"Good Girl Syndrome" within marriage

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't want to feel shame and guilt in marriage

 

Nobody wants that.

 

it's supposed to be happy isn't it?

 

That is not relevant. A minor amount of short-lived psychological guilt is pretty easy to intellectualize oneself past. And if you got from my little story that I was not happy in my marriage because of it then you read something into it that wasn't intended. My point, ultimately, was that if one cannot intellectualize oneself past the moments of natural psychological reactions from long-ingrained pre-marital attitudes then one likely has something else wrong with their psyche.

[Dravin]

That is not relevant. A minor amount of short-lived psychological guilt is pretty easy to intellectualize oneself past. And if you got from my little story that I was not happy in my marriage because of it then you read something into it that wasn't intended.

 

Lakumi pretty consistently responds to any comment or admission that marriage is not 100% puppies and rainbows with something like you just experienced.

[pam]

Sorry PC.  I just had to change the spelling of "syndrome" in your title. Syndrom was driving me crazy.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Lakumi pretty consistently responds to any comment or admission that marriage is not 100% puppies and rainbows which something like he did just here.

 

Hehe. I know. I just can't help but come back at him for it. Sorry Lakumi.

[Lakumi]

I already know there's something wrong with my psyche lol

Believe you me.

The old saying goes "misery loves company" sometimes the thoughts get out, sometimes I am not the life of the party, what can you do...

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think there is something to the "abstinence, abstinence, abstinence" and suddenly it's okay argument, especially when abstinence focuses on how premarital sex is a serious sin etc.  

 

It is serious, of course, but I think perhaps we can represent it in a healthier manner.  For example, since I learned from Fr. Thomas Keating, a Catholic, that "Repentance means change the direction you are looking for happiness."  (I love that!)  

 

I now teach my kids:

 

Sex is a wonderful gift from Heavenly Father.  Something to look forward to and enjoy!  The reason Heavenly Father limits it to marriage is because He wants us to be happy.  Premarital sex can lead to disease, unwanted pregnancy , and preventable heartache.  

 

If you do break the Law of Chastity, then you need to see the Bishop so that he--acting as the Lord's representative to get you back on the path of happiness.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sex is a wonderful gift from Heavenly Father.  Something to look forward to and enjoy!  The reason Heavenly Father limits it to marriage is because He wants us to be happy.  Premarital sex can lead to disease, unwanted pregnancy , and preventable heartache.  

 

The problem with this, perhaps, is that the negatives listed here can reasonably avoided via careful use of protection (with the possible exception of heartache). Without the inclusion of the seriousness of the sin and the commandments of God against behavior, it is too easy to rationalize things into mortal logic. Even the heartache part can only truly be understood in light of understanding the sin. Without disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc., wickedness will still bring misery.

[Guest]

I now teach my kids:

 

Sex is a wonderful gift from Heavenly Father.  Something to look forward to and enjoy!  The reason Heavenly Father limits it to marriage is because He wants us to be happy.  Premarital sex can lead to disease, unwanted pregnancy , and preventable heartache.  

 

If you do break the Law of Chastity, then you need to see the Bishop so that he--acting as the Lord's representative to get you back on the path of happiness.

 

Please don't take this as me correcting your parenting... Everybody has their own way of parenting and they're all good.

 

I don't teach my kids this way... I don't say Premarital Sex is bad because it can lead to disease, unwanted pregancy, whatever... I was an argumentative kid - that would have just been fodder for my snazzy logical comebacks.  My kid is just as argumentative as I was... I am quite certain if I tell him.. "Don't have premarital sex because it can lead to disease and pregnancy" he'll just come back and say, "that's why God created condoms".

 

Also, the Don't part doesn't really touch on the principle.

 

This is what I teach:

Sex is one of the ultimate expressions of our love to our spouse.  If we are engaging in it without that need to express our love to our spouse, it is not pleasing to God.

 

So, if there's no spouse... it's not pleasing to God.  But, even if it's with your spouse, and you are not doing it to express love to your spouse but just to please yourself without regard for your spouse... it is not pleasing to God either.

 

It makes things very very simple and very hard for a teen-ager to argue with.  I use this exact same lesson to teach why masturbation is also not good - even when married - when not used to express love for one's spouse...

[imaginenone]

I had good girl syndrom even though i am a guy lol But i believe god made me understand in a way that i wouldnt live again. And a lot of good books and therapists in the church can help you understand what is wrong or right. Also theres a lot of scriptures that i dindnt even know about it. I believe the adversary is not only using bad stuff to make us confused but also he uses good stuff that we think its bad cause of our lack of understanding. When i was young i had a bishop myself that i believe didnt understand the way of the lord on that subject.That got me lost and i got the good girl syndrom. But today he understands more.He told me last week lol. Our children and ourselves need to be taught on the topic. And there are good people working in the field out there. Would be great to have conference on the subject at church for the class of relationship and get a professional invited. A professionnal with same believes as we have.

 

2 books and a therapist helped me a lot (im not doing advertisement- just trying to hep out others that have the same issues i got):

 

- And they were not ashamed - Laura m. Brotherson

- sensible sex

 

And dr Jones

 

Its just funny to see that it happens, as told in a thread before, in evry religion or believes  

[MrShorty]

Our children and ourselves need to be taught on the topic. And there are good people working in the field out there. Would be great to have conference on the subject at church for the class of relationship and get a professional invited. A professionnal with same believes as we have.

 

Over the last couple of days, as I have thought of this, I wonder if the Ethiopian eunuche expressed to Phillip (Acts 8) an important principle -- even regarding what the Church's official publications and the general authorities write and speak. Perhaps there are many of us who really cannot understand this on our own the way someone like TFP can -- we need someone to guide us and help us understand. Just the other day, I read an anecdote on Sister Brotherson's blog where the woman stated, "I have heard some of the same talks and quotes for years that you mentioned and never understood them to mean what you are saying."  I think my own experience is similar -- once I had developed a more sound understanding of sexuality (from a variety of secular and Christian sources), I could then come back to the talks and lessons by the church authorities (like the institute manual previously mentioned) and then I could see where they were teaching these things. Maybe, like the Ethiopian eunuch, we need more people to help guide us through what church leaders are trying to teach us.

[mordorbund]

Huh, turns out kids really do come with an instruction manual, and it includes some pointers for sex education from toddler through courtship.

 

Do we need a revamp of material? Or do we need to share our resources better?

[Guest]

Huh, turns out kids really do come with an instruction manual, and it includes some pointers for sex education from toddler through courtship.

 

Do we need a revamp of material? Or do we need to share our resources better?

 

I've been following this manual since I had kids (got pregnant a few months after I got baptized)... I didn't realize it's not a "common" manual like the For Strength of Youth?

[Dravin]

I've been following this manual since I had kids (got pregnant a few months after I got baptized)... I didn't realize it's not a "common" manual like the For Strength of Youth?

 

I daresay in all my time at Church I've not heard, or at least don't recall, the A Parent's Guide referenced or passed out. I've experienced For the Strength of Youth being referenced and passed out on multiple occasions. I'm inclined to say the general visibility of the For the Strength of Youth booklet is orders of magnitude higher profile than A Parent's Guide.

[MrShorty]

Huh, turns out kids really do come with an instruction manual, and it includes some pointers for sex education from toddler through courtship.

 

Do we need a revamp of material? Or do we need to share our resources better?

 

A Parent's Guide has been around for about 30 years. As with the institute manual, these are not new to many of us. IMO, yes, we need some updated material. A Parent's Guide is good, but I know there are some things in it that I personally disagree with (it is not scripture, after all), other things that I find difficult to understand (especially if I only had A Parent's Guide to go on), some principles that I fiind absent or neglected, and several principles that I would completely agree with. I would say the same thing about the Institute manual TFP suggested or the Marriage and Family Relationships course manual. (For an example of a potentially updated approach to teaching about sex in marriage, see the Oakland Stake's loveunparalleled.com).

 

Or maybe, rather than updated materials, we just need different materials by different authors from different points of view. Maybe the problem is more that the "official" publications seem to me to be mostly copies of each other drawing from the same well. Maybe if we had greater variety in our instructional material (or felt free to seek instruction from a wider variety of sources), it would be easier to find a source that speaks to each of us personally.

 

Or maybe we just need to acknowledge more that the church's official publications are not sufficient in some cases.

 

IMO, I also think we could stand to share our resources better. Part of this could be about letting people know what resources (both Church and secular) are good resources. I have found in my own experience that we as church members have a rather "skeptical", sometime even hostile, eye towards secular or even non-official/non-LDS publications about sex. We need to help people develop the maturity and discernment to be able to find these truths wherever they may be found. As suggested, maybe we need more "guides" who are knowledgeable enough to help share these resources. We need to also be humble enough to recognize when we need help and know how to get it, before the behavior patterns are entrenched.

 

In reality, I am not qualified to tell the church or anyone how they should approach sexual education and growth. I'm still trying to figure it out myself. I find it interesting that, in recent years I have learned more from non-LDS and secular sources than I have from official publications.

[MrShorty]

I don't know if PC would see this as an extension of his original question. I follow a few Christian marriage bloggers on Facebook, and one of them posted this morning this little question: "Satan likes a marriage without sex as much as sex without a marriage. Why does the chruch [sic] only condemn one of the two?" Granted, he is speaking from a broader Christian point of view, so "the church" may mean something a little different to him (he certainly is not thinking about SLC when he says it), but it is an interesting thought to apply to LDS as well as other Christian congregations. Discussion questions if anyone is interested:

 

1) Do we believe there is anything to Satan trying to "tempt" or influence married couples to limit, minimize, or abandon the sexual relationship? In other words, is Satan a root cause for this Good Girl/Boy Syndrome? Is he actively trying to use sexual refusal to break up marriages?

 

2) I am not aware of any statements by the Church or Church leaders really discussing sexless marriages. Is this something that the LDS Church has spoken of before, and, as mordorbund suggested, is not shared enough, or is this something the LDS Church seems to have avoided?

 

3) The statement kind of assumes that a church should speak out. Should the Church make any kind of general "sexless marriages are probably or generally not approved of the Lord"? We are generally a zealous people, and when our prophets speak, we tend to respond. Would this be a dangerous statement, in that many would respond to such a "command" in unhealthy ways?

[The Folk Prophet]

1) Do we believe there is anything to Satan trying to "tempt" or influence married couples to limit, minimize, or abandon the sexual relationship? In other words, is Satan a root cause for this Good Girl/Boy Syndrome? Is he actively trying to use sexual refusal to break up marriages?

 

I would say it is circumstantial. Not in all cases, but yes in others. Certainly it isn't black-and-white, as in  it's always or never Satan's influence.

 

 

2) I am not aware of any statements by the Church or Church leaders really discussing sexless marriages. Is this something that the LDS Church has spoken of before, and, as mordorbund suggested, is not shared enough, or is this something the LDS Church seems to have avoided?

 

3) The statement kind of assumes that a church should speak out. Should the Church make any kind of general "sexless marriages are probably or generally not approved of the Lord"? We are generally a zealous people, and when our prophets speak, we tend to respond. Would this be a dangerous statement, in that many would respond to such a "command" in unhealthy ways?

 

I think it's too complicated for the church to consider making statements like these. And most certainly it would be abused by by some to dominate and control in inappropriate ways. It's a very interesting thought though.

 

Really though, the principles are there and sufficient if one is striving for humility and righteousness in all things. I can't reasonably see a person striving to have a wholesome, righteous marriage seeing sexless marriage as generally acceptable. The proper lessons are there. Taught by the church: Physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage. Check. Sex is not only for procreation. Check. Put your spouse's needs above yours. Check. Etc., etc...

[MrShorty]

Really though, the principles are there and sufficient if one is striving for humility and righteousness in all things. I can't reasonably see a person striving to have a wholesome, righteous marriage seeing sexless marriage as generally acceptable.

 

Could this be part of the difficulty in understanding those with GGS/GBS? This is one of the conclusions that GGS/GBS individuals come to -- that it is perfectly acceptable (some even say preferable) to encourage or enforce a sexless marriage, and that such a marriage is just as wholesome and healthy as sexually active marriages. And these people consider themselves just as reasonable as us. I don't know how much of the flaw in their thinking is from the Church teaching truth in way that can be misunderstood and how much of it stems from people's faulty logic. But it does happen.

 

 

The proper lessons are there. Taught by the church: Physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage. Check. Sex is not only for procreation. Check. Put your spouse's needs above yours. Check. Etc., etc...

 

Does "phyisical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage" necessarily imply its inverse: "A lack or an absence of physical intimacy is unhealthy and detrimental in a marriage."? Many with GGS/GBS would argue that the former statement does not imply its inverse. Many would even assert that "a lack of physical intimacy is also healthy and beneficial in a marriage." Until we do a better job of explaining and teaching the relationship between "physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in marriage" and its inverse, there will be those who fail to understand and accept the difficulties in a sexless marriage.

 

The conclusion from the other thread was that "sex is not a need." If sex is not a need, then how does "putting your spouse's needs above yours" really apply? How does this apply to "perks", wants (even very strongly desired wants), and other non-essential aspects of marriage? What are the essential elements of a healthy, happy marriage according to God and the Church? To someone with GGS/GBS, there is no reason to believe or accept that witholding sex should have any negative effect on the marriage or the refused spouse, because they cannot understand or accept that sex is a need.

[The Folk Prophet]

Could this be part of the difficulty in understanding those with GGS/GBS? This is one of the conclusions that GGS/GBS individuals come to -- that it is perfectly acceptable (some even say preferable) to encourage or enforce a sexless marriage, and that such a marriage is just as wholesome and healthy as sexually active marriages. And these people consider themselves just as reasonable as us. I don't know how much of the flaw in their thinking is from the Church teaching truth in way that can be misunderstood and how much of it stems from people's faulty logic. But it does happen.

 

Who's to say they are wrong? Who's to say that those with good cause and understanding cannot have just as wholesome and healthy a marriage as those who have strong desire for consistent sex. Moreover, most marriages end up this way. Libido wanes with age. And whereas some older (and I mean "old" older) men still have strong drives, it is more common, I believe, for the so-called "need" to diminish significantly in the twilight years. Does that mean the marriage becomes unhealthy?

 

Does "phyisical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in a marriage" necessarily imply its inverse: "A lack or an absence of physical intimacy is unhealthy and detrimental in a marriage."? Many with GGS/GBS would argue that the former statement does not imply its inverse. Many would even assert that "a lack of physical intimacy is also healthy and beneficial in a marriage." Until we do a better job of explaining and teaching the relationship between "physical intimacy is healthy and beneficial in marriage" and its inverse, there will be those who fail to understand and accept the difficulties in a sexless marriage.

 

The conclusion from the other thread was that "sex is not a need." If sex is not a need, then how does "putting your spouse's needs above yours" really apply? How does this apply to "perks", wants (even very strongly desired wants), and other non-essential aspects of marriage? What are the essential elements of a healthy, happy marriage according to God and the Church? To someone with GGS/GBS, there is no reason to believe or accept that witholding sex should have any negative effect on the marriage or the refused spouse, because they cannot understand or accept that sex is a need.

 

I'm not sure how your logic is running on this. If a husband or wife strongly desires something and the spouse's basic response is, "go jump in a lake" then it seems to me that there's a real problem there. If neither spouse desires sex, so be it. The marriage can still thrive on principles of selfless love and giving. If both partners desire sex, then they should enjoy. If one wants one thing and another wants something else, there's a problem that has to be solved. If the one who desires sex demands it constantly with no concern for their partner's happiness then there's a problem. If the one who doesn't desire sex refuses it with no concern for their partner then there is a problem.

 

I do think that both husband and wife having a strong desire for a sexual relationship is beneficial for their marriage, and that in the good/better/best scheme of things it is likely best. But it should not be the catalyst for development of a strong and healthy marriage. Accordingly, however, it does give good argument to the position that the one who suffers from our unofficial syndrome, (apparently now labeled GGS/GBS) would best serve the marriage by getting past their issues.

[MrShorty]

 

Libido wanes with age. And whereas some older (and I mean "old" older) men still have strong drives, it is more common, I believe, for the so-called "need" to diminish significantly in the twilight years.

 

Sort of runs counter to what Elder Packer says in the Institute manual about "The desire to mate in humankind [being] constant and very strong." My own study suggests that it is certainly not constant across individuals and it varies with time, both short term in response to hormonal fluctuations and life stresses, and long term in response to aging. On average it is likely a decrease in desire and function as you've suggested. However, I see a lot of discussion and research (mostly secular sources) challenging the stereotype of "older" people becoming "asexual". I think there is a lot of room in the church and out for a discussion around what sexuality means for couples and marriages as they age.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sort of runs counter to what Elder Packer says in the Institute manual about "The desire to mate in humankind [being] constant and very strong." My own study suggests that it is certainly not constant across individuals and it varies with time, both short term in response to hormonal fluctuations and life stresses, and long term in response to aging. On average it is likely a decrease in desire and function as you've suggested. However, I see a lot of discussion and research (mostly secular sources) challenging the stereotype of "older" people becoming "asexual". I think there is a lot of room in the church and out for a discussion around what sexuality means for couples and marriages as they age.

 

The exceptions to this idea are irrelevant though. The point is simply that there are some people, whatever the numbers, that clearly live in sexless marriages and are perfectly healthy and happy.

[MrShorty]

The exceptions to this idea are irrelevant though. The point is simply that there are some people, whatever the numbers, that clearly live in sexless marriages and are perfectly healthy and happy.

 

I'm reminded of something Elder Oaks said (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/06/dating-versus-hanging-out?lang=eng): "As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules." I would venture to say that, in the case of sex within marriage, we tiptoe around the general rule for fear of offending the exceptions.

 

Or perhaps it come back to one of PC's original questions: Do we, as LDS, believe that sex within marriage is a commandment (with exceptions) or do we believe it is something else. Do we believe that we should teach that sex is an important or even necessary part of marriae or not?

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm reminded of something Elder Oaks said (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/06/dating-versus-hanging-out?lang=eng): "As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules." I would venture to say that, in the case of sex within marriage, we tiptoe around the general rule for fear of offending the exceptions.

 

I would venture to say that in the case of most things we tiptoe around the general rule for fear of offending the exceptions.

 

Very insightful.

 

 

Or perhaps it come back to one of PC's original questions: Do we, as LDS, believe that sex within marriage is a commandment (with exceptions) or do we believe it is something else. Do we believe that we should teach that sex is an important or even necessary part of marriae or not?

 

In the simplest terms, in my opinion, Yes. We do believe this.

[prisonchaplain]

1.  Would Satan try to speak false guilt into our lives?  Would he trip up a young married with the thought that sex is dirty--no matter what--in direct contradiction to Paul's admonitions in 1 Corinthians 7?  Absolutely!

 

2.  Churches do not speak about sexless marriages.  They either do not know this is a serious issue or it really is not all that common.  However, my guess is that most pastors, counselors, and bishops would, at minimum, advise these couples to find their way to intimacy.  Personally, I'd do a slow-walk through Paul's counsel in 1 Cor 7.

 

3.  Prophets speak when told to speak by God.  Either it is not as wide-spread of a problem as some here imagine, or yes, the counsel may be taken as ammunition by abusive spouses to demand intimacy at-will.

[MrShorty]

 

They either do not know this is a serious issue or it really is not all that common.

 

If these are the two options, I would say it is more likely to be a lack of awareness. Most estimates for the US say that about 20% of marriages are "sexless" (usually defined as 10 or fewer sexual encounters per year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage). At that rate, an LDS bishop with stewardship over ~100 couples has probably got 15-20 sexless marriages within his ward. Acknowledging, as we have above, that a few of those are due to age, illness, and he probably has  at least 10 couples who are actually fighting, wishing, hoping, and otherwise struggling -- and most of them probably don't talk to the Bishop about it. Mark Regnerus (http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/22/new-study-mark-regnerus-suggests-religion-can-predict-sexual-behavior/) claims that he will present some data later this year that may break this down by religious affiliation, which will be interesting.

[MrShorty]

Resurrecting an old thread to add a pertinent observation.

 

I came across this the other day (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V25N01_51.pdf ) by an LDS therapist -- Romel Mackelprang. It is a little old (I'm guessing sometime in the '90's) but I'm not sure much has changed since then. The statement that I think applies to the discussion here:

My LDS clients' sexual problems seem to be no more severe or pervasive than those of members of other religions or of those who profess no religious affiliation. However, when sexual problems occur, religious issues are more likely to be a factor for LDS clients than for any others (with the possible exception of Catholics). However unintentional, Church membership can contribute to sexual problems for some members.

So, even though sexual difficulties are not more prevalent among LDS, he observes that "Church membership" seems to correlate quite strongly with sexual dysfunction among LDS clients.