- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was once told that the purpose of sex was for the creating of children, and not any other purpose. Apparently a “Church Authority” said that. I remember thinking “he was probably 80 years old when he said it after a full life of sex”.
Next time I hear ridiculous comments like that, I intend to share something like “Funny, I heard another authority say that it’s part of a keeping love a live in many marriages”.
Of course, that authority is my own personal authority.
As Bruce R McConkie once said “Each person is a prophet to their own personal affairs”…so in that sense, I am also an authority.
The Church’s current stance is very obvious in its rejection of the purpose of sex being only the creation of children. Old-Timer wrote:The Church’s current stance is very obvious in its rejection of the purpose of sex being only the creation of children.
Yes, and as I intimated in the other thread, that’s going to keep causing nothing but problems for the leadership. Because they haven’t set out a clear picture of the limits since shattering it wide open by giving up that idea. If they had known that the gay marriage thing was going to get so big I wonder if they’d have stuck to their guns.
Fwiw, seeing sex as only about making babies hasn’t been the default in the Church ever – except in the minds of a few global leaders. It’s never been an official stance / doctrine. A-ha. Must be more of that mainstream Christian baggage, I guess. But you sure could have fooled me: all that talk about “the sacred powers of procreation” — unless that was just prudishness, not wanting to utter the three-letter S word in General Conference. Those are very different things, r&b – but I agree totally that we as a people are way too prudish and Victorian in the way we (don’t) talk about sex and all things sexual. To be honest, garmies are something of a turnoff too. I don’t mind wearing them, but I think they’d get in the way – even if the person wearing them is your spouse! Oh they’re definitely a turnoff and a detriment, and although the Church may not have said straight out in words “we believe that sexuality exists solely or primarily for the purpose of procreation,” the requirement to wear the Temple garment night and day is something that sends a distinct message: the Law of Chastity and the Temple covenants are indifferent if not hostile to the pursuit of sexual satisfaction. Take that along with Jacob’s talking about polygamy in terms of “raising up seed” and Alma the younger’s warning to Corianton to cross himself, it would be much simpler and more consistent if the Church were to come flat out and, if not take that procreation only/primarily stand, at least admit that hostility towards sexual fulfillment. Stop pretending that marriage is an avenue for letting people satisfy their sex drives, let alone anything near an equal opportunity one. r&b, serious question – since I just can’t be sure: Are you under the impression that garments are to be worn during sex?
Also, fwiw, I have no problem whatsoever extending “during sex” to “for whatever period of time one wants to call foreplay, including any romantic time spent building up to what is planned”.
Old-Timer wrote:Are you under the impression that garments are to be worn during sex?
Heck no. But they’re so utilitarian, and even when one is able to act on your proposed strategy there’s always that instruction lurking: put them back on as soon as possible. You can’t ever reach the free expression or ease that you may wish for.
Not that I’m even saying that’s wrong: just because I don’t like something or find it disappointing doesn’t make it wrong. Maybe the Law of Chastity is just a more merciful way of making clear the impossibility of sexual satisfaction and keeping us from getting too addicted to something that can be a lot like a drug.
Assuming the worst — that sexual satisfaction is impossible, and that frustration is a continuum where everyone occupies a spot — is something of a defense mechanism. To truly believe that it was possible to reach fulfillment of these desires in this life would make keeping covenants intolerable. It would require accepting the notion that Alma’s “wickedness never was happiness” was 180 degrees off, and I have trouble enough putting faith in that maxim already.
Some people do wear them during the act, I’ve heard. I just hope that they are in cold rooms. But I suppose, that other people out there wear clothes (usually of a more kinky nature) during the act. Actually the best quote on sex came, strangely enough, from Gordon B. Hinckley in his otherwise evasive interview with Larry King. He was asked about sex, and he said, “We believe in it!”. Which is about the best answer to give. Sex is there for a reason. We can argue about what kinds of sex are permissible, or moral etc, but the basic act is there for a reason. Personally, if I were God, I would have designed our bodies* slightly differently. But I would have left the pleasurable bit in!
:crazy: * Having the waste disposal next to the reproductive organs is perhaps not a good thing.
Old-Timer wrote:Also, fwiw, I have no problem whatsoever extending “during sex” to “for whatever period of time one wants to call foreplay, including any romantic time spent building up to what is planned”.
I also like to extend “during sex” to the period of cuddling or spooning afterward. If one should fall asleep during this period without putting one’s garments back on that would seem like a perfectly natural and beautiful thing to do. If someone were to claim that I was to sin in this, I would find it amusing.
I might add that I feel sexually satisfied. Sure, there are some things that we don’t do because they don’t make DW comfortable – but that has much more to do with Love, Respect, and Compromise than our religious commitments. I guess I extend this to the area of “unrighteous dominion.” If I were to push things on DW for the sake of my sexual satisfaction, that would be unrighteous dominion – and I don’t believe that has any place in my marriage. Hopefully this hasn’t been TMI….
😳 Quote:Hopefully this hasn’t been TMI….
Absolutely not – and I agree completely. There are things with which I’m comfortable that we’ve started doing only recently due strictly to the factr that my wife wasn’t comfortable doing them – so we didn’t do them for years.
TMI? 😆 You have no idea how many times I started to respond to this thread, only to moderate myself and delete the whole thing.
Quote:You have no idea how many times I started to respond to this thread, only to moderate myself and delete the whole thing.
Thank you!!!!
😮 😯 :crazy: :wtf: :clap: 😆 😆 😆 My own philosophy: As long as we don’t start getting explicit, I have no problem with very open discussions about sex. I really wish everyone in the Church was more comfortable talking about the joys of sex – with a recognition that it’s not joyful for everyone in all situations, including marriage. I’m thankful some here have reminded us of that on occasion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.