- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t really get what Ray and Wayfarer are talking about. All I knew was that I was in a sexless marriage for a decade and had to figure out a way of getting through it with my Church membership and conscience intact. Plus BLC is apparently talking about tendencies toward other women, not his partner, and so…there is an infidelity risk. What I did worked, that’s all I can say, and no one seems to have been harmed by it. Amen, wayfarer. “Repentance” just means “change” (nothing inherent about huge guilt and self-loathing) – and, as I have said numerous times, it starts with (and really ends with) a fresh, new perspective.
I also am a highly sexual person, but my view of sex and my view of my own married status channels the expression of my sexuality. I’m fortunate in my situation, being Mormon and marrying my high school sweetheart shortly after my mission (which was perfect for me), since it’s much harder for single adult Mormons to have any outlet that isn’t seen by the group as proper. I just don’t accept some of those boundaries, meaning I define sexual sin quite differently in some cases than most members do. The point isn’t exactly how I define specific things; it’s that I define them in the way that makes the most sense to me, based on my own view but not compromising what I see as the spirit of the law in any way. I take responsibility for that view and the results – thus, becoming an “agent unto myself”.
In saying that, I uphold the concept and principle of a Law of Chastity – absolutely. I just have my own view of it – one that makes sense to me and works in directing my sexuality and the expression of it.
Just an observation. People are interested in sexuality for lots of reasons but if we think the reason is because you’re “evil, vile, carnal, etc., etc. then we’d best think again. We are attracted to sex and sexuality because it produces feelings unlike any other. Sometimes it’s twisted and at other times pure and innocent but it’s what we make of it. Because of my work I see the body and it’s functions as normal, natural and neutral and if we chose to label it as evil and perverse it’s only because we chose to see it and by inference ourselves in that way. As has already been eloquently pointed out denying any side of ourselves is what’s perverse and is bound to fail bringing shame and unhappiness. I remember asking my mission President, Truman Madsen, what I could do about thoughts and he just smiled and said that he still laughed at some of the off color jokes he heard when he was young. He didn’t tell me to sing a hymn or fast and pray, just recognize that they were there, not dwell on them and move on. Trying to excise the part of us that’s attracted to sex to make ourselves more holy and acceptable only makes us less whole. IMHO SilentDawning wrote:I don’t really get what Ray and Wayfarer are talking about.All I knew was that I was in a sexless marriage for a decade and had to figure out a way of getting through it with my Church membership and conscience intact. Plus BLC is apparently talking about tendencies toward other women, not his partner, and so…there is an infidelity risk. What I did worked, that’s all I can say, and no one seems to have been harmed by it.I think the main idea that wayfarer and Ray were getting at is that it doesn’t really make much sense to take natural instincts that most people have and attach so much guilt, shame, and disapproval to them and basically give people the impression that they should not feel the way they do. Obviously it’s not necessarily a good idea to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it but that doesn’t necessarily mean you should blame yourself for feeings you can’t always control. Also, what is more important, living up to strict standards or people’s overall health and happiness? Maybe in your case you got a sense of satisfaction from avoiding temptation and would have felt like a failure if you didn’t so acting differently than you did under the circumstances would have only made you unhappy by comparison.
However, one problem with saying this is the way it should be for everyone is that many people will inevitably fall short of this expectation and piling on the guilt and shame will not always prevent behavior forbidden by the Church, sometimes it will only make members feel bad about it after the fact in an unhealthy way. People could get the idea that if others are able to control themselves so well then why is it that they can’t do the same? That is almost exactly what I thought sometimes, that if my dad and brother didn’t like porn then something must be seriously wrong with me and maybe I’m some kind of deviant pervert. However, at the same time I also saw that many other active LDS men and teenage boys were also hiding porn habits too and I definitely wasn’t the only one. As far as wanting to have a clean conscience, any regrets I have about my actions are not really about sex and being turned on by women I wasn’t married to but simply all the lies and hurt feelings I was responsible for.
Just to clarity a bit: I believe it’s not the feelings themselves that are “bad” or “evil” in any way (with some exceptions, of course). Rather, it’s what we do with the feelings that can be bad, evil, good or holy.
I believe it’s not technology itself that is bad or evil in any way (with no exceptions). Rather, it’s what we do with the technology that can be bad, evil, good or holy. (and we can do lots of things with technology in this day and age to remain close to our loved ones that were unavailable to people only a few decades ago – like texting, Skype voice and video communication, etc. which have some direct applications to this conversation)
I believe it’s not sex or sexual activity that is bad or evil in any way (with some exceptions, of course). Rather, it’s what we do with sex and sexual activity that can be bad, evil, good or holy.
It’s determining exactly what is bad, evil, good or holy that is the issue – and I tend to me more . . . expansive . . . in my view of what CAN be good and holy in some cases and situations and less . . . restrictive . . . in my view of what automatically IS bad or evil in all cases and situations than many members.
Just as an example, without getting into any specifics, there are some things I personally can’t do within my marriage and other things that I could do but my wife can’t do. We don’t do those things that either of us can’t do. However, there also are things I have no problem doing in my marriage that my wife naturally wouldn’t do (having been raised in a HIGHLY conservative household) – but, after discussing those things, she has come to agree with me about some of them and not about others. Therefore, what we do has changed somewhat over the years – not because of any Absolute Truth belief about anything, really, but rather because we both agree that there’s nothing bad or evil about those things FOR US AS A COUPLE.
In a way, what I’m saying is that we have embraced part of the “natural (wo)man” feelings we have – and we have embraced those feelings in such a way that we have transformed them into actions that are fine with both of us but which both of us feel would NOT be fine outside our own marriage – and with which other people might not be fine even in their own marriages – and with which our own parents might not be fine. (I use “might not”, because I can’t be sure and don’t want to know, frankly.
😯 )I get why people tend to take their own temptations and what works for them and extrapolate that to everyone. I get why leaders tend to take what works for them and create rules that they firmly believe will work for everyone. I also get that, in many cases, what works for them and the rules they create actually do work for lots and lots and lots of people. I’m just saying that I personally believe in trying to understand myself and what works for me.
I believe the concept and principle of the Atonement covers any natural guilt or restraint or “sin” or punishment or limitation that might exist without it and frees me to just work on understanding myself (and others) and progressing and “being” the best “I am” possible for me. It allows me to shed the Victorian attitudes all around me without rushing pell-mell into the hedonistic attitudes all around me. It allows me to chill out a bit and just focus on me – and not try to force others to see and act exactly like I see and act, even with regard to sexual matters (with some exceptions at the extremes, of course).
wayfarer wrote:I wish i could say i agree with what has been posted. but I don’t. i don’t think one can supress sexuality or the feelings thereby. I think we need to understand our sexuality, and as the feelings come up, decompose them, embrace them: not to action per se, but rather, to stop and investigate why we’re feeling the feelings, and get to the cause of them. Only by embracing the cause of our sexual temptation can we be free of it.
I don’t disagree with this part of it. However, if your experience is like mine, there can be times when you feel almost overwhelmed with the temptation of the moment. In those times, you need to put the brakes on the temptation so you can “go to the balcony” do the kind of introspection Wayfarer is talking about. And even when you uncover the cause of your carnal desires, and deal with them, there will be times when in spite of all, that, you may be tempted to do something you know will bother your conscience later. The “I’m not doing that” technique helps get through those times until you can develop significant momentum and strength to express those feelings appropriately.
Quote:Another item I would be VERY careful about in the posts above. I do not think in morally right or maritally prudent to ‘seek relief’ in my partner. While i think it important to meet the needs of the other person, seeking my own sexual gratification at the expense of another is wrong. love and the sexual expressions thereof are freely given and freely received, but never taken.
I apologize if my words offend — i just feel strongly, from personal experience, that repression of sexuality, and seeking relief through marrying young and using one’s spouse is a bad formula for happiness.
I see it differently…you seem to be assuming that the primary purpose of a spouse is to gratify one’s sexual desires — as a one-way street, and as you said “at the expense of another”. I can agree with your statement if that is what I meant. But that is not what I meant. Let me explain.
For years, I wondered what service is in marriage…people would talk about it in Church talks, and it wasn’t really clear HOW to serve another person for the good of a marriage to me.
I now realize that each person has unique emotional needs they bring to the marriage. Part of being a loving spouse is understanding those needs, and meeting them to help fill the other person’s love bucket and help the marriage blossom. My hope is that a spouse would recognize the needs of their spouse and want to meet them to help him or her get through periods of temptation as s/he tries to repent and be loyal again. That is my hope…and naturally, I would hope that the person “seeking relief” would also meet their spouse’s most important emotional needs, whether sexual or not, with the same kind of service orientation.
Ideally, I think both members of the partnership should expresss themselves sexually out of natural love…but I have been around long enough to know that it doesn’t always work that way. Emotional needs are wide and varied, and marriage can be an exercise in service and sacrifice at times — particularly when the spouse has needs that we don’t have a natural ability or inclination to meet naturally.
So, I stand by what I said.
SD, I think your last comment doesn’t disagree with what I think wayfarer was saying. Obviously, I can’t speak for wayfarer, but I don’t think you are disagreeing on this particular point. wayfarer wrote:…avoidance is not the answer, but rather, acceptance of a moderate level of enjoyment of the human body, of sexuality within bounds, and of
good-hearted fun takes the sin aspect of pornography away…i find almost nothing purielent in most R rated movies…More importantly, I have needed to demystify the human body and act of sex: I’ve had to come to an understanding of the beauty of nature’s most significant act. I celebrate it…On the other hand, there are bounds… Hard core pornography is an industry that exploits and demeans, and for moral reasons well beyond sin, i find it contemptable.By changing my frame of reference from ‘sin’ to what I consider legitimate morality, I have no desire whatsoever in participating in hard-core porn…So a sexy book, words, thoughts — yes, if that results in arousal and (god forbid) masturbation, this I allow and have no issue with…I don’t consider the appreciation of beauty sin.I enjoy it, am open about it with my wife, and don’t apologize… I don’t see what the big deal about hard-core porn is. For my money, “A Clockwork Orange” and “Midnight Cowboy” were much more disturbing and unpleasant to watch than almost all of the hard-core porn I have seen and the only reason I watched these movies to begin with was because they were rated highly by critics so long after they were made. Whenever I hear people talk about how terrible all hard-core porn supposedly is compared to the seemingly harmless nudity or eroticism in R-rated movies, magazines, art, sex instruction manuals, romance novels, etc. to me it sounds almost the same as saying, “I don’t like hard-core porn therefore no one else should like it either.”
However, a large number of people do like hard-core porn and it’s not going away anytime soon. I guess most people want to draw the line somewhere even if they can’t agree on where exactly this line should be. For example, I don’t really want to know about some sub-genres like bondage or S&M but if it is just people having sex then I don’t see what is automatically so ugly or demeaning about that. It is interesting to see the history of censorship and the way that what most people think is obscene or unacceptable has evolved over the years.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I don’t see what the big deal about hard-core porn is. For my money, “A Clockwork Orange” and “Midnight Cowboy” were much more disturbing and unpleasant to watch than almost all of the hard-core porn I have seen and the only reason I watched these movies to begin with was because they were rated highly by critics so long after they were made. Whenever I hear people talk about how terrible all hard-core porn supposedly is compared to the seemingly harmless nudity or eroticism in R-rated movies, magazines, art, sex instruction manuals, romance novels, etc. to me it sounds almost the same as saying, “I don’t like hard-core porn therefore no one else should like it either.”
However, a large number of people do like hard-core porn and it’s not going away anytime soon. I guess most people want to draw the line somewhere even if they can’t agree on where exactly this line should be. For example, I don’t really want to know about some sub-genres like bondage or S&M but if it is just people having sex then I don’t see what is automatically so ugly or demeaning about that. It is interesting to see the history of censorship and the way that what most people think is obscene or unacceptable has evolved over the years.
Both “A Clockwork Orange” and “Midnight Cowboy” are tough, hard movies with a strong sexual element. No question that they’re difficult. They are not in my impression hard-core porn. you more or less got to the level of what consititutes hard-core in mentioning the subgenres, coupled with a lot of other subgenres that frankly constitute abuse in all of its forms. What I morally disagree with is the production and dissemination of products that abuse people in their creation, and objectify people into targets of lust. The entire porn industry feeds upon and cultivates these subgenres, progressively moving the mind to acceptance of abusive practice. it’s pretty immoral stuff.On the other hand, the films you mention have a strong redemptive value, and did not (in most cases) abuse the actors that performed in them (there are some notable exceptions). The ones you mention are not the exceptions, but are actually quite moral in their message and intent. A Clockwork Orange, particularly, reflects the banality of abusive thinking, and has a strong anti-hard-core theme amongst its ultraviolent portrayal.
Spark Notes explaining A Clockwork Orange wrote:More than anything, Burgess believed that “the freedom to choose is the big human attribute,” meaning that the presence of moral choice ultimately distinguishes human beings from machines or lower animals. This belief provides the central argument of A Clockwork Orange, where Alex asserts his free will by choosing a course of wickedness, only to be subsequently robbed of his self-determination by the government. In making Alex—a criminal guilty of violence, rape, and theft—the hero of the novel, Burgess argues that humanity must, at all costs, insist that individuals be allowed to make their own moral choices, even if that freedom results in depravity. When the State removes Alex’s power to choose his own moral course of action, Alex becomes nothing more than a thing. A human being’s legitimacy as a moral agent is predicated on the notion that good and evil exist as separate, equally valid choices. Without evil as a valid option, the choice to be good becomes nothing more than an empty, meaningless gesture.
I cannot think of a more powerful movie to portray the banality of forced obedience. When the church and BYU engaged in reparative therapy for homosexuals, it did great harm. A Clockwork Orange expresses in the strongest terms that free will must be preserved else we have no goodness. The same theme is found in the book of mormon: “It must needs be that there is an opposition in all things.”More importantly, A Clockwork Orange lays out in graphic detail how forcing the mind to avoid bad thinking simply backfires. As Alex is reprogrammed to get sick at the sight of pornography and violence, the forcing simply allows him to adapt to converting beethoven’s music into an orgy of violence. He pretends compliance, but in his mind, is more violent than ever. to me, this message is exactly what I’m talking about: forced avoidance of what is normal human feeling is destructive — and the result is often the opposite of the original intent.
wayfarer wrote:…Both “A Clockwork Orange” and “Midnight Cowboy” are tough, hard movies with a strong sexual element. No question that they’re difficult. They are not in my impression hard-core porn.
you more or less got to the level of what consititutes hard-core in mentioning the subgenres, coupled with a lot of other subgenres that frankly constitute abuse in all of its forms. What I morally disagree with is the production and dissemination of products that abuse people in their creation, and objectify people into targets of lust.The entire porn industry feeds upon and cultivates these subgenres, progressively moving the mind to acceptance of abusive practice. it’s pretty immoral stuff. I wasn’t trying to say that “A Clockwork Orange” and “Midnight Cowboy” should be classified as pornographic. I don’t believe that at all; I just thought they were more disturbing and unpleasant to watch than most of the hard-core porn I have seen. I don’t doubt that there are some disgusting and abusive things going on in the porn industry, I just don’t know that this is always the case for all hard-core porn in general. When I think of “hard-core” porn I mostly think of famous well-paid porn stars or amateurs that maybe only do one sex tape and then move on with their lives so there is not necessarily any reason to assume that they are being abused or taken advantage of against their will and sometimes there is definitely nothing inherently abusive shown in the content itself.
I read an interesting article a few months ago (I think it was in GQ) where the author was so disturbed and obsessed by the fact that he was turned on by some truly bizarre porn that was intentionally degrading that he went to interview some of the people that made and starred in some of these movies. He was actually surprised when one actress seemed completely normal, healthy, and happy after he had expected to find obvious problems in her everyday life and background. Personally I think Playboy and even the SI Swimsuit Issue already objectify women and make them into targets of lust but I don’t see what is so bad about that to begin with and I don’t believe that necessarily makes them victims.
Quote:I don’t doubt that there are some disgusting and abusive things going on in the porn industry, I just don’t know that this is always the case for all hard-core porn in general.
It is always the case – not for specific actors and actresses, perhaps, but for the entire industry in general it always is the case.
I’ve stated my feelings about hard-core porn in other threads, and I’m speaking from personal experience from my youth. It is addictive for many people; it is highly demeaning and objectifying – especially of women; it creates horrible expectations for many people; it leads to the loss of acceptance of times of sexual lows in relationships; it can destroy trust; it is everything wayfarer described. I extend that to hard-core porn books, as well – even those without pictures.
Anthony Burgess who wrote the novel of “A Clockwork Orange”, was a somewhat “New Order” Roman Catholic. He wrote the book about free will, and how a dictatorship strips someone of their agency. The problem arises when a violent criminal like Alex is stripped of his agency. Is he actually doing good, or is he an automaton? (Even if the film version’s Alex’s taste in music is great. I have the soundtrack to ACO at home. Stunning!) The state security actually does a “lucifer” to the anti-hero. So, in that sense, ACO actually accords with Mormon theology in more ways that most folk realise. I think its sex and violence reputation does the film a disservice. Yes it is there, but it misses all the other points in it – agency, urban decline, youth disenfranchisement, creeping dictatorship, the abuse of psychiatry etc.
All the people who are supposed to be looking after Alex, either don’t care, or abuse him. His parents ignore him. Mr Deltoid, his social worker, tries to make sexual advances to him. The “liberals” try and get him to jump out of a window, to further their cause against the government. The police come along and beat him up, when they know he can’t react (they’re his old fellow gang members). Even the church minister is somewhat ambiguous.
SilentDawning wrote:IAll I knew was that I was in a sexless marriage for a decade and had to figure out a way of getting through it with my Church membership and conscience intact.
My father was in one for many years (not with my mother by the way).
I don’t know how to get around that. I feel like I’m going to end up marrying a woman I don’t love just so that I can have a family.
Sex and love can be separated in relationships and marriage, like other things that are a part of a relationship, but not the only important element of it. I think sex can be something conceded in a relationship because it involved two adults with different wants and desires. After my wife had our baby, I still had urges but realize the time and circumstances require me to put off sex for good health reasons. That’s just an example of a temporary situation, but it shows to me that sex can take a back seat (no pun intended) to loving and caring for your partner.
But I wouldn’t think love should be conceded for sex or children. Love should be the foundation of the relationship and we work to develop it and nourish it. Sex is often a big part of developing that, and sharing something so intimate and special and bonding often enhances the love.
Our personal carnal desires can be controlled and reigned in for a higher purposes. But we don’t need it to be blown out of proportion in prudish over-zealous attempts at hypercontrolling what is natural to our bodies.
Sambee, I realize I haven’t been in your situation to know what’s right or wrong for you, but from my experience, I think you have to decide what you want and if we can’t find the “perfect mate” (which none of us can find), then you need to decide what is most important and look for that, and what you’re willing to let go of to have an enriching relationship. Love is a powerful thing that can motivate us to work through other problems in the relationship, including sex and religion.
Wow, this is a little awkward… but I think you brothers need a sister to preside in this discussion… or at least to give my 99 cents. 
😆 BeLikeChrist,
I respect that you are keeping focused on what you really want and handling obstacles by changing your behavior.
While I do believe “As a man thinketh in his heart so is he” – I also believe that through spiritual & psychological development, we will encounter feelings buried alive, which won’t die. For a while, I was somewhat obsessed sexually. It’s like I was finally feeling that sexuality was ok & not something to be ashamed about & I was living it up! I didn’t cheat on my DH, although I had opportunities & thoughts of it… I just let the feelings go through without putting myself down & enjoyed by DH. And they passed – or became more even.
Now if I could only learn to deal with other feelings that way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.