If you knew before marriage your dating partner was incapable of physical intimacy would you marry?

[Wingnut]

I might consider it, and I would pray strongly about it, but in the end, I don't think that I would be willing to sacrifice sex for all the other good things. We've been taught that there is no "one person" for each of us, so why wouldn't I be able to find someone else who was just as good for me and capable of having sex.

MM, I think your second question is a little unfair to the original. You asked if we knew for a certainty, would we go through with it, but then said, if we knew for a certainty, would it be because one or both of us broke the law of chastity. I think the second question is irrelevant to the original question. In case I misunderstood the second question, I'll also add that I don't think that considering the question is, in and of itself, a violation of the Law of Chastity.

[Suzie]

I

MM, I think your second question is a little unfair to the original. You asked if we knew for a certainty, would we go through with it, but then said, if we knew for a certainty, would it be because one or both of us broke the law of chastity.

I wouldn't say so. If the woman has a medical condition and knew about it beforehand then it's possible. Women with vaginismus have problems using tampons and she may visit a doctor for this problem (the pain is overbearing for what I heard) and she may be diagnosed with this issue.

[Wingnut]

I wouldn't say so. If the woman has a medical condition and knew about it beforehand then it's possible. Women with vaginismus have problems using tampons and she may visit a doctor for this problem (the pain is overbearing for what I heard) and she may be diagnosed with this issue.

Agreed. I think MM was indicating that the only way one could know for sure was if one or both partners had violated the LoC prior to marriage.

[estradling75]

Agreed. I think MM was indicating that the only way one could know for sure was if one or both partners had violated the LoC prior to marriage.

I think MM was talking of a generalized knowing about your partner for sure. Sure someone might know for sure of their personal medical condition, in fact I would hope so.

However if you are weighing and considering a partner for marriage, you can't know for sure if they have an undisclosed/undiagnosed medical condition.

[MorningStar]

I would. My answer from Heavenly Father was to marry my husband. I wouldn't let that change it. We spoke with our bishop before we got married and he asked us, "If one of you became disabled and were unable to be intimate, would you still want to be together? It does happen."

I think that is an important aspect of the Law of Chastity. If we allow our hormones to take over, that can cloud our judgment in choosing a mate and the overwhelming chemistry will make us feel like we can't live without someone.

[estradling75]

I would. My answer from Heavenly Father was to marry my husband. I wouldn't let that change it. We spoke with our bishop before we got married and he asked us, "If one of you became disabled and were unable to be intimate, would you still want to be together? It does happen."

Indeed an answer from God changes things. Once you have that answer then any challenge you face become a refining and testing challenge. Rather then something you might have brought on yourself because you made a stupid choice. A person can't and should not try to avoid the first ones, but I try very hard to avoid the second kind as much as my failing nature permits.

[Bini]

We spoke with our bishop before we got married and he asked us, "If one of you became disabled and were unable to be intimate, would you still want to be together? It does happen."

This is an entirely different story.

Sticking by your spouse after a tragic injury or diagnosis which rendered inability to perform certain functions or be intimate is completely different from choosing to be with someone with those issues prior to marriage. Would I choose to date and or marry someone with such a medical condition, no.

ETA: I missed the part where you stated you had this talk with the bishop BEFORE getting married. I would like to add that being engaged (fiance and fiancee) is at the point of having already committed to each other. It isn't just being boyfriend and girlfriend. You have already decided that you want to spend the rest of your lives together. So in that case, it's the same situation, you stick it out with your to-be-spouse. I'm referring more to the initial dating phase.. No, I would NOT get involved with someone that had such a medical condition.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Bini

[pam]

I think finding out if a person can be intimate or whether you are compatible intimately is the argument that so much of the world uses to justify living together or sex before marriage.

I think back to when I was younger and considering getting married. Would I still marry the person if I found out they could not be intimate? I really don't know. I seriously doubt it. That may sound selfish..but it is part of life and marriage.

[Wingnut]

I think back to when I was younger and considering getting married. Would I still marry the person if I found out they could not be intimate? I really don't know. I seriously doubt it. That may sound selfish..but it is part of life and marriage.

Here's the thing. I don't think it sounds selfish. I think it sounds realistic. Being sexual is part of being human -- within the appropriate bounds. It's not unreasonable to not be willing to sacrifice that part of our existence.

[carlimac]

I doubt it since I craved having babies.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I might consider it, and I would pray strongly about it, but in the end, I don't think that I would be willing to sacrifice sex for all the other good things. We've been taught that there is no "one person" for each of us, so why wouldn't I be able to find someone else who was just as good for me and capable of having sex.

MM, I think your second question is a little unfair to the original. You asked if we knew for a certainty, would we go through with it, but then said, if we knew for a certainty, would it be because one or both of us broke the law of chastity. I think the second question is irrelevant to the original question. In case I misunderstood the second question, I'll also add that I don't think that considering the question is, in and of itself, a violation of the Law of Chastity.

I don't ever remember asking two different questions. Maybe I worded the second question wrong, but it was meant to be simply a rewording the first question.

[JThimm88]

I asked my husband this and we both agreed, "No." Plain and simple, physical intimacy, especially sex, is very important to us in our marriage. Cuddling, kisses, hugs, and so forth are all great, but for us, nothing makes us feel closer than the physicality involved with sex.

I know the OP doesn't really ask about this, but if this had suddenly become an issue after my husband and I already were married, I think we would learn to adapt to the situation. Not having read any posts yet on this thread other than the first, I hope nobody takes offense to my saying that I don't believe losing physical intimacy within marriage for UNSELFISH reasons (say, something medical happens and one of us can't ... "perform") is grounds for divorce or anything like that, so we would certainly learn to live with it.