Marriage as a remedy for lust

[Vort]

On this board, I commonly see people asking for advice about how to resist their sexual urges with their fiances and stay pure. One answer that is always given is: "Hurry and go get married! Right now! Then you won't be fornicating any more!" And in a legalistic sense, it's hard to argue the point. But I have never felt a spiritual peace confirming that a fornicating couple need only go get married and all is right with the world. I think it goes much deeper than that.

The Church of England's Book of Common Prayer includes a wedding solemnization (quite beautiful, IMO). In that solemnization, the clergyman speaks these words:

...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

• First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
• Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
• Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

These ideas, especially #2, clearly use Paul's teachings (or at least our record of Paul's teachings) as their palimpsest.

I am totally on board with the first and third bullet points above. The second leaves me cold, and not so much because it trivializes marriage into a free pass to sexual fun. Rather, it seems to put the cart before the horse. Before anything and everything else, sex is above all how we create human life. That is its one great purpose; the perpetuation of the species. Marriage and family exist solely as an adjunct to the creation of life and the formation of strong societies, in which human life can be preserved and ennobled. It is the social recognition of the literal union of the sexes. It is why we have families. That is why we marry -- the very creation of a family. (Incidentally, that is also why "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron.)

On another thread, someone suggested that God gave us the Word of Wisdom as a test to see if we would obey him. Well, okay, sure, in the same sense that every commandment God gives is a test of our obedience. But God is not a cynical master manipulator, putting up random hurdles to see if we will diligently jump over them. God's commandments are always meaningful in themselves, not merely as a test of obedience. If God says "don't drink alcohol", it's not merely to see if we comply, it's because drinking alcohol leads to a bad end from which the Lord is trying to save us. Similarly, if God says "don't fornicate" and defines fornication as sexual relations outside of marriage, then there is obviously something about sexual relations outside of socially recognized marriage that is harmful -- to the participants, to the children, to the society as a whole, or most likely to all of the above.

So doesn't this mean that a fornicating couple should run as fast as possible to the Justice o' the Peace and get hitched? I don't know. Maybe. But while marriage in such a situation seems preferable to not being married, such a course reduces marriage to the aforementioned Sex Fun Pass. If two people cannot exhibit the basic elements of mutual love and self-control to avoid sticking their genitalia into and around each other's until after the wedding, then there is something deep and foundational in their relationship that is askew. Getting married won't solve the problem. In such a case, it seems to me that marriage treats the symptom of fornication, but not the underlying disease.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Vort
Trying not to bury the lede

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, Vort said:

So doesn't this mean that a fornicating couple should run as fast as possible to the Justice o' the Peace and get hitched? 

We have to keep in mind that this sentiment is time honored and did not originate with the Church of England.  In fact, it originated in the Law of Moses.  I'm not going to go into the details lest i get stoned for making a particular connection and go into the ramifications thereof.  But there is something special about the marriage itself.  I believe it is about covenants.

In ages past, covenants very commonly included the shedding of blood.  This was a common element in many cultures.  The making of blood brothers included such a ritual.  If I recall correctly, some cultures required the shedding of blood in some form for the most solemn of commitments, or else it was not considered a valid covenant.

When a man has sex with a virgin, her hymen is broken.  Blood is spilled.  While today's menstrual aids tend to nullify this point, just consider this from a natural state of things.  The original intercourse with a female was the making of a covenant.  By fornicating and refusing to marry, one says,"I don't care about the blood.  I'm not making or following any covenant."  By encouraging marriage after the blood being spilled, it is enforcing the reality of the covenant that has "effectively" already been made.

Today's world loses some of the meaning of blood because we don't do blood covenants anymore.  But there is a meaning to it in more aspects than simply about sex.  When the founding generation of the United States spilled their blood, it sealed an era of freedom for our nation and the entire world.  When the first generation of Latter-day Saints spilled their blood, it sealed the Kingdom of God on earth to endure throughout the dispensation.  When Christ spilled his blood, salvation was available to all mankind.

A civil marriage is certainly not a covenant in the same sense that being sealed in the temple is.  It doesn't need to be.  It is still a public declaration that the woman will be taken care of by the man who took her virginity.  And going through a formal process (paperwork, etc.) implants into the mind of those involved the reality of the commitment.

In addition to other reasons, this generation completely loses the meaning behind it because the principle of covenants is completely lost on them.  A woman has sex with multiple partners and decided to finally settle down.  Well, the man she marries certainly wasn't the one who spilled blood.  But he's the one making a commitment?  This throws off the entire pattern.  This is how messed up the world is.  They think this is normal to the point that they don't even understand what marriage really is and why virginity is important.

/getting off soap box.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

I can't remember whether it was you, @Vort, or someone else, but someone posted similar concerns in response to our recent collection of such posts, and it caused me to re-think the "hurry up and get married" response.  For me, I think it stems from subconscious, assumptive learning based on things heard growing up - Old Testamenty (erroneous?) ideas like "once you've had sex, you're basically married anyway"; ideas like "better to get married than not", "better to get married than continuing to sin" (followed, apparently, by a failure to think about the false dichotomy inherent in that assumption), "better to get married than risk having a child out of wedlock" - and similar panicked preventive / damage-control -only ideas.

Best, of course, is if they seek counsel before giving in to temptation - then the counsel is easier - but that doesn't excuse giving short-sighted counsel later.

[MrShorty]

A good question, Vort. I don't know if I have any answers. However, that won't stop me from saying stuff.

I have observed that we talk about three purposes for our sexuality.

1) Procreation -- nothing to add to what you said in the OP.

2) strengthening bonds between husband and wife. Perhaps this is a complementary part to your "creating families", because our goal is not just to bring children into the world, but to keep marriages intact so those children can be raised together by both parents.

3) learning self-mastery -- I think this is a "newer" or more recently emphasized purpose, because I don't recall this as much when I was younger. This kind of hit me with the new mormonandgay website with this article: https://mormonandgay.lds.org/articles/self-mastery-and-sexual-expression?lang=eng Sometimes it seems to me that "self-mastery" or "self-control" (or even "bridle") become synonymous with "abstinence" -- especially when applied to sexuality. The question then is, does the couple who gets married to avoid fornication really have a chance to learn self-mastery (meaning abstinence)?

Like I said, I don't have answers. Mostly more questions.

What is wrong with the idea of a "sex fun pass"? Does it cut too uncomfortably into the desire for sex to be sacred (see Elder Holland's "Of Soul's Symbols and Sacraments")?

The main concern I see is if the couple who marries just to legitimize the sexual will have the strength of commitment to the marriage to stay married through the inevitable hard times. I find myself concerned that such a couple does not have the relationship skills to keep the marriage intact. But that concern becomes more about the discomfort with divorce -- not necessarily about sexuality specifically. Is the OP more about the possible increased risk of divorce?

1 in 5 marriages (in the US, I understand some nations are higher) are sexless. Part of me wonders if there is much to worry about. If they fail to learn abstinence before marriage, there is a good chance they will have an opportunity to learn abstinence later.

As you mentioned, Paul in the New Testament talked about marriage as the preferred outlet for those who have not yet learned self-control. How shall we understand these passages if we want people to try harder to learn abstinence?

At the end of the OP, you ask about treating symptoms rather than the disease. What is the real disease we are afraid we are failing to treat?

[person0]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Is the OP more about the possible increased risk of divorce?

I would argue that it is.  If every couple who got married as a 'sex fun pass' never got divorced, would this even be a merited topic of discussion?

I think that it is a bigger problem in society that people have grown to view marriage as something that requires a grand emotional attachment.  If you remove the cultural idea of emotional love as the #1 reason people marry one another, then marriage becomes a different beast altogether.

While I have a great deal of emotional love for my wife, I only married her for 1 reason, I felt a spiritual impression that it was the right thing to do.  My emotional love for her is much greater today than it ever was at any point before our marriage.

I view marriage as a contract, or as we understand it in the gospel, a covenant.  Any two people (of opposite biological gender) can come together and covenant with one another to work together to attain salvation and eternal life.  Not unlike having a lab partner in school, while you may have your preferences, as long as both are committed to completing the assignment, the partnership will succeed.  I think societal emphasis on emotional love prior to a marriage entices people to pride in seeking things that are appendages to the covenant rather than core components.  When true love, action based love, is implemented in a marriage, the appealing appendages to that eternal marriage will fall into place.

The arranged marriage divorce rate in India is only 6%.  If people who were unable to resist temptation entered marriage without the glorification our society places on divorce, then the initial 'sex fun pass' issue would not be an issue.  I believe Paul was not allowing for divorce in the modern context our society has placed upon it when giving his advice on this matter.

[Vin]

I tend to think pretty much the same - if you can't wait or that is sole reason your hurrying up to the married... something is wrong. However more than that, I personally would be worried about the fact that the two people in the relationship are not helping each other to hold up their commitments to heavenly father and instead are more being an encouragement to each other to abandon them. This is the person you are going to spend your life with and if you're going to keep on that narrow path, you need to support each other.

[Fether]

Can we define lust in the context of God’s commandments?

the internet’s definition is “a very strong sexual desire”.

With this definition, I have an Honest question. 

Is wanting to have sex with a girlfriend or a fiancé lustful or love? If so, is me wanting to have sex with my wife also lust? Therefore I’m sinning? If not, why not?

Or is lust built on self gratification. If so, then me wanting to have sex with a girlfriend because we love them and are modivated by more than just self gratification shouldn’t be lust.

Can someone break the LOC through intercourse and not be guilty of lust?

[person0]

35 minutes ago, Fether said:

Can someone break the LOC through intercourse and not be guilty of lust?

Yes. Prostitutes do this on a regular basis.

[Jane_Doe]

I'd like to point out there is a HUGE different between feeling loving sexual attraction to someone, vs feeling lust.

Lust is wrongful desire for an object, wherein ultimately you're the master and the object belongs to you.  And yes, this object can be another person-- which is VERY wrong.

Love is embracing a person fully and caring for them fully.  In marriage, this includes being one emotionally, financially, responsiablity-wise, and of course physically/sexually.   This is not only good, but by divine design!  

 

Getting legally married (or even sealed) is not a cure for lust.  Despite rings and vows being exchanged, if things are just being done to get sex, the true love and commitment are missing-- it's really just a giant mess being made worse.     

Now, talking about love: if two people truly desire to be joined together as one (I'm talking the WHOLE package, not just sex) and they are impatient/struggling with the wait, I don't see anything wrong with moving up the day where the two indeed become one.  In fact, many times I would advise it-- especially in a world where people postpone marriage for stupid reasons like "I want to have a huge princess wedding for $50,000 and can't get married until then!" (*gag*).  If you two do indeed desire to be one, and you've done the prep, and you're ready, then say "I do".  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

The arranged marriage divorce rate in India is only 6%.  If people who were unable to resist temptation entered marriage without the glorification our society places on divorce, then the initial 'sex fun pass' issue would not be an issue. 

Hardly conclusive considering:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Most-Indians-feel-infidelity-not-a-sin-Survey/articleshow/44353938.cms

Quote

 A survey has revealed that 76% of Indian women and 61% of men don't think that infidelity is a sin or immoral.

...

What's more, 81% of men and 68% women said their affair has had a positive effect on their marriage.

If they are wantonly committing adultery while married, there is a VERY different outlook on marriage than we have.  So, not a fair comparison.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hardly conclusive considering:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Most-Indians-feel-infidelity-not-a-sin-Survey/articleshow/44353938.cms

If they are wantonly committing adultery while married, there is a VERY different outlook on marriage than we have.  So, not a fair comparison.

It's a survey commissioned by Ashley Madison, a web site dedicated to helping married people commit adultery (no kidding). So while I agree we may not be comparing apples to apples, I don't for a moment believe the numbers presented in that article are representative of larger India.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'd like to point out there is a HUGE different between feeling loving sexual attraction to someone, vs feeling lust.

Lust is wrongful desire for an object, wherein ultimately you're the master and the object belongs to you.  And yes, this object can be another person-- which is VERY wrong.

Love is embracing a person fully and caring for them fully.  In marriage, this includes being one emotionally, financially, responsiablity-wise, and of course physically/sexually.   This is not only good, but by divine design!  

 

Getting legally married (or even sealed) is not a cure for lust.  Despite rings and vows being exchanged, if things are just being done to get sex, the true love and commitment are missing-- it's really just a giant mess being made worse.     

Now, talking about love: if two people truly desire to be joined together as one (I'm talking the WHOLE package, not just sex) and they are impatient/struggling with the wait, I don't see anything wrong with moving up the day where the two indeed become one.  In fact, many times I would advise it-- especially in a world where people postpone marriage for stupid reasons like "I want to have a huge princess wedding for $50,000 and can't get married until then!" (*gag*).  If you two do indeed desire to be one, and you've done the prep, and you're ready, then say "I do".  

This.  While lust can grow into love, it certainly doesn't build the foundation of a healthy relationship.  It's amazing what purity in thought and deed can do for your marriage.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's a survey commissioned by Ashley Madison, a web site dedicated to helping married people commit adultery (no kidding). So while I agree we may not be comparing apples to apples, I don't for a moment believe the numbers presented in that article are representative of larger India.

While I recognize the questionable source, I've heard both rumors as well as stories from Indians who are my friends that support the sentiments if not the statistics outlined in the article.

If I had time to dig, I'm sure I could find additional sources to back it up.

[seashmore]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

So doesn't this mean that a fornicating couple should run as fast as possible to the Justice o' the Peace and get hitched? I don't know. Maybe. But while marriage in such a situation seems preferable to not being married, such a course reduces marriage to the aforementioned Sex Fun Pass. If two people cannot exhibit the basic elements of mutual love and self-control to avoid sticking their genitalia into and around each other's until after the wedding, then there is something deep and foundational in their relationship that is askew. Getting married won't solve the problem. In such a case, it seems to me that marriage treats the symptom of fornication, but not the underlying disease.

What is even more astounding to me are the people in society at large who remain engaged  for seven years.  Like, you guys live and run a business together.  You have kids together.  Why the heck are you not married?!  It's the opposite side of the commitment coin, really.  Fearful of getting out of their comfort zone and into something they might regret versus getting into something just for the instant gratification of not breaking the Law of Chastity.

[person0]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If they are wantonly committing adultery while married, there is a VERY different outlook on marriage than we have.  So, not a fair comparison.

Okay, that's a fair point. However, adding in that statistic was an afterthought.  I literally googled 'arranged marriage divorce rate' after I had already written everything else and then just threw it in where I thought it made sense.  I am confident that, on its own, the remainder of what I wrote is valid.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

• Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Before anything and everything else, sex is above all how we create human life...Marriage and family exist solely as an adjunct to the creation of life and the formation of strong societies

But while marriage in such a situation seems preferable to not being married, such a course reduces marriage to the aforementioned Sex Fun Pass. If two people cannot exhibit the basic elements of mutual love and self-control to avoid sticking their genitalia into and around each other's until after the wedding, then there is something deep and foundational in their relationship that is askew. 

16 hours ago, person0 said:

If every couple who got married as a 'sex fun pass' never got divorced, would this even be a merited topic of discussion?

I think that it is a bigger problem in society that people have grown to view marriage as something that requires a grand emotional attachment.  If you remove the cultural idea of emotional love as the #1 reason people marry one another, then marriage becomes a different beast altogether.

I view marriage as a contract, or as we understand it in the gospel, a covenant.  Any two people (of opposite biological gender) can come together and covenant with one another to work together to attain salvation and eternal life. 

18 hours ago, zil said:

"once you've had sex, you're basically married anyway"; ideas like "better to get married than not", "better to get married than continuing to sin" (followed, apparently, by a failure to think about the false dichotomy inherent in that assumption), "better to get married than risk having a child out of wedlock" - and similar panicked preventive / damage-control -only ideas.

I believe all three of these posts shared similar sentiments that I'd like to address.

There is something odd that even such mature and reasoned well married persons sometimes don't add into the equation.  There is a false dichotomy between procreation and the "sex is for fun" mentality.  These are not separate and they are not at odds with each other.  They are SUPPOSED to work hand in hand. It is only the forced societal desire to separate them that causes a problem in the first place.

• The Lord made it a pleasurable experience for a reason.  The entire experience of married life is supposed to be associated with the pleasure of sex.
• The act of procreation for humans is miles different than it is for any other creature on earth.  I've gone into this in depth on a couple of other threads.  It is specifically designed to create the emotional attachment that is marriage and rearing of children. 
• I read a notable psychiatrist who found studies showed that there really is no such thing as "casual sex."  There is always some emotional involvement in the act. That is why those who participate in "casual sex" are just lying to themselves and each other.  There's nothing casual about it.

Encouraging a couple who has violated the law of chastity to get married is not as arbitrary as one might think.  There actually IS a commitment made by simply having the experience.  I could reference a particular case we're all familiar with.  But that will get us off on a tangent.  Suffice it to say that with consensual sex a time commitment and protocol of agreement are required to have sex in the first place.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

15 hours ago, seashmore said:

What is even more astounding to me are the people in society at large who remain engaged  for seven years.  Like, you guys live and run a business together.  You have kids together.  Why the heck are you not married?!  It's the opposite side of the commitment coin, really.  Fearful of getting out of their comfort zone and into something they might regret versus getting into something just for the instant gratification of not breaking the Law of Chastity.

A (gay married) friend of mine recently posted this article on his Facebook page:

http://theatln.tc/2FRjpB6

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I believe all three of these posts shared similar sentiments that I'd like to address.

There is something odd that even such mature and reasoned well married persons sometimes don't add into the equation.  There is a false dichotomy between procreation and the "sex is for fun" mentality.  These are not separate and they are not at odds with each other.  They are SUPPOSED to work hand in hand. It is only the forced societal desire to separate them that causes a problem in the first place.

• The Lord made it a pleasurable experience for a reason.  The entire experience of married life is supposed to be associated with the pleasure of sex.
• The act of procreation for humans is miles different than it is for any other creature on earth.  I've gone into this in depth on a couple of other threads.  It is specifically designed to create the emotional attachment that is marriage and rearing of children. 
• I read a notable psychiatrist who found studies showed that there really is no such thing as "casual sex."  There is always some emotional involvement in the act. That is why those who participate in "casual sex" are just lying to themselves and each other.  There's nothing casual about it.

Encouraging a couple who has violated the law of chastity to get married is not as arbitrary as one might think.  There actually IS a commitment made by simply having the experience.  I could reference a particular case we're all familiar with.  But that will get us off on a tangent.  Suffice it to say that with consensual sex a time commitment and protocol of agreement are required to have sex in the first place.

I would venture to suggest that it’s not even about sex being for “fun” anymore.  I think the plurality, if not majority position in the world today is that an active sex life is essential to one’s mental, if not physical, health.

[person0]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Encouraging a couple who has violated the law of chastity to get married is not as arbitrary as one might think.

Just to make sure my statements were not taken in the wrong way, I was specifically speaking of those who marry in order to have sex, but who have not previously broken the law of chastity.  That said, I agree with most of what you were saying in your post. Especially this:

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The entire experience of married life is supposed to be associated with the pleasure of sex.

As we had discussed in a previous thread, even modern Apostles and Prophets have indicated that without sex, men would lack motivation to marry or to take on the responsibilities of marriage and family.  It is no wonder, then, that when you remove the responsibility of marriage and family from sex, that you end up with our extant culture of men (and women) who are frequently unwilling to take on the responsibility of marriage and family, yet who gratify themselves with the pleasures of sex.  When you can have the reward without the work, who will do the work?  And although not our present topic of discussion, I can't help but also make the connection here to the clearly identical problem with socialism, redistribution of wealth, and universal basic income.

I am reminded of a little ditty:

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by person0

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 5:04 PM, Carborendum said:

Hardly conclusive considering:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Most-Indians-feel-infidelity-not-a-sin-Survey/articleshow/44353938.cms

If they are wantonly committing adultery while married, there is a VERY different outlook on marriage than we have.  So, not a fair comparison.

Did not read the article, but if it says that...very interesting artifact.

Unlike the West where adultery laws have largely been done away with or ignored, Adultery is a criminal act in India under Section 497.  It IS controversial.  Under Section 497, it is written as if women were still property of their husbands, and hence if a man commits adultery with another man's wife, the man who committed the crime is the responsible party for having the criminal offense which can be punished with jail time.

Ironically, even though the law is written as such, many times the wife is the one blamed, and they don't just put her in jail, they typically kill the women if she is not protected by others, at least in the rural areas of India.  This is illegal, but occurs commonly enough to also be highly controversial when it occurs.

Of course, in India, much like what we see in the US, is that there is a cultural divide between those in the urban areas and those in the rural areas.  Those in the rural areas are much more likely to have Arranged marriages and also are more likely to have strong emotions and feelings against adultery itself.

Those in the cities are far more westernized in thought similar to what we see in Europe and Urban America, however, I'd still say they are far more conservative in regards to morals and chastity than the US or Europe are currently.

Those in an arranged marriage do not normally seem to go about wanting to commit adultery.  Men are more likely to if one of the partners are going to commit adultery, but a wife normally would avoid it.  This is because divorce is still heavily biased towards women, meaning that men normally will be far more favored in these situation than a wife.  This goes back to divorce law less than a century ago being as easy as a man simply saying he divorced his wife and kicking her out with nothing.  This idea of a husband owning his wife is still an influence that we see in India's marriage and divorce law today.  (once again, the more you go to the rural areas, the more biased the judgements, the more towards the urban areas, the less bias).

It IS a different culture, and thus things that we would not see as acceptable may be acceptable in some situations (such as adultery between a man and an unmarried woman) in some areas of India, but on the whole, the numbers you cited seem somewhat skewed to me.

I'd say something is a little fishy about the survey, but that's probably just personal thoughts on the matter.

[anatess2]

On 4/14/2018 at 3:35 PM, zil said:

I can't remember whether it was you, @Vort, or someone else, but someone posted similar concerns in response to our recent collection of such posts, and it caused me to re-think the "hurry up and get married" response.  For me, I think it stems from subconscious, assumptive learning based on things heard growing up - Old Testamenty (erroneous?) ideas like "once you've had sex, you're basically married anyway"; ideas like "better to get married than not", "better to get married than continuing to sin" (followed, apparently, by a failure to think about the false dichotomy inherent in that assumption), "better to get married than risk having a child out of wedlock" - and similar panicked preventive / damage-control -only ideas.

Best, of course, is if they seek counsel before giving in to temptation - then the counsel is easier - but that doesn't excuse giving short-sighted counsel later.

Maybe you're talking about me.

I was the only one (at least until I posted, dunno what happened after that), that gave a different advice.

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A (gay married) friend of mine recently posted this article on his Facebook page:

http://theatln.tc/2FRjpB6

That article makes me sad.

We just got done celebrating my uncle's 50th Wedding Anniversary where they got married again - it's a ceremony called reaffirmation of vows - done just like a wedding complete with bridesmaids and flowergirls and beautiful wedding dresses and the celebratory Catholic mass in the festively decorated Catholic Church with the grand reception following complete with a ball, a giant wedding cake, a toast from the best man and maid of honor and the mountains of presents...  

I'm sad that instead of celebrating wedding anniversaries as the marker for marriage success, they make the marriage itself as the marker.  I sometimes wonder how kids can grow up sure about who they are and who they belong to when everything can fall into pieces at any moment's notice shattering all sense of history and tradition behind you.

But, that's just me.

[Guest]

@Vort, @JohnsonJones,

From an Indian Periodical that I can't link to because of site rules.  Yes, I know...  They themselves cite several sources that show an increasing occurence of infidelity in India.  That pattern indicates that the latest statistics from Ashley Madison simply follow the pattern.

Quote

Data from the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey revealed that American wives were almost 40% more likely to be cheating on their spouses in 2010 than in 1990. The number of husbands reporting infidelity, meanwhile, stayed constant at 21%, meaning wives are now cheating 70% as often, thus closing the gender gap. In 2013, a study conducted by America’s Journal of Marital and Family Therapy also claimed that 41% of marriages had one or both spouses admitting to either physical or emotional infidelity.

One can’t help wonder what such a survey could reveal about adultery in India, a country that demands sanctification of marriages, placing a grave socio-religious importance on a woman’s chastity and character. In 2015, a survey by Ashley Madison drew up some shocking statistics: 76% of Indian women and 61% of men don’t even consider infidelity as a sin or immoral anymore. Responses were collated from 75,321 respondents—80% being married—across ten cities. No less than 81% of men and 68% of women confessed that their affairs had a positive impact on their marriage. More than 80% were trapped in arranged marriages that functioned like business deals. The average age of those surveyed was 45 for men and 31 for women. In fact, around the same time—February 2014—India saw the launch of a popular extra-marital affairs ‘dating’ website. And the country’s women in predominantly arranged marriages thronged the portal—its slogan: ‘Life is short. Have an affair’. As many as 50,000 Indian women who primarily hailed from Delhi NCR signed up on the first day itself, representing, as a sex, more than half of the sign-ups.

Also:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/sex-and-relationships/women-often-initiate-extramarital-affairs-here-are-some-surprising-facts-about-infidelity-in-india/story-mloXKidiQOxTLKGhlg68fI.html

https://www.shoneekapoor.com/adultery-in-india/

There were many more sites that talk about the topic in India (coming from both the pro- and anti- adultery sides of the argument).  And they all cite the Ashley Madison survey as accurate based on their own take of society at large.

It may be that the adultery law is being enforced less and less just like the "unlawful cohabitation" law in the US, which to my knowledge has not been taken off the books.

[Vort]

Tragic.

[Traveler]

 

As I read through this thread – I think my opinion contains elements that I am not seeing in any of the other responses.  I agree with most (maybe all) of @Vort implications.  I will add some more thoughts.  Often, I make reference to the Law as a more important element than doctrine.  Connected to Law are ordinances and covenants.  There are two laws that I believe are applicable to this discussion is #1. The Law of Chastity.  Hopefully I will not have to explain this law = This despite the fact that the wording of the Law of Chastity as presented to the Latter-Day Saints has been slightly changed during our generation.  The second Law is the Law of Marriage which is referenced in the Law of Chastity.  The fact that one law mentions another should not be a surprise – especially in this case because the two laws are inseparably connected.  That is; that the law of Chastity is a preparatory or lower Law to the higher Law of Marriage. 

Sexual relationships are referenced in both the Law of Chastity and the Law of Marriage.  In the Law of Chastity, the covenant is obstinance.  I will now add something some may find controversial – perhaps even disagree.  In the Law of Marriage, the covenant is to have a long lasting (eternal) sexual relationship.  In Marriage a sexual relationship is necessary to “Multiply and Replenish the earth”.  I will now submit that a sexual relationship is necessary to fulfill the covenant of “one flesh”.

As always Satan seeks to prevent the benefits of Law – First by the temptation of sex before marriage – this can be manifested as fornication, pornography, masturbation or same sex sexual activity (activity which includes the entertainment of or indulgence in certain thoughts).  And then by either withholding sex in marriage or indulging in sexual activity (including pornography, masturbation or same sex sexual activity) without one’s covenant and lawful partner of one flesh. 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

As I read through this thread – I think my opinion contains elements that I am not seeing in any of the other responses.  I agree with most (maybe all) of @Vort implications.  I will add some more thoughts.  Often, I make reference to the Law as a more important element than doctrine.  Connected to Law are ordinances and covenants.  There are two laws that I believe are applicable to this discussion is #1. The Law of Chastity.  Hopefully I will not have to explain this law = This despite the fact that the wording of the Law of Chastity as presented to the Latter-Day Saints has been slightly changed during our generation.  The second Law is the Law of Marriage which is referenced in the Law of Chastity.  The fact that one law mentions another should not be a surprise – especially in this case because the two laws are inseparably connected.  That is; that the law of Chastity is a preparatory or lower Law to the higher Law of Marriage. 

Sexual relationships are referenced in both the Law of Chastity and the Law of Marriage.  In the Law of Chastity, the covenant is obstinance.  I will now add something some may find controversial – perhaps even disagree.  In the Law of Marriage, the covenant is to have a long lasting (eternal) sexual relationship.  In Marriage a sexual relationship is necessary to “Multiply and Replenish the earth”.  I will now submit that a sexual relationship is necessary to fulfill the covenant of “one flesh”.

As always Satan seeks to prevent the benefits of Law – First by the temptation of sex before marriage – this can be manifested as fornication, pornography, masturbation or same sex sexual activity (activity which includes the entertainment of or indulgence in certain thoughts).  And then by either withholding sex in marriage or indulging in sexual activity (including pornography, masturbation or same sex sexual activity) without one’s covenant and lawful partner of one flesh. 

 

The Traveler

I agree with this for the most part. I would like to add that sexual/ sensual intimacy is first and foremost the most important part of marriage- why we should be getting married. Procreation of children is the "result" or "product" of that sexually intimate relationship. I feel it wrong to think of it the other way around..