Guest Posted March 4, 2018 Report Share Posted March 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MrShorty said: I know I used to think this. After years in a sexless marriage, I am not sure I believe this. I love my wife and am committed to our shared life, but it has definitely lost some of its luster without a sexual component. The man who wrote the Involuntary Celibacy letter on Laura Brotherson's blog captures much of this. https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/ I would counter that anyone who is immature enough to believe that sex is a discardable, inconsequential, or the least important aspect of marriage should not get married. The problem I have with sexless marriages is that at some point it is not really about the sex anymore. It is about the fact that the wife (or husband) is so thoughtless, so selfish as not to even be willing to spend twenty minutes once every two weeks doing something that is important for her husband. I have difficulty understanding the psychology of these women (or men too sometimes). It becomes almost more about unrighteous dominion than about the sex at some point. That is the element that would kill me. By comparison, I know some couples are involuntarily forced into sexless marriages where it isn't anyone's fault (e.g. through illness or catastrophic accident). If this happened to my marriage, I would be a little sad but I would endure without complaint. It isn't about the sex - it is about a dynamic of extreme selfishness on the part of the withholding spouse. Edited March 4, 2018 by DoctorLemon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 4, 2018 Report Share Posted March 4, 2018 (edited) Yeah, I think there’s a big difference between marital celibacy due to factors beyond a partner’s control, versus celibacy enforced by one partner’s prolonged refusal to participate in intimacy. The latter introduces an element of rejection into the relationship, which is very different than unfulfilled libido or even loneliness. Edited March 4, 2018 by Just_A_Guy MrShorty, Midwest LDS, Grunt and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted March 4, 2018 Report Share Posted March 4, 2018 4 hours ago, MrShorty said: I know I used to think this. After years in a sexless marriage, I am not sure I believe this. I love my wife and am committed to our shared life, but it has definitely lost some of its luster without a sexual component. The man who wrote the Involuntary Celibacy letter on Laura Brotherson's blog captures much of this. https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/ I would counter that anyone who is immature enough to believe that sex is a discardable, inconsequential, or the least important aspect of marriage should not get married. I never said it would be as good. I said it would still be the best thing in my life. My wife is so much more to me than sex and we connect in so many other ways. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 On 3/2/2018 at 2:12 PM, The Folk Prophet said: I gotta say, @mordorbund, whereas your comic presentation is typically spot on in my book, in this case I think you let yourself down just a bit by adding the text to the picture instead of just letting the image stand on it's own. Edit: Barely let yourself down. SpiritDragon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 16 minutes ago, mordorbund said: You are far too young to remember that. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 22 hours ago, MrShorty said: I would counter that anyone who is immature enough to believe that sex is a discardable, inconsequential, or the least important aspect of marriage should not get married. But then that's not a counter. That's a different ball of wax altogether. Alan Turing, in the movie the Imitation Game, was a gay man who offered marriage to June to give her the opportunity to work at what she loved doing. June accepted. Turing then told her he couldn't go through with it because he's gay and that wouldn't be fair to June. June told him she loves him and that they connect so completely with their minds and soul that the issue with physical intimacy can be overcome. Turing did not go through with it preferring to have illicit sex with random men - some he pays like prostitutes - without love. At least in the movie (not sure if it truly depicted Turing's real life), Turing was offered salvation but he chose sex to be the most important aspect of his life and couldn't "grow up" out of that selfishness believing that's what's the most important for June too. Yes, in the movie, June implied when Turing insisted that they can't get married without physical intimacy, that they can get physical intimacy elsewhere outside of marriage which is also just as bad. But the fact remains, Turing couldn't get over putting sex above everything else. And it seems like Josh has done the same - putting sex above even his children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 I believe theres more to the Josh Weed story than what is being told. I think there was a time when Josh was physically attracted to his wife, I get a strong sense of that. You dont get married, spend half your life with having four children and say there was never any romantic attachment. Thats a lie. He had a choice to make and he chose to sin. He wasnt born gay, it was choices he made. He became convinced that homosexuality was a beautiful part of what he is and went with it. The lies of Satan are powerful and he can and will convince the mind of anything if one gives in to sin and temptation. Josh is just one more who was overcome with his lies. Midwest LDS and NightSG 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 On 3/2/2018 at 11:37 AM, Just_A_Guy said: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn’t destroy the Weed children’s home. Josh Weed did that. And once again, when I agree with JAG, it's got to be some sort of universal Truth. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but barring some unnatural processes, you physically just can't make babies unless the male is enjoying it somewhat. Midwest LDS, The Folk Prophet, Just_A_Guy and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 10 hours ago, mordorbund said: Y'know, when I first scrolled past that, I assumed it was related to the original topic, and had to come back to ask just how you'd know... The Folk Prophet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, NightSG said: I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but barring some unnatural processes, you physically just can't make babies unless the male is enjoying it somewhat. If I remember correctly, a lot of people said Josh is not a homosexual (even when he insisted he is) because of this fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 2 hours ago, anatess2 said: At least in the movie (not sure if it truly depicted Turing's real life), Turing was offered salvation but he chose sex to be the most important aspect of his life and couldn't "grow up" out of that selfishness believing that's what's the most important for June too. Just a reminder that this man is widely considered to have shortened the war in Europe by at least a year, saved millions of lives, and to be one of the founding fathers of modern computing. For his contributions, he was rewarded with criminal prosecution for his homosexuality, forced to accept chemical castration to avoid being imprisoned, until eventually committing suicide at the age of 41. Joan Clarke - the real life lady depicted with marginal accuracy in the film, did nearly marry Turing, but they mutually called it off, because Turing believed the marriage would not work out. But they remained good friends until his death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 (edited) 52 minutes ago, NightSG said: I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but barring some unnatural processes, you physically just can't make babies unless the male is enjoying it somewhat. One moment please. Guys can be raped. Like you, without putting too fine a point on it, consider the thing the guy pretty much always gets and the woman sometimes gets? Yeah, those can show up in a victim in abuse and molestations and rapes. To both men and women. And extra tragically, to boys and girls. If you're a rape victim, one of the ways your life may suck, is trying to reconcile the reality of the traumatic crime done to you, with the pleasure your body told you it felt. It's not exactly common, but it does happen. Most of the time it's horrible and painful and there is zero pleasure involved for a victim. But not in 100% of victimizations. Anyway, back to the overall points y'all are making. Edited March 5, 2018 by NeuroTypical Just_A_Guy, MrShorty, classylady and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: One moment please. Guys can be raped. Like you, without putting too fine a point on it, consider the thing the guy pretty much always gets and the woman sometimes gets? Yeah, those can show up in a victim in abuse and molestations and rapes. To both men and women. And extra tragically, to boys and girls. If you're a rape victim, one of the ways your life may suck, is trying to reconcile the reality of the traumatic crime done to you, with the pleasure your body told you it felt. It's not exactly common, but it does happen. Most of the time it's horrible and painful and there is zero pleasure involved for a victim. But not in 100% of victimizations. Anyway, back to the overall points y'all are making. That’s certainly true, but IIRC Weed claimed (way back when) that while he wasn’t attracted to women generally he *was* attracted to his wife. I think fifty years from now, when the politicization has worn off, it will be generally accepted that sexual orientation is more of a sliding scale than a binary state. Josh, and others like him, may be (much) more attracted to men than to women; but to suggest they couldn’t/didn’t find *any* fulfillment in hetero relations probably goes way too far and primarily serves an overblown LGBTQ martyrdom narrative. NeuroTypical, Midwest LDS, NightSG and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: That’s certainly true, but IIRC Weed claimed (way back when) that while he wasn’t attracted to women generally he *was* attracted to his wife. I think fifty years from now, when the politicization has worn off, it will be generally accepted that sexual orientation is more of a sliding scale than a binary state. Josh, and others like him, may be (much) more attracted to men than to women; but to suggest they couldn’t/didn’t find *any* fulfillment in hetero relations probably goes way too far and primarily serves an overblown LGBTQ martyrdom narrative. It reminds me of the classic story of a guy goes out with a gal fir a long time, marries her then after another few years he gets divorced claiming hes no longer attracted to her. Then, after a few years he realizes he is attracted to her, finds her and they remarry. Attraction in large part is a choice- convincing the mind and intentionally creating neural pathways of pleasure. Scientists know this. If we want to lije something or some9ne we have to spend time creating experiences that suppirt and build that neural pathway. If one loses interest in that pleasure or chooses to replace that pathway with another that pathway begins to die. Hobbies and interests are cultured in the brain this way too. Its why, suddenly, we may lose interest in a hobby- we choose to no longer pursue it and it dies or becomes very weak. Its one of the strongest reasons for divorce today- spouses arent willing to work on their marriages and create new experiences together coupled with remembering the old positive experiences. So, they fall out of attraction to each other and become convinced they dont want each other anymore. My personal belief with homosexuality is that the same freeways of pleasure in the brain that are associated with non sexual line up with experiences that are sexual and its easy for the mind to build a pleasure pathway doing immoral and unethical things for what appears to be all the wrong reasons. Thus, later on, through experimentation, they connect different nonsexual pleasure with intamacy and what attracts them to something or someone becomes sexual. We see this with people who are sexually attracted to objects like cars, toys, etc. I believe its the same with all attractions. I read some article of a study once that showed that certain shapes, showed quickly were sexually attractive until the bigger picture was seen and it turned out to be sand dunes, vegetables, rocks, etc. Even culturally, we condition pathways of pleasure in our brain to learn attractions based on cultural trends. In some cultures any skin showing on a woman is sexually attractive whereas in others complete nakedness is nothing. We choose who we want to become, how we are attracted and to what or whom we are attracted to. Some of those factors do manifest in the culture and conditioning of upbringing experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paracaidista508 Posted March 5, 2018 Report Share Posted March 5, 2018 Any woman who marries a dude who says he is gay deserves a divorce. That is flat out stupid. Both need a shrink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said: I read some article of a study once that showed that certain shapes, showed quickly were sexually attractive until the bigger picture was seen and it turned out to be sand dunes, vegetables, rocks, etc. Actually, the inverse - bodies photographed in such a way as to appear to be landscapes - is quite an interesting subset of nude photography. Done well, it can take a while to realize it is a shoulder or hip, rather than a dune or rolling hills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted March 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said: That’s certainly true, but IIRC Weed claimed (way back when) that while he wasn’t attracted to women generally he *was* attracted to his wife. I think fifty years from now, when the politicization has worn off, it will be generally accepted that sexual orientation is more of a sliding scale than a binary state. Josh, and others like him, may be (much) more attracted to men than to women; but to suggest they couldn’t/didn’t find *any* fulfillment in hetero relations probably goes way too far and primarily serves an overblown LGBTQ martyrdom narrative. And, once again, a 40 year old male may be more attracted to a perky 20-year-old buxom female than his moderately dumpy, stretch-marked, 38 year-old-wife. Overblown martyrdom narrative indeed. Edited March 6, 2018 by The Folk Prophet Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 21 hours ago, lostinwater said: Just a reminder that this man is widely considered to have shortened the war in Europe by at least a year, saved millions of lives, and to be one of the founding fathers of modern computing. For his contributions, he was rewarded with criminal prosecution for his homosexuality, forced to accept chemical castration to avoid being imprisoned, until eventually committing suicide at the age of 41. Joan Clarke - the real life lady depicted with marginal accuracy in the film, did nearly marry Turing, but they mutually called it off, because Turing believed the marriage would not work out. But they remained good friends until his death. Uhm... he wasn't ordered chemical castration for his contributions. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for sodomy. Yes, he has great contributions to society but that is separate from the law. You don't say to somebody - you can break laws with impunity because you're Alan Turing or Oscar Wilde. That privilege is only available to Hilary Clinton. And sodomy was illegal in most of the entire planet in 1950. As a matter of fact England's sodomy laws were enacted back in the 1550's, the punishment for which is death. In 1881, they become "progressives" and changed the law to life in prison. Then in 1885, they became more progressive and changed the law to reduce the sentence to 2 years. It wasn't until the mid 1960's and the rise of the hippies that England decriminalized sodomy. NightSG, Just_A_Guy, lostinwater and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 2 hours ago, anatess2 said: Uhm... he wasn't ordered chemical castration for his contributions. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment for sodomy. Yes, he has great contributions to society but that is separate from the law. You don't say to somebody - you can break laws with impunity because you're Alan Turing or Oscar Wilde. That privilege is only available to Hilary Clinton. And sodomy was illegal in most of the entire planet in 1950. As a matter of fact England's sodomy laws were enacted back in the 1550's, the punishment for which is death. In 1881, they become "progressives" and changed the law to life in prison. Then in 1885, they became more progressive and changed the law to reduce the sentence to 2 years. It wasn't until the mid 1960's and the rise of the hippies that England decriminalized sodomy. Thank-you for the clarification. Certainly i could have phrased that better. i guess i just felt i had to disagree with the idea that he was somehow selfish. Have a hard time understanding how selfish could be applied to someone like him, or his decision not to marry a straight woman. And for the record, he was posthumously pardoned recently. i am glad that such a law is no longer in existence. Sad that a man such as Alan Turing had to be one of the people whose suffering helped bring that about. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 8 minutes ago, lostinwater said: Thank-you for the clarification. Certainly i could have phrased that better. i guess i just felt i had to disagree with the idea that he was somehow selfish. Have a hard time understanding how selfish could be applied to someone like him, or his decision not to marry a straight woman. And for the record, he was posthumously pardoned recently. i am glad that such a law is no longer in existence. Sad that a man such as Alan Turing had to be one of the people whose suffering helped bring that about. I consider selfish as one who puts mortal pleasure over Godly pursuits - as was portrayed in the movie where the love of 2 people of like minds and connection between their souls was overcome by someone's desire for illicit physical pleasure. I would call a heterosexual person who rejects love because he/she can't commit to having sex with only one person as selfish in the exact same manner. lostinwater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinwater Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 24 minutes ago, anatess2 said: I consider selfish as one who puts mortal pleasure over Godly pursuits - as was portrayed in the movie where the love of 2 people of like minds and connection between their souls was overcome by someone's desire for illicit physical pleasure. I would call a heterosexual person who rejects love because he/she can't commit to having sex with only one person as selfish in the exact same manner. Thank-you. i certainly respect that opinion. anatess2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
person0 Posted March 6, 2018 Report Share Posted March 6, 2018 I am late to the party here. I had never heard of this person until now. I just skimmed through his most recent post. Apparently his plan is to maintain his family relationship, and his faith, except to also seek out a homosexual relationship. I think it will be more difficult in the long run to try and live in justification of this than it was to live while denying himself. This type of situation saddens me. That said, self-control is arguably the most difficult attribute to master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2018 Report Share Posted March 7, 2018 12 hours ago, person0 said: I am late to the party here. I had never heard of this person until now. I just skimmed through his most recent post. Apparently his plan is to maintain his family relationship, and his faith, except to also seek out a homosexual relationship. I think it will be more difficult in the long run to try and live in justification of this than it was to live while denying himself. This type of situation saddens me. That said, self-control is arguably the most difficult attribute to master. It really bothers me that they will, and always do, blame the church but yet hold out hope for acceptance by the church for their immoral actions. Definitely the devils bidding. JohnsonJones and person0 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted March 7, 2018 Report Share Posted March 7, 2018 On 3/4/2018 at 8:44 AM, MrShorty said: I know I used to think this. After years in a sexless marriage, I am not sure I believe this. I love my wife and am committed to our shared life, but it has definitely lost some of its luster without a sexual component. The man who wrote the Involuntary Celibacy letter on Laura Brotherson's blog captures much of this. https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/ I would counter that anyone who is immature enough to believe that sex is a discardable, inconsequential, or the least important aspect of marriage should not get married. As the statement doesn't clarify, is more absolute then it should be, keeping an open mind that "sex" is inconsequential is an important part of marriage (an important distinction). At some point, there are men who become impotent (some earlier than others) -- should then the wife remove herself (divorce) from a husband who becomes impotent because her periods of sexual arousal can not be satisfied? Is now her marriage going to be unfulfilled, because a lack of sexual intimacy in marriage? The distinction being, things happen out of our control, that will cause a marriage to become "sexless." At these moments if your (general) mind can not accept that sex in your marriage will never happen, then you (general) by choice entice misery to enter a marriage relationship. In California there was/is (don't know if he is still alive) a patriarch who was paralyzed from the neck down. His accident occurred at about the age I am. If one is paralyzed from the neck down guess what doesn't work anymore? His wife was younger than him. She had to come to accept that in "her" marriage "sex" was discardable, no matter what anyone else thinks. @Grunt is a married man, speaking from this vantage point. This isn't an immature belief, it is Godly. Now, as to agreement, if a person "before" entering marriage (into a marriage that is fully capable of enjoying an intimate relationship) should think twice about entering in marriage with this thought. Unless of course, as with a popular young LDS woman, who was paralyzed from waste down, and a man enters into marriage with her. He has to accept that aspects of physical intimacy will not be there. He should not enter into such unless he is able to honorably (this is Godly) accept "sex" is not going to be a part of his life. There is nothing "immature" about this unless he is deceiving himself and was never ready to make the commitment. If fully prepared and ready, knowing "sex" is not in the picture, it isn't immature. anatess2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted March 7, 2018 Report Share Posted March 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, Anddenex said: Now, as to agreement, if a person "before" entering marriage (into a marriage that is fully capable of enjoying an intimate relationship) should think twice about entering in marriage with this thought. There are so many unforeseen things that can happen in a marriage that forces celibacy - getting deployed, a lucrative job offer far away from home, having to leave the family to care for an ailing elderly, and there's the thing I do - traveling to the homeland for months at a time. I never had to worry about my husband when I'm away. Physical intimacy is important to him but our eternal marriage is a whole lot more important. Grunt and Anddenex 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.