Sexless marriage vs adultery vs fidelity

[Guest]

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?

 

No... Sex is not separate from intimacy... it's not there to have or not have.  It is simply an expression of it.  It's a natural progression.  Therefore, when one is intimate, sex naturally follows.  If it does not follow and no other expression of intimacy is present, it is not the lack of sex that is the problem - it is a problem with the intimacy.  And like any other expressions - there are many ways to express intimacy.  Sex is just one of them.  Sex is, therefore, not the need.  Intimacy is.  And intimacy is not the sex - the unity of spirits is.  In an intimate relationship, sex starts to lessen if the natural progression goes towards better ways of expression.  When one is young or newly married, sex is the natural progression of expression... as the relationship matures, other expressions manifests itself and starts to become more desirable - quality time with children, simple and random acts of kindness, etc.  As one ages, physical expression becomes less desirable than the simple act of sitting together and knowing that one is completely in synch in body, mind, and spirit as the other... etc.

 

There's no need to hasten anything... it is a natural progression of intimacy - the unity of spirits.

[Guest]

Quin, on 15 Apr 2014 - 6:39 PM, said:

Divorce totally off the table/not even part of the discussion... I believe it\\\\\\\\\\\\'s still impossible to classify the cognitive, emotional, physical, & spiritual well being of a marriage based on a single activity within the marriage that is a joint endeavor between the spouses.

Replace \\\\\\\\\\\\"sex\\\\\\\\\\\\" with laughing, going to church, cleaning, raising children, talking... Literally \\\\\\\\\\\\"whatever\\\\\\\\\\\\"... And you\\\\\\\\\\\\'re going to find hundreds, if no thousands of different answers.

When only one person is making a choice, it\\\\\\\\\\\\'s a simple thing.

When 2 people are making a choice together? Then it becomes complex.

Let\\\\\\\\\\\\'s take \\\\\\\\\\\\"cleaning\\\\\\\\\\\\" to be the activity.
Because cleaning is a fairly mundane & simple thing, right?
But...

- Some people will be pathological about it (addiction, OCD, ADHD, GAD, Hoarding)
- Others prioritize that EXTREMELY high (medical needs...like blindness, immunodeficiency, wheelchair access, and umpteen others)
- Others prioritize that very high (necessary to their gainful employment, necessary for their cog/emo health, necessary for...)
- Others prioritize that high (not necessary for their needs... But necessary for their wants)
- Others prioritize it med (they enjoy either cleaning OR a clean house, but it\\\\\\\\\\\\'s not necessary for their needs or wants)
- Others prioritize it low (they don\\\\\\\\\\\\'t care, but could care less)
- Others prioritize it very low (they couldn\\\\\\\\\\\\'t care less)
- Others prioritize it extremely low (completely oblivious... For a whole variety of reasons).

You take 2 people married and they\\\\\\\\\\\\'re going to be in two different places on that spectrum above.
And that spectrum is ONLY about the priority of cleaning in their lives!
Those 2 different places on the spectrum will cause either friction or ease or both.
Those 2 different places on the spectrum can move around (like if one partner becomes blind, or if there\\\\\\\\\\\\'s an earthquake, or death in the fam, or, or, or, or).
How those 2 people relate to each other, and their positions on the spectrum can change a great deal.

And all of he above is something like 2% of the factors involved!

Be it sex or cleaning... One can\\\\\\\\\\\\'t simply say \\\\\\\\\\\\"If you respect your partner you will do XYZ.\\\\\\\\\\\\"
You can say what you WONT do very simply.
But saying what one SHOULD do is an almost impossible proposition.
There are too many variables in play.

Coercive Sex = Bad
That\\\\\\\\\\\\'s easy.
But the reverse logic doesn\\\\\\\\\\\\'t work.

 

 

Right on, Quin!

 

When we start parsing things into minute details, it becomes complicated because we start to miss the forest for the trees (ugh, I don't know if I used that expression right).

 

But, it becomes much simpler when we get above the fray and look at things from the eternal perspective of marriage.  Dishes, sex, self... they start to become too small to be of much consequence to fight over in the whole scheme of things.

[Quin]

Barring limiting factors such as physical inability or trauma from past experiences I firmly believe that sex in marriage is a great bench-mark for the health of the relationship. Assuming two people are capable and enjoy the activity there is no reason for it not to be taking place within the relationship, and if it isn\\\'t it is a good indicator that something isn\\\\\'t right with the relationship.

 

The thing is that the frequency and enjoyment of sex is a symptom of a good or bad relationship, not the other way around. If the relationship is working well both partners will want to express love in this way. But simply agreeing to have sex more often will not fix the underlying conditions that made it lose spontaneity in the first place.

 

These issues must be addressed and fixed for proper intimacy to occur, which as Anatess said is not sex, but can involve it.

I think it can be a great benchmark... But it can also be totally meaningless.

If that was the standard, then I had the best. marriage. ever.

Instead of the totally abusive, awful, no good, very bad marriage I actually had.

- A couple with a high libido can be expressing physical intimacy daily for years...

In the middle of a wreck of a marriage.

- While a couple with a lower normal can be expressing physical intimacy on a monthly, quarterly basis, even semi annually...

And have a phenom marriage.

Sex just isn\\t love.

Q

[MrShorty]

I think it can be a great benchmark... But it can also be totally meaningless.

If that was the standard, then I had the best. marriage. ever.

Instead of the totally abusive, awful, no good, very bad marriage I actually had.

- A couple with a high libido can be expressing physical intimacy daily for years...

In the middle of a wreck of a marriage.

- While a couple with a lower normal can be expressing physical intimacy on a monthly, quarterly basis, even semi annually...

And have a phenom marriage.

Sex just isn\\t love.

Q

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."

[MrShorty]

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"?

 

[The Folk Prophet]

 

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"?

 

 

 

Of course she "can" say that about anything. But it would be very selfish. Selfishness is detrimental to a good marriage, from either partner. When one partner desires something the other should do their best to understand and accommodate. A good marriage is one where both partners strive to this end. If either partner does not, the marriage can still work, but it is a one-sided arrangement, held together by the efforts of one.

 

I think it fairly reasonable to view desire for sex (particularly for the male) as significantly higher than desire for things like a truck (I used the truck in my analogy because of Elder Bednar's conference talk about a truck, not because there's anything significant to a truck itself), but desire is desire. We all want things. Some are driven by one thing, others by another. In the case of a truck and sex as parallel...well...both might reasonably be considered as driven by testosterone. Heheh.

 

That being said, don't get me wrong. I think a healthy sexual relationship is important to marriage. I just don't think it is necessary. But problems in the bedroom are possibly indicative of problems in the marriage. But not exclusively by any means. There are physical factors to consider. Libido does wane and does differ in the sexes and does differ from individual to individual. In point of fact, the only real difference in this regard between men and women is that men require libido, whereas women do not. However, with the little blue pill advent (and/or similar drugs) this becomes less of an issue. In other words, a man can literally be incapable of relations due to libido problems. The psychological desire plays much more into the physical ability for the man.

 

This puts an natural physical imbalance into the relationship in that the woman can move forward even not being in the mood as a sheer act of selflessness, whereas the man cannot, in every case, do the same. But the little blue pill may be the act of selflessness required in that case...maybe. Depends on the relationships, etc...

 

However, even what I'm saying here is only a small part of the psychology of libido. It is complicated by many factors. In the end, the only thing we can really do for our marriage is to give up ourselves in favor of God's will and our spouse's well being. If both partners strive to that end then the marriage can succeed. If either spouse does not then the marriage is likely to struggle.

[MrShorty]

As for sex being a "need" I agree it is not a basic need in the sense of food, shelter, clothing etc.

 

However, I do believe it is a conditional need for a fully functioning marital relationship at some point. It isn't that it is needed on the wedding night, or anniversary, or valentines day, or any other given night because one partner wants it, but if it NEVER happens there is a problem that will assuredly weaken the relationship unless both parties agreed to a sexless relationship from the outset. Which brings up the fact that communication about sexual expectations should be done before marriage.

 

Wedding vows of chastity and fidelity are just that, vows to only share the most intimate emotional and physical experiences with the one you're marrying. Wedding vows are not an oath to celibacy.  

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?

[MrShorty]

Of course she "can" say that about anything. But it would be very selfish. Selfishness is detrimental to a good marriage, from either partner. When one partner desires something the other should do their best to understand and accommodate. A good marriage is one where both partners strive to this end. If either partner does not, the marriage can still work, but it is a one-sided arrangement, held together by the efforts of one.

 

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

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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

 

I would think that this would be obvious. Of course it is.

[MrShorty]

I would think that this would be obvious. Of course it is.

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?

[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?

[The Folk Prophet]

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?

 

Maybe. I'm not sure we can add specificity to the way anyone's sexual relationship should work. That is between themselves, the Lord, and if necessary, perhaps the advice of a good therapist. We can speak in terms of Christ-like principles. But to apply those principles in the bedroom on behalf of others would be quite inappropriate. In point of fact, we cannot even apply them on behalf of our spouses. We can only apply them to ourselves and our choices and behavior.

[The Folk Prophet]

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?

 

It only sets up a false dichotomy if one chooses to read things into it that aren't there. Clearly there is room for tender, chaste, and delicate withing sexuality.

 

I disagree that the church needs to put thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. The church teaches these principles very clearly, and it is on us to learn them, just as it is with any principle. It is invalid to blame the church when we misunderstand sexuality because we are not well informed about it. There is information a-plenty about it, and that information does not need to be stretched to be more candid, nor do I believe that it should be, because it is not meant to be.

 

There are plenty of parents in the church who raise their children on church principles, teach their children to be wise, selfless, and Christlike, whose children grow up with a healthy understanding of marital relations. And there are plenty of parents who fail at this. Such is life - both in and out of the church, and with teachings on physical relationships as well as other principles in (and out of) the gospel. The required information and understanding is out there. It is on parents to discover this information and pass it on to their children. And it is upon the children, once they are to be married, to avail themselves of this information as well.

[SpiritDragon]

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?

 

I suppose it is fair to say that the average temple-worthy young adult virgin getting married doesn't know much about how they will feel about sex because they haven't experienced it yet. Still there are clear points that can be discussed between a couple before marriage such as the conditions surrounding it. For instance before I married my wife we had a candid talk about sexual expectations that we did understand. It worked out well, we felt that if we couldn't talk straight about sex to each other we had no business getting married yet. We agreed that sex would have a place in bringing us closer as a couple in addition to being a procreative power, or rather that it wasn't only to conceive children. We discussed certain behaviours that we'd heard of that we ruled off limits together because they did not seem mutually beneficial and thus did not serve the purpose of bringing us closer together as a couple.

 

Maybe we just got lucky that we have great parents and had good Church leaders who helped encourage such discussion.

[MrShorty]

It only sets up a false dichotomy if one chooses to read things into it that aren't there. Clearly there is room for tender, chaste, and delicate withing sexuality.

 

I disagree that the church needs to put thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. The church teaches these principles very clearly, and it is on us to learn them, just as it is with any principle. It is invalid to blame the church when we misunderstand sexuality because we are not well informed about it. There is information a-plenty about it, and that information does not need to be stretched to be more candid, nor do I believe that it should be, because it is not meant to be.

 

There are plenty of parents in the church who raise their children on church principles, teach their children to be wise, selfless, and Christlike, whose children grow up with a healthy understanding of marital relations. And there are plenty of parents who fail at this. Such is life - both in and out of the church, and with teachings on physical relationships as well as other principles in (and out of) the gospel. The required information and understanding is out there. It is on parents to discover this information and pass it on to their children. And it is upon the children, once they are to be married, to avail themselves of this information as well.

 

 

I suppose it is fair to say that the average temple-worthy young adult virgin getting married doesn't know much about how they will feel about sex because they haven't experienced it yet. Still there are clear points that can be discussed between a couple before marriage such as the conditions surrounding it. For instance before I married my wife we had a candid talk about sexual expectations that we did understand. It worked out well, we felt that if we couldn't talk straight about sex to each other we had no business getting married yet. We agreed that sex would have a place in bringing us closer as a couple in addition to being a procreative power, or rather that it wasn't only to conceive children. We discussed certain behaviours that we'd heard of that we ruled off limits together because they did not seem mutually beneficial and thus did not serve the purpose of bringing us closer together as a couple.

 

Maybe we just got lucky that we have great parents and had good Church leaders who helped encourage such discussion.

 

Let's also not neglect the effect of personal perception and discernment. I expect the three of us have all sat through the same lessons and discussions about sex and relationships (both before and after marriage). Many, like you, develop healthy sexual relationships based on those principles just fine. A minority of us did not, and some of us feel like the teachings we took home from church (whether they were actually taught there or no) are a part of that. In the spirit of "seeking the one," we feel like the Church (as an institution and we as the body) should at least consider if our approach could be improved. If we go through the process and decide that everything is fine as is and should not be changed, fine. Some feel there are improvements to be made, if we would consider them.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's also not neglect the effect of personal perception and discernment. I expect the three of us have all sat through the same lessons and discussions about sex and relationships (both before and after marriage). Many, like you, develop healthy sexual relationships based on those principles just fine. A minority of us did not, and some of us feel like the teachings we took home from church (whether they were actually taught there or no) are a part of that. In the spirit of "seeking the one," we feel like the Church (as an institution and we as the body) should at least consider if our approach could be improved. If we go through the process and decide that everything is fine as is and should not be changed, fine. Some feel there are improvements to be made, if we would consider them.

 

I agree. However, there are two things to consider. First, a lot of the issues at hand are based on social conventions and the natural culture of the church. As the church grows this becomes more and more difficult to manage and keep in line, so to speak. Many complain about the authoritative bureaucracy that the church has become. Would we risk pushing that further for the sake of curbing these sorts of problems?  Or should we teach the membership at large to be wise, be forgiving, study, pray, etc.. (Note that this is the current approach as to sex).

 

Secondly, and more importantly, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say, when we push back on concerns like this. We see this in discussions like the recent one surrounding Tad R. Callister's morality/modesty talk. The responses, even if, perhaps, based on a semblance of right thinking, are so extreme so as to be the devil's advocate for discontinuing modesty, chastity, and morality all together. The prevailing liberal expression tends to account to the equivalent of "Don't teach your children to be righteous because it might make them feel bad when they sin."

[MrShorty]

To bring this back from the dead, I solicited the opinion of an "LDS marital intimacy coach" on this article, if anyone is interested in Coach Sam's opinion on the article: http://ldsmarriagebed.blogspot.com/2014/07/reader-question-do-we-need-sex.html