Am I Justified to Leave for Lack of Love?


Recommended Posts

In counterpoint though, sex, but not just sex, physical intimacy IS an important part of marriage. I often do feel that when problems in a marriage arise from physical intimacy and a male partner feels unloved and has a hard time with it, he's given a resounding "chin up, man up, take it, do all of these romantic things, do everything around the house, date her, and when she still doesn't want you, and refuses to even touch you, that's just too bad." Then when it comes to advice for the wife on how to meet her husbands needs there's crickets. When you've pledged an eternity to someone, you do expect a degree of effort to meet needs in return.

I mean talk about the burden being unequally yoked.

 

My marriage right now is suffering from intimacy problems. We are working on it, I know she does love me, but you sure don't feel like it when she won't touch you despite all the effort you are putting into dating her and trying with everything you have to be a good husband. I simply can't understand what the issue is if two people love each other, why can't some physical magic happen? Knowing your wife loves you is different than feeling like you are loved if that makes any sense. (note I'm not asking for advice here, just relating that, well, I feel the op, I can understand why he may feel what he feels)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a lot of these threads where a guy says his wife isn't interested in sex, but he has done steps 1-10 on his checklist of what good husbands do and it didn't work.  It's not that simple . We don't know your wife and why she feels the way she does.  If there is a pornography issue, a lot of guys don't even know they are exhibiting certain behaviors that are putting their wives off due to their addiction.  So if you take care of the kids, clean the house, etc., that doesn't change how you might be behaving in your intimate life.  I'm not saying you are, but we don't know either of you.  When a friend of mine was quite ill and pregnant, her husband was hostile towards her if they went more than two days without it.  I don't think he recognized how he was treating her, which just made her feel more resentful about the issue. 

 

And there are some women who just discover they don't really like sex.  They should make an effort to do something about that because it's important to their husband. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess we can just throw D&C 131 out the window then.

 

How can you possibly use D&C 131 as evidence that its at all OK to be in a sexless marriage? One of the main purposes of Celestial Glory is to produce spirit children. I reckon it's not looking so good for those in a sexless marriage in the Celestial Kingdom......now is it? How are all those billions of spirt children going to be born? 

 

From the LDS Official Church web page commenting specifically on D&C 131:

 

"On 30 June 1916, the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose) declared: “So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.” (In Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 5:34.) 

 

And, again from the official LDS website, from the recent Church essay on polygamy:

 

"Marriage performed by priesthood authority meant that the procreation of children and perpetuation of families would continue into the eternities. Joseph Smith’s revelation on marriage declared that the “continuation of the seeds forever and ever” helped to fulfill God’s purposes for His children.15 This promise was given to all couples who were married by priesthood authority and were faithful to their covenants."

 

How the heck is that going to happen without SEX? With this in mind, I again stand by my original comment, and also suggest that perhaps those who are not willing to engage in sex with their spouses in this life may perhaps not make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Indeed, they may actually be happier in a lesser kingdom where increase (and therefore SEX) is not a requirement.

 

 

 

In counterpoint though, sex, but not just sex, physical intimacy IS an important part of marriage. I often do feel that when problems in a marriage arise from physical intimacy and a male partner feels unloved and has a hard time with it, he's given a resounding "chin up, man up, take it, do all of these romantic things, do everything around the house, date her, and when she still doesn't want you, and refuses to even touch you, that's just too bad." Then when it comes to advice for the wife on how to meet her husbands needs there's crickets. When you've pledged an eternity to someone, you do expect a degree of effort to meet needs in return.

I mean talk about the burden being unequally yoked.

 

 

I absolutely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly use D&C 131 as evidence that its at all OK to be in a sexless marriage?

 

Well now that wasn't what I said at all.

 

One of the main purposes of Celestial Glory is to produce spirit children. I reckon it's not looking so good for those in a sexless marriage in the Celestial Kingdom......now is it? How are all those billions of spirt children going to be born? 

 

That's presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works. Still...as I said, not what I said.

 

You stated that there is no reason to be more than friends without sex, and that without it you may as well not be married, and the context of the discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. As we have no idea how that will all work in the next life it would be pointless to discuss more than this life.

 

D&C 131 clearly lays out the fact that in order to even get to the Celestial Kingdom where we will even have the chance to create spirit children (however that is to be done) then we have to be married for time and all eternity. It says nothing about having sex in that marriage in mortality (other than implied procreation efforts) whatsoever. That doesn't, logically, mean that sexless marriage is good. It simply means that there's more reason to be and stay married in this life than to have sex and/or to have children -- which is what I said.

 

How the heck is that going to happen without SEX? With this in mind, I again stand by my original comment, and also suggest that perhaps those who are not willing to engage in sex with their spouses in this life may perhaps not make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Indeed, they may actually be happier in a lesser kingdom where increase (and therefore SEX) is not a requirement.

 

Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created. None whatsoever. Any presumption of celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal.

 

Regardless, as I've pointed out, our physical relations or lack thereof in the eternal realm is entirely irrelevant to our obedience in this realm. Marriage is a commandment. Sex is not. Now...to be fair, we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and clearly that means some level of sex. But it certainly doesn't mean that if a marriage gets into a state where the sex is diminished or gone altogether that it justifies walking away from our covenants.

 

And your contention that those who do not so engage may not be worthy of the celestial sphere is incorrect. The qualifications for exaltation are clearly laid before us. Obedience to the commandments and ordinances of God. As stated, that may mean enough sex to make an honest effort to procreate in this life (though in today's world and technology, that isn't even required with In Vitro and the like), but beyond that...your presumptions are unsupportable.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

And there are some women who just discover they don't really like sex.  They should make an effort to do something about that because it's important to their husband. 

 

Perhaps those husbands need to learn more about how to please their wife . . .  what men want and expect from sex can be very different than what women want and need.  I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional.

 

And because 1 in 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse, that may also be a factor in many of these situations.

 

We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly use D&C 131 as evidence that its at all OK to be in a sexless marriage? One of the main purposes of Celestial Glory is to produce spirit children. I reckon it's not looking so good for those in a sexless marriage in the Celestial Kingdom......now is it? How are all those billions of spirt children going to be born? 

 

How the heck is that going to happen without SEX? With this in mind, I again stand by my original comment, and also suggest that perhaps those who are not willing to engage in sex with their spouses in this life may perhaps not make it to the Celestial Kingdom. Indeed, they may actually be happier in a lesser kingdom where increase (and therefore SEX) is not a requirement.

 

 

Wow!

 

TFP responded with some good points but I just have to chime in.  There are a myriad of reasons why sex may not be happening in a marriage but I will just say this -  some face issues in this life that fortunately will be resolved in the next which will clear the way for "all those billions of spirit children to be born" so you may not want to be so quick to judge.

 

One other thing - what if a spouse requests things that the other spouse isn't comfortable with*?  Do you still condemn that spouse for not being "willing to engage in sex" and think they'll "be happier in a lesser kingdom"? Like I said, there's a myriad of reasons...

 

*to be clear - I'm not speaking about myself just giving an example to illustrate the point

Edited by notquiteperfect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those husbands need to learn more about how to please their wife . . . what men want and expect from sex can be very different than what women want and need. I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional.

And because 1 in 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse, that may also be a factor in many of these situations.

We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue.

Communication issues are a *we* issue usually.

*my* main point wasn't so much about specifics but about effort. Both parties need to think about us rather than me. Perhaps that is oversimplified but I suppose if we were all selfless our marriages would all be amazing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate is getting interesting! Everything I say is in the spirit of a great debate, and in no way should be taken at all personally. :) With that in mind I shall continue......

 

Well now that wasn't what I said at all.

 

You stated that there is no reason to be more than friends without sex, and that without it you may as well not be married, and the context of the discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. As we have no idea how that will all work in the next life it would be pointless to discuss more than this life.

 

When I made my original comment I was indeed only referring to this life. I completely agree that the context of this discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. However, I did not bring up D&C 131, which does turn parts of this discussion into the realm of the spiritual and the role of procreation as Celestial beings.

 

 

That's presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works. Still...as I said, not what I said.

 

Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created. None whatsoever. Any presumption of celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal.

 

My limited mortal understanding of the way things work in an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, I am basing my limited, mortal understanding on the views of several prominent LDS apostles and Prophets. Of course, I am sure that many people would go so far as to say that what the Prophets and Apostles say is also conjecture and non-doctrinal, but I am not one of those.

 

Please let me be so bold as to quote some of them, and then I will turn my attention back to the original premise of this life.  These quotes do not state how spirit children are born, but they do say (and quite boldly in my opinion) that Heavenly Father has indeed engaged in sex in the mortal understanding of the term:

 

“… I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person…. I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.”
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 238)

 

“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh…. The fleshy body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father…. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.”
(Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

 

“Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of the flesh… Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, pages 125, 126, 1972)

 

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 547, 1966)

 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.”
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7)

 

“[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh.”  (Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, pages 378-379, 1967)

 

"As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven"  Orson Pratt (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)

 

Saying Jesus was begotten in the same way mortal men are begotten is pretty clear. Unless you know of another way mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers, than they were saying it was by sex.
 

Edited by auzziegirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

 

TFP responded with some good points but I just have to chime in.  There are a myriad of reasons why sex may not be happening in a marriage but I will just say this -  some face issues in this life that fortunately will be resolved in the next which will clear the way for "all those billions of spirit children to be born" so you may not want to be so quick to judge.

 

One other thing - what if a spouse requests things that the other spouse isn't comfortable with*?  Do you still condemn that spouse for not being "willing to engage in sex" and think they'll "be happier in a lesser kingdom"? Like I said, there's a myriad of reasons...

 

*to be clear - I'm not speaking about myself just giving an example to illustrate the point

 

I absolutely agree that there are a myriad of reasons why sex may not be happening in a marriage. I most certainly was not quick to judge, and apologize to those who thought so. I was stating my opinion on the original posters comments. My comments are based on their situation, and their situation alone. 

 

There are a lot of very sad situations which I am sure Heavenly Father is aware of. I would sincerely hope that in those situations the spouses would be understanding and thoughtful in each individual case. 

 

I was NEVER condemning a spouse and do not understand how my comments could lead you to believe such a thing! Just to be clear, there is not a person alive that should be ok with forcing a spouse to engage in sexual activities that they are not comfortable with. There was nothing in any of my comments that even comes close to suggesting that. I do not understand where you came up with that. I am still shaking my head in disbelief!

 

Just to be clear,  not only do I believe that to be extremely unkind, disrespectful, hurtful and emotionally damaging to force a spouse to engage in sexual activities they are not comfortable with, I believe it squarely falls into the category of sexual abuse.

 

I believe that it is an entirely a different issue than not being willing to engage in any sex whatsoever. In that instance, you could argue that it's emotionally damaging to the spouse that is being denied. Should only the wishes of those that do not wish to engage in sex be the only ones that are to be respected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those husbands need to learn more about how to please their wife . . .  what men want and expect from sex can be very different than what women want and need.  I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional.

 

And because 1 in 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse, that may also be a factor in many of these situations.

 

We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue.

 

Perhaps those wives need to learn more about how to please their husbands?..... What women want and expect from sex can be very different than what men want and need. I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional.

 

I believe 1 in 5 boys have also suffered abuse, and that may also be a factor in many of these situations. We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue.

 

Or does the wind only blow in one direction?

Edited by auzziegirl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may get thrown under the bus, but, here goes. In my humble opinion, simply put, sex is an important part of marriage. Its an implicit part of marriage. It is an implied part of marriage. Other than children, its the only other reason to be married, or....you may as well just be friends.

 

Sex builds intimacy, trust, friendship, and love. For many men, sex equals love, and feel very unloved and undesired without it. If it has been expressly and clearly stated that it is a need for one partner that has been ignored by the other, then yes, if it persists, is absolutely grounds for a divorce.

   

I completely agree, and before "no fault" divorce came along, "withholding affection" was one of the valid grounds for getting a divorce. Note that's civil law, not the position of the LDS church. It does, however, demonstrate that even outside of the church, regular intimacy in marriage is expected, and withholding it is considered aberrant to the point that it is legal grounds for divorce in states where "no fault" divorce doesn't exist, and has been for generations in the USA.

As a general authority said when he was touring my brother's mission, "One of my major reason for getting married was to have intimate relations with an attractive member of the opposite sex." If one partner in marriage doesn't believe that aspect of marriage is important and the other partner does, the marriage will always be in serious trouble.

That said, you need to get to the root of your wife's disinterest. Some women simply don't have much of a libido, and some men don't either. That's often related to hormone levels, so it might be worth it to have your wife checked out medically.

Others in this thread have outlined possible reasons for her disinterest, which you should explore and see if any of them apply. I've found therapy to be hit or miss - it depends on your therapist, and quite often on the qualifications of your therapist. You may get better results from a clinical psysciatrist than you would from a therapist at LDS Social Services, for example. You need to seek help from someone who is both qualified and experienced in diagnosing the cause of your wife's indifference, and that has nothing to do with being LDS. From your point of view it's necessary to save your marriage, since having intimate relations on a regular basis was one of your basic assumptions when you offered marriage and a comfortable lifestyle to your wife.

All too often women busy themselves with their children and forget about their husbands. I've heard warnings of this time and again from the pulpit in General Conference. Keeping marriage alive and vibrant as a couple is a challenge when there are little people running around your feet and demanding your time, but in the hereafter, we are not going to live with our children! "Families are forever" means that the spousal relationship is forever. It's you and her forever, and your kids will be with their spouses forever, or at least that's the goal. I seldom if ever hear that from the pulpit, although it should be quite obvious from church doctrine. So your relationship with your wife - and hers with you, is the most important relationship in your lives - period.

As you've noted, the effects of divorce on children are incalculable. Financially it's a disaster, although the earlier you get out, the less it will cost you in the long run, since states take the length of the marriage into account when awarding alimony or spousal support, plus you'll have less of an estate that most states split 50/50. If you don't get custody of your children, divorce largely strips you of your role as a father and denies you any authority over your children's behavior when they aren't with you. If you and your ex can't agree on a common set of rules for your kids, they'll be raised by her set of rules, not yours.  So for a multitude of reasons, if you can work things out, remaining married is vastly preferable to divorce.

Men seemed to be designed to have a higher libido than women, and more than one of my female friends have explained that women can simply turn that desire off. I'm not sure how truthful that statement is - it might be more a result of being in a dysfunctional marriage that makes the thought of being intimate with your spouse repugnant rather than losing interest. That doesn't appear to be the case in the way you've described your marriage, but the important question is "How does your wife perceive being intimate with you?" If she finds it repugnant, you have a serious problem. If it's just disinterest, getting to the cause of that disinterest is the key to changing it.  If she's deliberately withholding it to control you, then you need serious marriage counseling.

Speaking from the male perspective and not as a stalwart priesthood holder, shaking up her comfortable world might not be a bad thing. She's comfortable with things the way they are, and she won't change unless she understands that things won't remain the way they are if she doesn't change her behavior. That doesn't mean you give her an ultimatum to provide what you had a reasonable expectation of receiving when you offered to marry her, but she does need to understand how deeply unhappy and disappointed her behavior is making you feel, and that if it continues, you may eventually explore your options. Intimate relations under duress aren't the answer either, since she needs to enjoy them as much as you do and not feel pressured by any ultimatums. If explaining those feelings with her doesn't change anything, bringing them up in a joint therapy session with an expert in dealing with your problem might be more fruitful.

Clearly I don't have the answer, but I hope I've given you some food for thought. I wish you the best...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those husbands need to learn more about how to please their wife . . .  what men want and expect from sex can be very different than what women want and need.  I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional.

 

And because 1 in 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse, that may also be a factor in many of these situations.

 

We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue.

 

Would you please cite the source for your assertion that 1 of 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse? Exactly how that study defined "sexual abuse" is also important. If they count getting whistled at as a woman walks down the street, that's a bit different from instances that included a medical checkup and a police report. I've had hundreds of school girls jumping up and down and screaming at my companion and me as we walked past their school, and I didn't feel the least bit violated - but I think it was a running joke with all the girls in that school whenever the Mormon missionaries walked by, since it had been going on for years.

 

Note that I am not trying to belittle the victims of actual sexual abuse. If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed.

 

I'm not saying that your statistics are wrong, but throwing numbers out with no reference to where those numbers came from and how the study defined "sexual abuse" doesn't help us evaluate the validity of your argument.

 

I get the impression from how the relationship that started this thread was described that the problem was disinterest, not of the the wife having a history of abuse. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there's a distinct possibility that she only showed interest when she knew she was fertile, as evidenced by the fact that she got pregnant with only three opportunities to do so in an entire year.

 

Women may look at sex very differently than men, but it is a bonding act for both of them. This marriage is lacking in that act of bonding, which is very damaging. The  husband had every right to expect regular marital relations when he offered to marry her and give her a comfortable lifestyle. They also should have discussed what they expected from their relationship, including sex. Talking about how many kids you want isn't quite the same thing, since sex isn't merely for procreation, and the church supports that outlook.

 

"In my work as a marriage counselor, I have found that there are some couples who feel that sexuality should be restricted to one dimension—reproduction. Yet President Kimball has said: “We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experiences between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children.” (Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4.) While creating children is an integral and beautiful aspect of marital intimacy, to use it only for that purpose is to deny its great potential as an expression of love, commitment, and unity."

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

 

Quoting from the same Ensign article:

 

"Still others use sexuality as a weapon or a bargaining tool. This is not only a misuse of a God-given privilege, it shows great selfishness on the part of one or both partners and makes sexuality a destructive rather than a unifying element in marriage."

 

Whether this is the case in this marriage isn't clear, but the fact that she turns him down almost all the time hints that it might be. His frustration is perfectly understandable, as what should be a unifying act is becoming very destructive in their marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps those wives need to learn more about how to please their husbands?..... What women want and expect from sex can be very different than what men want and need. I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional...

Or does the wind only blow in one direction?

 

It's rather refreshing to see the needs of husbands mentioned in this thread rather than the constant drumbeat of their shortcomings. It certainly is a two way street, and lack of communication is frequently a problem.

 

He has said that he does the romance thing, spends time with her, cuddles, etc., but there's crickets chirping in the bedroom. He asks, and she always says "not now." How much constant rejection from the person who is supposed to be his soulmate for eternity is he expected to endure? This isn't just about physical relations, every "not now" is a rejection of him as a person, a husband, a partner, and a man.

 

There have been quite a lot of comments that paint him as the villain for asking a perfectly valid question. At this point, she married him under false pretenses, since reasonably frequent intimacy is implied as part of marriage. Nor is marriage merely for procreation, it's a gift we've been given to bring us closer together as a couple. Pres. Holland went so far as to call it a "sacrament." I'll leave the implications of that and any comparison to taking the sacrament weekly to the reader, but obviously the church leadership believes that regular intimacy is important in creating and maintaing a healthy marriage. If one spouse isn't interested, then the opportunity to strengthen their marriage through physical intimacy is lost, and if the other spouse is interrested, what should be a bonding opportunity and a sacrament that is available only in marriage degenerates into a source of contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you please cite the source for your assertion that 1 of 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse? Exactly how that study defined "sexual abuse" is also important. If they count getting whistled at as a woman walks down the street, that's a bit different from instances that included a medical checkup and a police report. I've had hundreds of school girls jumping up and down and screaming at my companion and me as we walked past their school, and I didn't feel the least bit violated - but I think it was a running joke with all the girls in that school whenever the Mormon missionaries walked by, since it had been going on for years.

 

Note that I am not trying to belittle the victims of actual sexual abuse. If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed.

 

I'm not saying that your statistics are wrong, but throwing numbers out with no reference to where those numbers came from and how the study defined "sexual abuse" doesn't help us evaluate the validity of your argument.

 

I get the impression from how the relationship that started this thread was described that the problem was disinterest, not of the the wife having a history of abuse. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there's a distinct possibility that she only showed interest when she knew she was fertile, as evidenced by the fact that she got pregnant with only three opportunities to do so in an entire year.

 

Women may look at sex very differently than men, but it is a bonding act for both of them. This marriage is lacking in that act of bonding, which is very damaging. The  husband had every right to expect regular marital relations when he offered to marry her and give her a comfortable lifestyle. They also should have discussed what they expected from their relationship, including sex. Talking about how many kids you want isn't quite the same thing, since sex isn't merely for procreation, and the church supports that outlook.

 

"In my work as a marriage counselor, I have found that there are some couples who feel that sexuality should be restricted to one dimension—reproduction. Yet President Kimball has said: “We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experiences between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children.” (Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4.) While creating children is an integral and beautiful aspect of marital intimacy, to use it only for that purpose is to deny its great potential as an expression of love, commitment, and unity."

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng

 

Quoting from the same Ensign article:

 

"Still others use sexuality as a weapon or a bargaining tool. This is not only a misuse of a God-given privilege, it shows great selfishness on the part of one or both partners and makes sexuality a destructive rather than a unifying element in marriage."

 

Whether this is the case in this marriage isn't clear, but the fact that she turns him down almost all the time hints that it might be. His frustration is perfectly understandable, as what should be a unifying act is becoming very destructive in their marriage.

Your first paragraph shows much ignorance on the subject of sexual abuse and probably gives us a glimpse to your personal attitude towards the subject. For you to even speculate that these statistics include women who were simply whistled at....wow....I don't even know how to respond to such a remark.

Ironic that you take men at their word when they claim they are being "deprived", yet are so quick to call into question women's experiences and assume they are the ones exaggerating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He asked for a citation of the statistic that 1 in 3 women were victims of sexual abuse. Nothing more, he went on to say  If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your first paragraph shows much ignorance on the subject of sexual abuse and probably gives us a glimpse to your personal attitude towards the subject. For you to even speculate that these statistics include women who were simply whistled at....wow....I don't even know how to respond to such a remark.

Ironic that you take men at their word when they claim they are being "deprived", yet are so quick to call into question women's experiences and assume they are the ones exaggerating.

Sheesh, overly defensive much? All he did was question the source of and the methodology of the study. Fair questions really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This debate is getting interesting! Everything I say is in the spirit of a great debate, and in no way should be taken at all personally. :) With that in mind I shall continue......

 

 

When I made my original comment I was indeed only referring to this life. I completely agree that the context of this discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. However, I did not bring up D&C 131, which does turn parts of this discussion into the realm of the spiritual and the role of procreation as Celestial beings.

 

 

 

I believe my limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, I am basing my limited, mortal understanding on the views of several prominent LDS apostles and Prophets. Of course, I am sure that many people would go so far as to say that what the Prophets and Apostles say is also conjecture and non-doctrinal, but I am not one of those.

 

Please let me be so bold as to quote some of them, and then I will turn my attention back to the original premise of this life.  These quotes do not state how spirit children are born, but they do say (and quite boldly in my opinion) that Heavenly Father has indeed engaged in sex in the mortal understanding of the term:

 

“… I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person…. I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.”

(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 238)

 

“God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh…. The fleshy body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father…. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.”

(Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

 

“Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of the flesh… Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.”

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, pages 125, 126, 1972)

 

“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.”

(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 547, 1966)

 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.”

(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7)

 

“[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh.”  (Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, pages 378-379, 1967)

 

"As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven"  Orson Pratt (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)

 

Saying Jesus was begotten in the same way mortal men are begotten is pretty clear. Unless you know of another way mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers, than they were saying it was by sex.

 

 

I'm not going to debate this with you. As you already said, not everything spoken by every prophet and/or apostle is doctrinal (if you're really going with that, then you're going to get into a lot of trouble if we want to start debating the Adam God theory or blacks and the priesthood). I stand by my comment. The creation of spirit children is unrevealed. Moreover, as I also said, it's completely beyond the point. We are to be and stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to debate this with you. As you already said, not everything spoken by every prophet and/or apostle is doctrinal (if you're really going with that, then you're going to get into a lot of trouble if we want to start debating the Adam God theory or blacks and the priesthood). I stand by my comment. The creation of spirit children is unrevealed. Moreover, as I also said, it's completely beyond the point. We are to be and stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex.

 

There is no need to debate.  The quotes are from a variety of different apostles and prophets. Not just one.  It is entirely clear what they believe on this point.  Please provide me with just one quote that suggests otherwise.  

 

I am not debating the Adam God theory, nor blacks and the priesthood. I am challenging your assumption that:

  1. I am (and I directly quote) - "presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works"
  2. My understanding is limited (and I directly quote) "Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created."  
  3. That any presumption of Celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal. 

I again remind you that you were the one that moved the discussion to D&C 131. I again remind you that you were the one that stated that I was ignorant in my understanding on celestial sex.  I again remind you that my inclusion of direct quotes from several different apostles and prophets was to defend myself from your assumptions of ignorance.

 

Exactly who has commanded that we stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex?  WOW! This statement is troubling on so many different levels. Please provide references and or quotes for this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are to be and stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex.

I'm curious TFP, to what extent to you take this? Where is the line? Adultery is a scripturally defensible line to place divorce at, but I don't think it must get that extreme. I think something like absolute refusal to have sex and other forms of physical intimacy, refusal to acknowledge it as a problem, or refusal to attempt to address the issue and communicate with your spouse about the issue is getting there on the line where I would not judge someone in the slightest for their decision to divorce.

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Would you please cite the source for your assertion that 1 of 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse? Exactly how that study defined "sexual abuse" is also important. If they count getting whistled at as a woman walks down the street, that's a bit different from instances that included a medical checkup and a police report. I've had hundreds of school girls jumping up and down and screaming at my companion and me as we walked past their school, and I didn't feel the least bit violated - but I think it was a running joke with all the girls in that school whenever the Mormon missionaries walked by, since it had been going on for years.

 

You're kidding right?  I mean you are not seriously suggesting...or suggesting that anyone else would define cat calls as rape or sexual assault.  Please.

 

Here are some commonly accepted definitions to help you out:

 

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

 

Sexual assault - A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape.  These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender.  Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling.  It also includes verbal threats.

 

Bureau of Justice Stastics http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

 

 

Medical checkup and police report?  Seriously? 

 

Sexual assault is one of the most under reported crimes, with 60% still being left unreported.1

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

 

In 2002, 54% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police (www.ncvc.org)  

http://www.woar.org/resources/sexual-assault-statistics.php

 

 

Sexual assault is not defined by a police report and medical exam.  It IS defined as:

 

Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

 

 

 

Okay, how about this?  It's not the 1 in 3 statistic, but it states pretty clearly what they are referring to:  rape or attempted rape, 

 

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).1  

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

 

According to RAINN they got this statistic from the National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

I didn't originally quote my source because this is commonly accepted statistic.  To prove THAT point, here are some examples:

 

1 in 3 American women will be sexually abused during their lifetime. (George Mason University, Worldwide Sexual Assault Statistics, 2005)

 

1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men will be sexually assaulted before the age of 18. (Finkelhor et al., 1990)

http://www.woar.org/resources/sexual-assault-statistics.php

 

 

 

Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.

 

Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence other than rape, such as being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

 

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

42.2% of female rape victims were first raped before age 18.

29.9% of female rape victims were first raped between the ages of 11-17.

12.3% female rape victims and 27.8% of male rape victims were first raped when they were age 10 or younger. 

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career. Hirsch, Kathleen (1990)”Fraternities of Fear: Gang Rape, Male Bonding, and the Silencing of Women.” Ms., 1(2) 52-56.http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/security/assault/statistics.html

 

 

 

Note that this one is only referring to college women.

 

 

1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse;

http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics

 

 

 

I would say more, but I have to run.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistics, I am convinced, are Satan's tool. I don't think I can ever trust them. Ever.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the numbers are much lower than that. Here's the PDF.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Those numbers you provided are just too big for me to believe without a lot of convincing, and when I look into it I often find each survey broadly defined rape or used some other flawed methodology.

Note I am no statistician, but I know enough to know statistics are an interpretation of facts, and not hard facts in and of themselves. This is really off tangent and of no use to this thread, so I will not address this alleged stats again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kidding right?  I mean you are not seriously suggesting...or suggesting that anyone else would define cat calls as rape or sexual assault.  Please.

 

Here are some commonly accepted definitions to help you out:

 

 

Sexual assault - A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape.  These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender.  Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling.  It also includes verbal threats.[Emphasis added--JAG]

 

 

 

So apparently, at least in some instances . . . he's right.  Nonetheless, I can see how even something like that could make a woman uncomfortable sharing intimacy with her husband, which would seem to buttress your overall point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistics, I am convinced, are Satan's tool. I don't think I can ever trust them. Ever.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the numbers are much lower than that. Here's the PDF.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

Those numbers you provided are just too big for me to believe without a lot of convincing, and when I look into it I often find each survey broadly defined rape or used some other flawed methodology.

Note I am no statistician, but I know enough to know statistics are an interpretation of facts, and not hard facts in and of themselves. This is really off tangent and of no use to this thread, so I will not address this alleged stats again.

 

MoE has dug into the numbers here before--I don't have the link at the moment--but my take-away from his posts is that the one-in-five statistic for traditionally-defined "rape" is fairly solid; whereas the one-in-three statistic for "sexual assault" smacks of fear-mongering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I realize that this is anecdotal--and you (speaking generally) are likely to dismiss this even quicker that statistics but here goes anyway.

 

Because I blog about (and wrote a book about) sexual abuse, people talk to me about it.  I won't try to guess on the figures, but trust me is a HUGE problem.  I know far too many women and men that are victims of sexual assault (and I am not talking about cat calls).  

 

Jerome1232, I'm curious...you don't trust statistics, and you trust anecdotal evidence even less....so assuming that I am right about the enormity of the problem, what would it take to get you to believe it.  I don't feel pressed to convince you, you are welcome to have your own opinion--I'm simply curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share