- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
amateurparent wrote:
My big question: If someone is in an asexual marriage, what makes that person stay?? I can understand health issues, impotence due to disease, etc, but what makes someone stay in a relationship that has become merely platonic?
I’d say either true love or feeling like there’s no alternative. I’d hope it’s the former and not the latter. However, the whole idea of being sealed to someone forever does provide an automatic sense of being “stuck.”
amateurparent wrote:
Yes, Heber .. You can have all the sex you want .. If you pick the right partner…..
But .. How miserable to be married to someone who had a vastly decreased libido or function. In LDS dating, how does one figure out who is the “low desire” partner?? That is the book that needs to be written.
I agree AP,…and it is a dilemma. The only clear writing I know about this topic is from the “A Parent’s Guide” book…and in that book, it makes it clear you are NOT to discuss sexuality before marriage.
Quote:
Courting couples need to be discreet about what they discuss together because certain information is appropriately shared only within marriage.Besides, there is so great a need for consideration of matters other than physical functions (such as finances, religion, child rearing methods, friendships, relatives, career plans, and living arrangements, not to mention planning the wedding itself) thatundue attention to sexual information can actually create problems(Seems like the brakes are put on here,…and you are not to discuss it…) . The whole point of virtuous courtship is to maintain spirituality while learning about each other as persons and putting temporal and mundane matters into proper perspective.(Ummmm…sex is temporal and mundane? YIKES!) If the two people take care separately to inform themselves of the body and all its parts and functions and practice basic, virtuous courtesies together during courtship, their sexual adjustment after marriage will likely be all that they want it to be.
From this, what about all those who didn’t have this nice sexual adjustment? Well, good thing they didn’t talk about it during courting, because divorce is certainly a less serious sin and has less ramifications than perhaps getting a little heated before marriage.
(Sorry, a little bitterness coming out).
amateurparent wrote:I keep on reading these posts about asexual marriages .. So I know it’s out there and there are people suffering.
In my world, my LDS girlfriends are talking about lingerie, having their kid walk in on them while in the shower with their husband, getting implants or a lift, weekends away to “play”, oral sex, and the benefits of various forms of foreplay. These are all women who have been married over 30 years .. And they talk about their daughters as if the next generation had continued the tradition. That is my normal.
My big question: If someone is in an asexual marriage, what makes that person stay?? I can understand health issues, impotence due to disease, etc, but what makes someone stay in a relationship that has become merely platonic?
I can directly answer that question. FEAR of going to hell! And, the shame that your sexual feelings are from the devil in the first place.
I’ve sat in many counselors offices in SLC–these are LDS counselors–and most believe if you are a man and want sex more than like once a week, it must be addiction. Many men turn to self pleasure and porn as a way to release their own sexual frustration (be that a right or wrong, I am not making a judgement call). From that point forward, any sexual advance towards their wife is seen as suspect (at least from the counselors) as being fueled by addiction.
The general idea is that it is more spiritual, manly, saintly and priestly to suppress your feelings. Sexuality and the “Good Boy Syndrome” is rampant in SLC areas, because the fear of porn and addiction has fueled a backlash of conservatism at all cost, even at the cost of suppressing sex in marriage to a large degree.
DarkJedi wrote:[
I’d say either true love or feeling like there’s no alternative. I’d hope it’s the former and not the latter. However, the whole idea of being sealed to someone forever
does provide an automatic sense of being “stuck.”I couldn’t imagine a bigger “hell” than being in heaven with my wife, rolling over and having her slap my hand away…for eternity.
From that point forward, I no longer wanted anything to do with the LDS Idea of heaven and “Exalt-stagnation”. I don’t think heaven is a happy place. I think it is a place of rejection and longing/hurt that perpetuates for ever. Hence,…this is what triggered my FC.
This was the very trigger of the whole mess….
Once a week?????? That’s kinda like expecting to survive off one meal a week. It isn’t healthy. Just .. Wow.
So sorry.
amateurparent wrote:Once a week?????? That’s kinda like expecting to survive off one meal a week. It isn’t healthy.
Just .. Wow.
So sorry.
The magic number is once or twice a week with a clear drop off on following weeks. But,…no human could possibly want sex on consecutive days. That is addiction,…surely (this is actually something communicated to me,…very toxic).
I have a friend who thought he was going crazy, so he started to keep track. They averaged about 12 times 4 years ago (for the whole year), 10 times 2 years ago, I think he said about 6 last year, and this year nothing so far. And, every year she gets that recommend, etc.
Sorry AP,…refusing your spouse sexually is not considered a sin (or a very big one) in the LDS faith. The LOC is unilaterally applied…it ONLY has to do with acting outside of marriage. But, if you pinch off your spouse sexually, then the church favors celibacy, then divorce, but never the horrible and ugly sin of masturbation.
Actually, I know dozens of couples who are in horrible marriages. It is actually more rare to see those who are happy. That is really sad….and I’m not trying to be a sour pickle.
That is the reality I am aware of. Its the real deal. I think marriages are in serious serious trouble.
I just cannot understand why any woman would want to refuse. Maybe the woman hasn’t been honest enough about what she individually likes and what “works” for her. Giving up bad sex .. With no orgasm .. Yeah .. I could see that. But some honesty and some practice would take care of that.
The more I think about this, the more I think it is an honesty issue.
Rob4Hope wrote:
And, in the LDS faith the message is STILL that sexuality and spirituality are in opposition. The “Good Girl Syndrome” and the “Good Boy Syndrome.” I respect all people say out here,…but there are people I’ve met recently who still have struggles with believing that sexuality and spirituality can coexist.Until that false message is adequately addressed, there will continue to be problems.
I definitely see how it feels this way a lot of times. Sexuality has got to be a tough thing for the church to address, because they’ve got to find the right environment for it. It would be tough to take on something like that in a large conference or an Ensign article or something. And, all of us here know that anything that comes from the Q15 about sex is going to be scrutinized and picked apart from every angle. If they talk about limitations in a sexual context, then it’s going to cause a stir with the more sexually liberal crowd. If they talk about being more open sexually, within a marriage, then I could see it causing problems with people using that to guilt-trip their partners into being more sexual or trying things they might not be comfortable with. Really, it’s easier for the top ranks to just stay out of the bedroom and let us figure it out in our own relationships.
And, I think it’s more of a cultural thing than a doctrinal thing anyway. Sure, there have been prophets in the past that have talked about things, like oral sex, but those days are past. There are still those people who adhere to that stuff, but what they hold onto isn’t my problem. The only sexual relationship I need to be worried about is my own.
And, as far as getting the message out there, I think the only way that will happen will be through local leaders. We had a Ward Conference about a year ago, where the 2nd and 3rd hours were combined men/women and the Stake President spent the whole 2 hours talking about the importance of sexual intimacy and commitment to your partner emotionally, spiritually, and sexually. It was a quiet class, but very helpful. Not every Stake President would have the guts to get up and talk about something like that. I completely agree with you that it’s a huge problem. But, I think a lot of the problem is caused by the members themselves perpetuating a negative stigma of being sexually expressive in marriage.
Rob4Hope wrote:The magic number is once or twice a week with a clear drop off on following weeks. But,…no human could possibly want sex on consecutive days. That is addiction,…surely (this is actually something communicated to me,…very toxic).
I have a friend who thought he was going crazy, so he started to keep track. They averaged about 12 times 4 years ago (for the whole year), 10 times 2 years ago, I think he said about 6 last year, and this year nothing so far. And, every year she gets that recommend, etc.
Sorry AP,…refusing your spouse sexually is not considered a sin (or a very big one) in the LDS faith. The LOC is unilaterally applied…it ONLY has to do with acting outside of marriage. But, if you pinch off your spouse sexually, then the church favors celibacy, then divorce, but never the horrible and ugly sin of masturbation.
Actually, I know dozens of couples who are in horrible marriages. It is actually more rare to see those who are happy. That is really sad….and I’m not trying to be a sour pickle.
That is the reality I am aware of. Its the real deal. I think marriages are in serious serious trouble.
Hi Rob4Hope, I want to be careful about how I say this because I don’t want to come off like I am trying to invalidate your experience or the experiences of other members in the Church. I’m not trying to disrespect or brush off these experiences at all. They’re real issues. Rather, I’d just like to add another perspective to the pyramid. Bizarre teachings about sexuality, gender roles, and the expectations of a woman’s place in the Church can lead to another extreme. I have a hard time hearing terms like “refusing your spouse” in the negative because, to me, that hits to close to issues of consent and problems our church has with teaching women their role is to please their husband in no uncertain terms.
I know a woman with a medical condition which made sex very, very painful for her. It’s now corrected because she had a medical procedure done and takes medication. For years, she suffered in silence with frequent sex with her husband. When she asked the women in her life why she didn’t enjoy sex, even turned to church leaders, the answer she got was that it’s just not as fun for women and can sometimes hurt, but it’s important for her husband, so she just submit to him whenever he feels like it an act like she likes it. After awhile, she just stopped asking about it. It wasn’t until she was with a group of female friends, when she was years into her marriage, and they were talking about their sex lives. She finally piped up the courage to ask “Yeah, but doesn’t it hurt you guys?” As you can imagine, when her husband found out how bad it was for her all those years, he felt awful.
I know other women who have been in relationships where their husband rapes them. Truly. But they think it’s their fault because it is their duty to please their husband, even when they don’t want to. Other relationships where women have a deeply unsatisfying sexual relationship with their husband, and they think their job is just to be available to him whenever he feels like it, even if they’re unhappy with it, and get no satisfaction from it, because they’re a woman, and that’s their job. Nevermind the question why they don’t like it. And then there’s the instances of husbands with pornography addictions and cheating problems. In too many cases, the go-to response from the Bishop is, “Well, he wouldn’t be doing this if you were pleasing him in the way you should be…you should be having sex more, you need to try harder” even when she’s already devastated and trying her hardest in the relationship.
My point being here, there are different extremes in how these things can pan out and many of them can be very painful. I agree with you about a lot of things. I just think it’s also relevant to note that there is a diversity of ways in which “the good girl syndrome” effects us. Personally, I think in most cases, female sexuality is more complicated than male sexuality, and our culture hasn’t fully tapped into understanding that. Clearly, our Church culture has issues with how it talks and encourages sexuality in marriages. Again, I don’t want to sound like I’m invalidating your experiences. I think a lot of these issues come back to the same place.
Rob4Hope: I’ve been thinking about this thread today.
You mentioned that you couldn’t understand how your wife could have a TR if she wasn’t having sex with you. I couldn’t figure out what TR worthiness had to do with sex. Last thing I want is the church to be more involved in the sexuality of members.
As I’ve thought about this today, I have been bothered that your comments on this thread have only about the needs of a man. It’s been very one sided. Sex is supposed to be about mutual pleasure and mutual intimacy. If it isn’t mutual, it just becomes another chore.
If you would like a wife to be asked about frequency of sex in a TR interview, you should expect, as a man, to be asked about quality of foreplay and asked if you are properly pleasuring your wife. And asked if you were promoting the type of relationship that kept resentments from affecting the physical relationship.
If the focus is just on the frequency, it isn’t a healthy dynamic. It becomes more like an addiction and less like a relationship. Sex is supposed to be wrapped up as part of a relationship. It isn’t a stand-alone event unless the partner is being treated more like a commodity than a partner.
[Admin Note]: The direction this thread has gone is highly charged, especially since people’s experiences are all over the map. Let’s be open and honest but also careful and aware of others’ emotions. This is an important topic, so let’s try to keep it productive and mutually respectful.
Old-Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: The direction this thread has gone is highly charged, especially since people’s experiences are all over the map. Let’s be open and honest but also careful and aware of others’ emotions.
This is an important topic, so let’s try to keep it productive and mutually respectful.
You have my support 100%. I love the diversity and can keep it civil because I do respect what has been said very much.
University and AP…I’m gunna try to respond.
university wrote:
Hi Rob4Hope, I want to be careful about how I say this because I don’t want to come off like I am trying to invalidate your experience or the experiences of other members in the Church. I’m not trying to disrespect or brush off these experiences at all. They’re real issues. Rather, I’d just like to add another perspective to the pyramid. Bizarre teachings about sexuality, gender roles, and the expectations of a woman’s place in the Church can lead to another extreme. I have a hard time hearing terms like “refusing your spouse” in the negative because, to me, that hits to close to issues of consent and problems our church has with teaching women their role is to please their husband in no uncertain terms.
I understand what you are saying, and there is a WIDE range of differences out there, and what is inculcated during formative years varies so widely among different people. You mentioned that women are told to please their husband in “no uncertain terms.” I know some women who got that message, so I think you are right on the numbers. In my generation, this idea was culturally taught as “duty sex”–the woman’s role is to “do her duty” and please her husband. That is a damaging teaching, I know it happened to many, and it disengages a woman from her passions or even her ability to have passion in some situations.
university wrote:
I know a woman with a medical condition which made sex very, very painful for her. It’s now corrected because she had a medical procedure done and takes medication. For years, she suffered in silence with frequent sex with her husband. When she asked the women in her life why she didn’t enjoy sex, even turned to church leaders, the answer she got was that it’s just not as fun for women and can sometimes hurt, but it’s important for her husband, so she just submit to him whenever he feels like it an act like she likes it. After awhile, she just stopped asking about it. It wasn’t until she was with a group of female friends, when she was years into her marriage, and they were talking about their sex lives. She finally piped up the courage to ask “Yeah, but doesn’t it hurt you guys?” As you can imagine, when her husband found out how bad it was for her all those years, he felt awful.
University, this is heartbreaking. I know some who have had this. I want to point out something you actually said hear that is quite interesting. This woman apparently was married for years, and never communicated to her husband that sex hurt?
Where was the communication about this?There is something to learn here, and if there were doctrinal teachings involved, then perhaps the idea of NOT talking about sex before marriage carried over into this marriage, and these two still didn’t talk. And the information she was given “even by church leaders” was, IMHO, grossly inaccurate. Brent Barlow, for example, has said clearly that he believes a woman’s ability to enjoy sexuality is actually greater than a mans. Why, if marriages are falling apart, is there so much “bad” information out there? That is a good question.
I think it was Finlayson-Fife who said that culturally, woman are considered the “care takers” of relationships. This can often mean, unfortunately, that they are the ones expected to “make the sacrifice” when things don’t work out. This is misogynistic, and begins to strike at the whole feminist struggle that continues to rear its head in LDS circles. Woman can’t be in leading councils, they can’t hold positions requiring priesthood, and they are supposed to “please their husbands.”
Why can’t their husbands please them?….
university wrote:
I know other women who have been in relationships where their husband rapes them. Truly. But they think it’s their fault because it is their duty to please their husband, even when they don’t want to.
This is very relevant for several reasons I think. First, it is ALWAYS wrong to force. No means no, even if it hurts the one being rejected. I think that culturally at one time (and I can speak more to my parent’s generation than my own because I’ve read more from that era on this topic) duty sex, culturally, allowed some men to force the issue more. Because of such happenings, it is my opinion that the church came out with some very strong statements to try to stem the tide. For example, DOM said that a woman is the “queen of her own body”…and the context and meaning of this statement, as taught to me, was that a woman can reject her husband. Why?…because if he is forcing her, he has crossed a line. SHE can refuse force.
However, I’m of the opinion that this refusal can be taken to extremes when not warranted. I know a man, for example, who weeps because he is rejected. He doesn’t force his wife, he invites her. She is too busy with more important things–like children or planning the next luncheon. He has little recourse because GAs have never counter balanced the message of “THOU SHALT NOT” very well.
BUT University, I am getting your point.
university wrote:
Other relationships where women have a deeply unsatisfying sexual relationship with their husband, and they think their job is just to be available to him whenever he feels like it, even if they’re unhappy with it, and get no satisfaction from it, because they’re a woman, and that’s their job. Nevermind the question why they don’t like it.
MIchelle Weiner-Davis wrote a book named: “The Sex Starved Wife”. She believes one of the biggest hidden secrets in North America is the number of woman out there who are actually the ones in marriage unfulfilled because their husbands are the refusers. I own and have read a copy of that book. It is interesting.
Why don’t these women like sex? Some do…but never get to have it. Some don’t because they have blundering husbands who either don’t know what to do, haven’t been told what to do, or don’t care. It is a travesty regardless.
university wrote:
And then there’s the instances of husbands with pornography addictions and cheating problems. In too many cases, the go-to response from the Bishop is, “Well, he wouldn’t be doing this if you were pleasing him in the way you should be…you should be having sex more, you need to try harder” even when she’s already devastated and trying her hardest in the relationship.
I have never heard of an instance where a Bishop told a wife to “just give him more”. But, I’m sure it has happened. You have mentioned it happening, so I believe you. My experience is that pornography and some type of polorizing event in a marriage always go hand in hand. But, most of the time, the messages I’ve heard bishops give is that the men need to STOP HAVING SEX–though the message is often delivered in more subtle ways. For example: “Whats the big deal, its just sex. Can’t you just learn to control that?” Or: “Why would you want sex so often. Having sex once a week is enough for any man.” Etc.
Sometimes men turn to things they shouldn’t because they are hungry. Women do that as well, but usually in different ways. This is not always the case (as you have pointed out), but it often is. Whenever someone has to turn elsewhere to get what they really need and want from home…something is wrong.
In this particular area, often you run into compatibility concerns–this often triggers looking elsewhere. Socially there are things that are acceptable and things that aren’t. If a woman, for example, wants greater emotional connection and her husband wont or can’t provide that, she could look to another man (which would be wrong)…or she could connect with other woman (which is socially acceptable). If a man wants more sex and his wife either wont or can’t provide that, there is no other outlet. If the roles are turned and the wife wants more sex, there is also no other outlet for her.
Not all men turn to pornography or worse to satisfy unmet needs in marriage. I absolutely concede this point. But, some men DO turn to pornography in an attempt to deal with feelings of rejection when there is no other way.
The church has, IMHO, done a poor job of helping people prevent compatibility problems in sexual areas. Going into marriage and being told to not even talk about sex because “everything will work out in the end” is very poor counsel.
university wrote:
My point being here, there are different extremes in how these things can pan out and many of them can be very painful. I agree with you about a lot of things. I just think it’s also relevant to note that there is a diversity of ways in which “the good girl syndrome” effects us.
I agree. There are lots of differences and diversities. The “good girl syndrome” applies ONLY to certain groups. There is a “good boy syndrome” as well… In the groups I’ve associated with, its called: “Peter Priesthood”. I’ve met several ladies (because I am dating and meeting them) who lament the extremes. ON one side you have “Peter Priesthood” who is afraid to hold her hand because doing that before they are engaged, for example, is asking for trouble. And on the other extreme you have…well, the other extreme. Good boy syndrome is alive and well to.
university wrote:
Personally, I think in most cases, female sexuality is more complicated than male sexuality, and our culture hasn’t fully tapped into understanding that. Clearly, our Church culture has issues with how it talks and encourages sexuality in marriages. Again, I don’t want to sound like I’m invalidating your experiences. I think a lot of these issues come back to the same place.We are in agreement here.
University,…loved your post. I agree with and believe I understand everything you have said.
amateurparent wrote:Rob4Hope:
I’ve been thinking about this thread today.
You mentioned that you couldn’t understand how your wife could have a TR if she wasn’t having sex with you. I couldn’t figure out what TR worthiness had to do with sex. Last thing I want is the church to be more involved in the sexuality of members.
My reference to the TR was unclear and probably has to do with a “last resort” idea that percolates in my brain. If I recall, the TR interview has 2 specific questions that are relevant here: 1) do you keep the law of chastity? 2) is there anything in your conduct with your family not in harmony (or something). Both of these questions are tricky,..but the LOC, as taught in the temple, has 2 parts. I marvel when the first part is kept as the end-all for the entire law. If you are NOT sexual with your spouse, you are breaking the second half of that law, IMHO. The second question has a different shade of what is appropriate conduct in your family. If marriage doesn’t include sex, then perhaps you don’t ever have to deal with that. But if it does, and is part of the LDS teachings (which is a whole other discussion), then you may have a problem if you don’t engage.
So AP,…that is where that all came from.
amateurparent wrote:
As I’ve thought about this today, I have been bothered that your comments on this thread have only about the needs of a man. It’s been very one sided. Sex is supposed to be about mutual pleasure and mutual intimacy. If it isn’t mutual, it just becomes another chore.
I agree with you on this, and I was speaking from my own perspective. There is AMPLE evidence that role reversals exist on this point. Michelle Weiner-Davis’ book I mentioned above: “The Sex Starved Wife” is a really good resource.
amateurparent wrote:
If you would like a wife to be asked about frequency of sex in a TR interview, you should expect, as a man, to be asked about quality of foreplay and asked if you are properly pleasuring your wife. And asked if you were promoting the type of relationship that kept resentments from affecting the physical relationship.
I love this AP. No…I wasn’t interested in TR interview questions about frequency or not. I think I explained what I had in mind above. But, I do agree that good sex involves components that need to be in place, skillfully handled, and taken care of. Emotional connection can proceed sexual connection, and vice versa in many cases. Men and women differ, and needs differ. I like Brent Barlow’s take on this: sexuality in marriage is a joint stewardship. Both partners need to work together to stoke the home fires into a beautiful warming fire.
amateurparent wrote:
If the focus is just on the frequency, it isn’t a healthy dynamic. It becomes more like an addiction and less like a relationship. Sex is supposed to be wrapped up as part of a relationship. It isn’t a stand-alone event unless the partner is being treated more like a commodity than a partner.Frequency is a common complain I am aware of with some of the people I know, including women (as in they want more). I understand it is not the a stand-alone aspect of marriage. Unfortunately, I am aware of more cases where it is treated like that by both men and women, as opposed of being an intrigal part of marriage.
Let me give you an example. I call this the “light switch”.
I know a man (and it could be role reversed) who wants to be sexual with his wife. She knows he needs this, so she gives him sexual relations every 2 weeks or so. They spend approximately 15 min engaging. He then wants to hold her and just enjoy the after-glow. She, however, jumps up and moves toward her next project. She never talks about sex, engages in little forplay activities again, and just goes through her days as though sex doesn’t exist…until the next time when he is at wits end. For him, it is like a “light switch”…once the activity is over, the switch is thrown, and sex ceases to exist.
I think this is unhealthy. I think this is hurtful. I think this is……common.
When sex is not an integral part of marriage, it is not healthy…at least that is my opinion.
I understand what you’re trying to say about the TR and sex/law of chastity Rob, but I disagree with your conclusion. The TR question about LoC is just what it states – are you only having sex with your spouse to whom you are legally married? I don’t think the vast majority of people interpret any other way. You may not actually be having sex with your spouse, but that is not the question. It doesn’t matter if you’re not having sex (unless you’re not married), it only matter if what sex you do have is only with your spouse. No offense intended, but your idea that the LoC includes mandated sex with your spouse is not widely held and I don’t believe the leadership would in any way sanction that idea. The other question about one’s family relationships being in harmony with the gospel is clearly about abuse. Again, one can make that jump with sex but it is very much like what apologists sometimes ask us to do – make a jump that’s not really there. I don’t believe the vast majority of the membership or the leadership interpret that question as any more than what it is.
Which brings us to the TR questions in general. I think the biggest mistake many people make is reading more into those questions than is there. I think they’re meant to be very literal. They require only a yes or no answer. Do I believe in God? Yes. (I just happen to believe in a very uninvolved God.) Do I live the law of chastity? Yes. (I only have sex with my spouse to whom I am legally and lawfully married.) That said, do I believe some members and leaders think that looking at porn is against the LoC? Yes, I do – but I don’t think that’s the intent of that question nor do I think it’s appropriate for
anyoneto ask me any question beyond whether I live the LoC and accepting yes as my answer. The WoW is a similar example. I know many people who believe caffeine is against the WoW. I don’t, I regularly drink Pepsi and Dr. Pepper and the occasional iced tea (by definition not a hot drink). I don’t drink beer because I don’t like it, but I also don’t believe it is against the WoW (in moderation) nor do I believe an occasional wine with dinner is against the WoW (and wine in Jesus’ time was not like grape juice). I answer yes to the question about the WoW and likewise don’t expect (and won’t tolerate) anyone asking anything beyond the question as written. Frankly, in my 30+ years of church membership no one has ever tried. Most of you folks who have been around a bit know I can be a bit blunt sometimes. My high council knows that as well. Sometimes it’s appreciated, sometimes it’s not. So take this for what it’s worth and how you will: I have no problem with this thread and read it with interest. But let’s keep our argument/discussion grounded in reality without wild supposition or citing very isolated incidents.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.