you said! :)

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 16 2005, 05:54 PM

I agree that a husband and wife should totally give themselves to each other, doing whatever they can to help meet each other’s needs for happiness, but I also believe there is never a reason to justify adultery.  And giving someone everything they want every time they want it isn’t the best way to help meet someone’s needs for happiness either. 

For instance, taking that food example, I don’t believe it would truly make me happy to have my wife make desserts for me every day, even though she truly enjoys baking, and I truly enjoy eating everything she bakes.  I believe there needs to be some moderation in everything, otherwise a person may become dependent or addicted to something, and that would not be good. 

Or in other words, an addiction to sex is not good, even if that sex is always with your spouse, just as an addiction to anything is not good.  Which reminds me, I think it’s time for me to try to break my addiction to this board again.

See you later.  :)

←

[Fiannan]

LDSister writes:

We are taught as members of the Church to control our appetites. If married couples have difficulties, they are free to discuss it with a therapist.

BTW, Paul was unmarried.

Being unmarried, Paul never experienced a wife with a headache.

And if I were married to Paul, I'd have a headache every night.

Are we not taught in the LDS religion that sex is both a bonding force and a power to create (the only real creative power we share with Heavenly Father)? I'm sorry, if a man or a woman desires bonding, and the other one refuses (often, not just once in a while) then the person will seek intimacy somewhere else (don't feed your dog and it will stray you know). This intimacy may involve emotional intimacy with others or can evolve into affairs -- in the least it will evolve into fantasy or pornography.

I for one believe controling your appetites refers to before you are married. Afterwards both partners should let themselves experience each other and celebrate sexual union.

Also, it is absolutely not true that Paul was unmarried all his life. I was listening to a documentary on Paul and the one thing people were unsure of (since Paul did have children) was what happened to his wife. There is a tradition that his wife left him when he converted to Christianity. So maybe his wife did have a headache or two, but Paul was neither a unoch, a virgin or a guy living in his mommy's basement.

[Guest LDSister]

Originally posted by Fiannan@Nov 17 2005, 03:40 PM

Are we not taught in the LDS religion that sex is both a bonding force and a power to create (the only real creative power we share with Heavenly Father)? I'm sorry, if a man or a woman desires bonding, and the other one refuses (often, not just once in a while) then the person will seek intimacy somewhere else (don't feed your dog and it will stray you know).  This intimacy may involve emotional intimacy with others or can evolve into affairs -- in the least it will evolve into fantasy or pornography.

I for one believe controling your appetites refers to before you are married.  Afterwards both partners should let themselves experience each other and celebrate sexual union. 

Also, it is absolutely not true that Paul was unmarried all his life.  I was listening to a documentary on Paul and the one thing people were unsure of (since Paul did have children) was what happened to his wife.  There is a tradition that his wife left him when he converted to Christianity.  So maybe his wife did have a headache or two, but Paul was neither a unoch, a virgin or a guy living in his mommy's basement.

←

___________________________

We have heard our leaders reiterate time and again, for husbands to be sensitive to their wives and to control their passions, particulary in regard to childbearing.

Emotional bonding and sex are two different things...so is affection and lovemaking. If someone turns to pornography...or another person...because their needs are not being met, the problem in the relationship is more than just sexual appetites.

Incidentally, Paul stated that it is better for man to remain unmarried, to devote his life to the Lord. (Another reason we wouldn't get along. lol)

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by LDSister+Nov 17 2005, 04:00 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Fiannan@Nov 17 2005, 03:40 PM

Are we not taught in the LDS religion that sex is both a bonding force and a power to create (the only real creative power we share with Heavenly Father)? I'm sorry, if a man or a woman desires bonding, and the other one refuses (often, not just once in a while) then the person will seek intimacy somewhere else (don't feed your dog and it will stray you know).  This intimacy may involve emotional intimacy with others or can evolve into affairs -- in the least it will evolve into fantasy or pornography.

I for one believe controling your appetites refers to before you are married.  Afterwards both partners should let themselves experience each other and celebrate sexual union. 

Also, it is absolutely not true that Paul was unmarried all his life.  I was listening to a documentary on Paul and the one thing people were unsure of (since Paul did have children) was what happened to his wife.  There is a tradition that his wife left him when he converted to Christianity.  So maybe his wife did have a headache or two, but Paul was neither a unoch, a virgin or a guy living in his mommy's basement.

←

___________________________

We have heard our leaders reiterate time and again, for husbands to be sensitive to their wives and to control their passions, particulary in regard to childbearing.

Emotional bonding and sex are two different things...so is affection and lovemaking. If someone turns to pornography...or another person...because their needs are not being met, the problem in the relationship is more than just sexual appetites.

Incidentally, Paul stated that it is better for man to remain unmarried, to devote his life to the Lord. (Another reason we wouldn't get along. lol)

←

I wonder about being sensitive to our husbands... or if this is just a one way road...?

[Fiannan]

We have heard our leaders reiterate time and again, for husbands to be sensitive to their wives and to control their passions, particulary in regard to childbearing.

Emotional bonding and sex are two different things...so is affection and lovemaking. If someone turns to pornography...or another person...because their needs are not being met, the problem in the relationship is more than just sexual appetites.

Incidentally, Paul stated that it is better for man to remain unmarried, to devote his life to the Lord. (Another reason we wouldn't get along. lol)

You have not answered my question -- does Hillary deserve the blame (some or all) for Bill seeking other women? And Paul was refering to missionaries in that passage, not regular people. What do you have against sex? What do you think Freud would say reading your posts ranting against rock music (not really mentioned in the scriptures) yet questioning a passage in the Bible you seem to just take issue with?