Mormon Sexuality?

[Southern_Bell]

del

Edited May 14, 2017 by Southern_Bell

[Jane_Doe]

We had stake conference a few weeks ago.  During joint Sunday School, the Stake president took the podium a few things.  They included:

-- The danger/damage of sexting.

-- Don't portray sex as (quoting) "this horrible evil dirty thing that you should save for your spouse" 

-- The importance of making out with your spouse.

It was an unconventail and very good lesson. 

[Guest]

I actually took a class in institute with my wife prior to marriage called "preparing for marriage".  It was quite detailed about sex, and I am glad.  I personally think we need to talk more about sex in a controlled environment such as the Church, especially with those who are preparing for marriage (e.g., older youth and single adults).

Good girl syndrome is a sign we are failing in teaching healthy attitudes about sex.  I see way too many threads on this forum about sexless marriages between active members.  I personally believe being in a sexless marriage is only slightly healthier than being in a marriage where one partner is openly having affairs, and is a form of spousal abuse.  (Obviously none of the aforementioned applies when there is a valid medical condition preventing intimacy.  I am talking about willful withholding of intimacy.)

Discussions about sex need to happen, and they need to happen in a controlled environment such as the Church.

Edited May 15, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[estradling75]

13 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

 

Discussions about sex need to happen, and they need to happen in a controlled environment such as the Church.

As it stands I disagree with this statement.  Change the bolded to At home with the parents... and I have not problem agreeing with this.

The problem is.. we are blaming the wrong source every time we push it to the church or to the world.

Edited May 15, 2017 by estradling75

[estradling75]

52 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Problem is... Not everyone has good parents who teach healthy ideas about sexuality.  This isn't the way it should be but it is life and the way things are.  This is where the Church can and should come in - to teach people where parents have failed on this subject which is so central to a happy marriage.  If we just say "that's the parents' responsibility", a lot of people are going to miss out on learning about healthy attitudes regarding sexuality (e.g., those without member parents, those whose parents have unhealthy attitudes themselves about sex, etc.).  This has real world consequences in the Church, including marriage stability, sinfulness, and the like.

I understand the Church does not, and should not, be giving instruction on a lot of things (e.g., how couples should manage money, childrearing techniques, etc.), but given the sheer volume of sexual dysfunctionality there is, even among members, and the havoc I am seeing on this very forum caused by people with unhealthy sexual ideas, maybe an argument could be made for the Church to step in more in this instance?

People not having "Good Parents" has been with us forever... That doesn't mean we should end run around them.  Especially for a problem (a dysfunction) that did not exist 50 years ago.  But no one wants to discuss the root cause of this problem and why now...  They are too busy trying to band aid the problem and pointing fingers at a conservative religious institution because its not fixing the problem that it had no control over.

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, estradling75 said:

As it stands I disagree with this statement.  Change the bolded to At home with the parents... and I have not problem agreeing with this.

The problem is.. we are blaming the wrong source every time we push it to the church or to the world.

I think the disagreement is more about to whom it is applied.

The "at home with the parents" is correct when we're talking about youth and young adults.  But the context of @DoctorLemon's post seemed to be more about couples who are already established.  I can't imagine a 30-something couple having "the talk" with their parents.  The parental talk should have happened a long time before.

When that fails (which apparently it does quite often) then that couple needs to seek out the best sources they can.  This may include parents for the rare few who end up feeling comfortable talking with them when they've already had decades of NOT talking about it.  But seeking out other sources should include the Church.  If good is not offered, then evil always will be.

[Fether]

13 hours ago, estradling75 said:

As it stands I disagree with this statement.  Change the bolded to At home with the parents... and I have not problem agreeing with this.

The problem is.. we are blaming the wrong source every time we push it to the church or to the world.

Totally agree, but I do believe their needs to be an overhaul of the sex culture in the church. This, of course, can only happen by overhauling the homes of every member. 

https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/his-grace/pornography-addiction-is-there-hope

this girl in the video tells of an lesson in young women's where they taught the LOC and the teachers were a little insensitive about the topic while teaching, making her feel as if she wasn't a "good girl" for struggling with pornography. This happens far too often on the church.

In my YSA Ward, we had a combined Sunday school discussion on pornography and how to deal with it and how to help our future family deal with it. The majority of comments were insensitive and said as if there was no one in the ward that struggled with it.

I don't think anyone means to be insensitive about it, but we are just uncomfortable with the whole topic.

Though pornography is just a tiny aspect of the sex culture, I feel like the difficulty we find in talking about it translates directly to the culture as a whole.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Fether

[NeuroTypical]

On 5/12/2017 at 1:45 PM, NeuroTypical said:

BTW, there's a perfectly good "how to do it" book out there, approved by the brethren *.    And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage Through Sexual Fulfillment by Laura M. Brotherson  There's everything here anyone would want to know about the mechanics and how-to's, except for pictures.  

Just wanted to post this again.  All the talk about what should and shouldn't happen in sex ed, who should and shouldn't teach - no really folks, you wanna know how to do it, go get this book and get educated.  There's no age requirement, you don't have to show id, all you have to do is come up with the dollars and buy the book.   It's a really, really, really good book on the subject from an LDS perspective.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

Just wanted to post this again.  All the talk about what should and shouldn't happen in sex ed, who should and shouldn't teach - no really folks, you wanna know how to do it, go get this book and get educated.  There's no age requirement, you don't have to show id, all you have to do is come up with the dollars and buy the book.   It's a really, really, really good book on the subject from an LDS perspective.  

I'll put my support behind this statement too.  Yes, there are other books that are good and have a lot of good stuff to say. But this book is REALLY good.

There are many women (and one man) in my extended family that suffer from "good girl syndrome."   This book has changed a LOT of people's minds about it.

[estradling75]

I suppose I should try to answer @MrShorty.  Or at least give my opinion on the subject.

The mechanics of sex is not that hard to figure out... if it was then the human race would have died out long ago... Being "Good at Sex" is a much more modern problem.

Lets take my parents generation.  They lived on farms, between their instincts and observation of farm animals they had a sexual education.  Family planning was as many kids and the Lord gives you... and if you don't want kids don't have sex.  Sexual transmitted disease and condoms existed but they were for the sexually immoral, so the answer to that was to live the Law of Chasity.  That was their system.  Was it a perfect system?  Nope... but it worked for most.  And the outliers were treated individually as needed.

In the 1960 the birth control pill is introduced and everything changes and by the 1980's the more dangerous side effects of the pill were dealt with.  And societies sexual mores become unhinged.  This is my generation.  We have a new set of messes to deal with and since it wasn't our parents problem they have no practical advice.  So we are jumping in blind, and figuring it out as we go. We want to bestow on the next generation the same kind of moral character we have, while giving them a different set of practical tools, and we have no experience or examples of how to do so. We are learning as we go and it is no were near a perfect system.

Then we have @Fether 's generation (I don't mean to pick on you but you are a perfect example) He sees what worked and what did not work from my generation and he is going to adapt accordingly  Thus his generation will have some examples to draw on and his will do better.  And his kids will do better them him.

Now lets look to the church.  For most of my life my parents generation or older has been leading the church.  Its not a problem that they had personal experience with.  Without revelation they really only have general principles to work with.  Now my generation is starting to take over the leadership we were the front-line of this change and we are trying to figure out the best way to handle it personally and in the church frame work.  Not surprisingly we see the beginning of a change in the church.  But people want the church leadership to be farther along then any reasonable understanding of the situation warrants.  Barring direct revelation the church leadership is responding as they have the experience and wisdom to do so.   And they will continue to do so.  In time Fether's generation will step into leadership roles and adding their experiences and wisdom to the church's actions, and it will move further along.

As for the massive amounts of dysfunction how sure are we that it is not a squeaky wheel problem?  Every generation had had outliers, and it is not unreasonable that a generation grappling with a new set of problem might have more.  But we also live in a time when these outliers have a much larger and louder soap box to proclaim their problems.. How much is this "soap box" magnifying the appearance of the problem.    After all you really don't hear someone say, "Hi I'm Estradling75 and I am happy marred man with a good sex life."  It sounds kind of braggish and it not really something that a conservative/religious person would say(without some prodding). How would the two groups compare if you could actually hear from both?

Finally to many times when we see someone struggling we want some big monolithic organization to change to meet their needs and be everything to everyone... And that is totally impractical.  The Savior knows this, which is why his teachings are about individuals helping individuals.

 

   

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 5/12/2017 at 11:20 AM, Fether said:

I personally believe that if it was discussed more casually life would be so much better. My fiancé and I are getting married a week from today. Everything we know about sex is from friends and the internet. 

Neither my parents or my husband's parents were active in the church. They didn't teach us about sex either.

Fortunately, we heard about the book, The Act of Marriage. (This was 22 years ago, before Brotheron's book.) We read it, and I'm so glad we did. 

We've always had age appropriate discussions with our kids, and when my son got married last year I gave them The Act of Marriage, and They Were Not Ashamed. 

But I didn't stop there. I sat my son down and told him --I'm now giving you the same advice--- if you love your  wife and want her to enjoy sex as much as you do, read these books. You may think you can just do what comea naturally, but remember birth is natural and most people aeek medical assistance for that. Nursing a baby is natural, but La Leche League exists to help the mothers and babies who struggle. So while sex maybe natural, I guarantee you will be better off if you take the time to read the books and learn the aspects that don't come naturally.

BTW, I actually gave my daughter in law-to be the books at the bridal shower. She was completely embarrassed, but thanked me later. 

@Carborendum I think that religious people --not just LDS, are reticent to talk about sex. I think there are a variety of reasons. For us as LDS, mostly I think people fear taking the conversation to far. The best cure for that is the Spirit. If we are in tune we will know what is appropriate or not. I have very frank, open conversations with my kids (as does my husband). The kids were embarrassed at first, but they got used to it and now it's not a big deal.

Edited May 15, 2017 by LiterateParakeet
Typos

[eddified]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

In my YSA Ward, we had a combined Sunday school discussion on pornography and how to deal with it and how to help our future family deal with it. The majority of comments were insensitive and said as if there was no one in the ward that struggled with it.

I don't think anyone means to be insensitive about it, but we are just uncomfortable with the whole topic.

I think a lot of this apparent insensitivity comes from the fact that (culturally speaking) members aren't "allowed" to admit to struggling with this. We "have" to pretend that no one in the room has ever seen anything pornographic. Someone has already discussed this aspect of the culture in this thread I believe. And it's too personal of an issue to say to the Elder's quorum (for example, while the son is outside of the room attending Young Men's) something like, "when my son found some pornography, I handled it this way".

Sex is such a personal thing that it becomes hard to talk about in a more non-personal setting like a church meeting. 

[Fether]

42 minutes ago, eddified said:

I think a lot of this apparent insensitivity comes from the fact that (culturally speaking) members aren't "allowed" to admit to struggling with this. We "have" to pretend that no one in the room has ever seen anything pornographic. Someone has already discussed this aspect of the culture in this thread I believe. And it's too personal of an issue to say to the Elder's quorum (for example, while the son is outside of the room attending Young Men's) something like, "when my son found some pornography, I handled it this way".

Sex is such a personal thing that it becomes hard to talk about in a more non-personal setting like a church meeting. 

You can still discuss it without revealing names. Replace "my son" with "A while ago, a friend of mine"... not a perfect fix for all discussion, but it can be done. Be tactful! 

The biggest problem is when we speak as if it is a far off problem that no one in the room deals with, those that do struggle with it feel as if they are the only ones that struggle with it and we unintentionally demonize. After this, no one is willing to admit to family or the bishop because they are under the impression that only the worst of the worst face this sin (generally speaking).

Edited May 15, 2017 by Fether

[Guest]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@Carborendum I think that religious people --not just LDS, are reticent to talk about sex. I think there are a variety of reasons.

21 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Most conservative Christian faiths are just as "hands off" about teaching sex ed as we are.  There is no difference in that regard.

Apparently, I agree.  Great minds...

[Guest]

5 hours ago, estradling75 said:

The mechanics of sex is not that hard to figure out... if it was then the human race would have died out long ago... Being "Good at Sex" is a much more modern problem.   

I don't believe it's that simple.  Even the pleasure aspects of sex are mostly mechanical.  It's just knowing about it (especially from a female perspective) and that it's ok -- that is a problem that has been around for a long time.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Guest

[NightSG]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

This, of course, can only happen by overhauling the homes of every member. 

Great!  I won't be home until around 8, but there's a fresh box of trash bags under the loft stairs, and a mostly new giant bottle of Dawn Ultra in the bathroom.  (Works great for degreasing hands and spot treating laundry with grease stains.)

At least I hope that's the kind of overhaul you mean.

[mordorbund]

25 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Great!  I won't be home until around 8, but there's a fresh box of trash bags under the loft stairs, and a mostly new giant bottle of Dawn Ultra in the bathroom.  (Works great for degreasing hands and spot treating laundry with grease stains.)

At least I hope that's the kind of overhaul you mean.

The overhaul is about teaching sexual education in the home. I ... I'm ... er ... I don't know if you misunderstood or not ....

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...a problem that has been around for a long time.

And yet...the human race continues.

[MrShorty]

A lot has happened in this thread. I will try to be coherent (optimistic, aren't I?)

On 5/14/2017 at 2:16 PM, Carborendum said:

1. When "others" are better at sex ed, what does "better" mean?
2. Most conservative Christian faiths are just as "hands off" about teaching sex ed as we are.  There is no difference in that regard.
3. Most other faiths are much more permissive in their attitudes about pornography and many sexual acts than we are.  We teach the law of chastity.  I really don't know what others teach, but from my experience with people of other faiths it ends up being received by their youth as "well, it's not that bad."

So, as Needle pointed out, when we don't teach our kids about sex, the world does.  And what does the world teach?  I'm not going to go into that.  But what I can say is that more of our youth try to stay unpolluted.  Those of other faiths take what the world has to offer.  That is how they get "better trained" than our youth.

But is that really "better"?  I'm not certain it is.

I don't know what "better" sex ed means, either. In some contexts, I get the impression that our idea of "better" includes ignorance innocence. As LP says above, it sometimes seems that our biggest "fear" in these conversations is telling them "too much". How much of "better" is deciding and discerning how much our youth should know? Would it be better or worse if we changed tactics and risked telling too much out of fear of not telling enough?

 

On 5/14/2017 at 2:16 PM, Carborendum said:

(Is it odd to anyone that we have the "good girl syndrome" when the human female is so obviously designed to gain more pleasure out of the experience than males?)

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at with this question, but I will hazard that, yes, it is odd. Why does our rhetoric prefer to stereotype women as inherently less sexual than men, when they seem to have greater sexual potential? Is it because we men are intimidated (due to the stereotypes that assume that men are supposed to be more sexual) by the prospect of being outpaced by our wives? Au fond (pardon my French), I think my main question regarding Good girl syndrome is the same (I think) as what you are asking here -- why does it exist, and why does it seem to exist in greater numbers among the LDS population?

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

The overhaul is about teaching sexual education in the home. I ... I'm ... er ... I don't know if you misunderstood or not ....

Aw, that doesn't get my dishes washed and toilet scrubbed.

Unless it's maybe a Cinderella roleplaying thing...

[Guest]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And yet...the human race continues.

I think you missed the point.  Yes, we continue to have sex, and therefore, children.  But we're talking about the pleasure aspect and why it hasn't been treated with proper respect in faith based circles.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know what "better" sex ed means, either. In some contexts, I get the impression that our idea of "better" includes ignorance innocence. As LP says above, it sometimes seems that our biggest "fear" in these conversations is telling them "too much". How much of "better" is deciding and discerning how much our youth should know? Would it be better or worse if we changed tactics and risked telling too much out of fear of not telling enough?

My point was that there are pros and cons on each side.  And I am trying to get at the heart of putting the pros of both sides together while still showing proper respect for a very sacred activity.

I myself have had very illuminating conversations with my own children.  And I will continue to have such conversations.  I do impress upon them that sex is not an evil thing.  But the Lord has commanded that we keep such activity within the bounds He has set.

What to tell them isn't a matter of fear.  It is a matter of timing.  It needs to be at a time when they're mature enough to handle the information.  And when certain physiological changes occur, they will more readily understand what I'm talking about.  Talking about it too early won't make any sense to them.

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at with this question, but I will hazard that, yes, it is odd. Why does our rhetoric prefer to stereotype women as inherently less sexual than men, when they seem to have greater sexual potential? Is it because we men are intimidated (due to the stereotypes that assume that men are supposed to be more sexual) by the prospect of being outpaced by our wives? Au fond (pardon my French), I think my main question regarding Good girl syndrome is the same (I think) as what you are asking here -- why does it exist, and why does it seem to exist in greater numbers among the LDS population?

Yes, the bolded part is exactly what I meant.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think you missed the point.  Yes, we continue to have sex, and therefore, children.  But we're talking about the pleasure aspect and why it hasn't been treated with proper respect in faith based circles.

And yet....the human race continues.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I think you missed the point.  Yes, we continue to have sex, and therefore, children.  But we're talking about the pleasure aspect and why it hasn't been treated with proper respect in faith based circles.

Ok tell me when and in what non faith based circles... the pleasure aspect of sex has been treated with the proper respect?  Chances are you can't point to anything older then a generation or two... and even then very few that treat it respectfully...

I am wagering that you really will not be able to point to anything that is not new... yet for some reason you except a conservative religion to be on the cutting edge of social change on the matter of sex...  How unrealistic.

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ok tell me when and in what non faith based circles... the pleasure aspect of sex has been treated with the proper respect?  Chances are you can't point to anything older then a generation or two... and even then very few that treat it respectfully...

Context. Context.  I was specifically responding to TFP's post.  I wasn't saying non-faith based circles do treat it with proper respect.  They have no reason to.  I was saying that faith based circles don't treat it with proper respect when we have a reason to.

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 yet for some reason you except a conservative religion to be on the cutting edge of social change on the matter of sex...  How unrealistic.

Did you mean to say that bolded word?  I can't quite tell since "accept" wouldn't work either.  I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi here.  I really don't know what you're trying to say.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Guest