Sex before marriage equals happiness

[Northwestcoug]

I'm not sure this is terribly interesting. I think it's the cycle a lot of relationships go through -- just at what point it happens varies depending on when they start having sex.

Well, as someone who didn't have premarital sex, it was interesting to me that sex got worse for them after marriage. But not only that, it's her refusal to see that her children could very easily follow her example. I'm not sure if I can make any generalizations, but I find it interesting.

[DU Ute]

And this is at the heart of the problem. If you believe sex is sacred, then it is very easy to attempt to draw a line between right and wrong. And by extension, between god-approved and condemned. But the problem is that line is never clearly delineated. You will find any number of quotes from leaders that anyone can use to reaffirm their sense of sexual right and wrong.
French-kissing? Oral sex? Anal sex? And for these people, there will inevitably be a time when at least one partner will feel guilty for a night of 'deviance'.

However, if you believe that you and your partner should have the last word on sexual appropriateness, unfettered by someone else's opinion, then a lot of things can go on. Some things will not be fun, others will. But there will be no guilt afterwards.

Now tell me, who will have the healthier sexual relationship?

In conclusion, let me give a shout-out to dirty sex. What a great thing it is...

Dibs!

[Non Sequitur]

Why should bishops ever discuss chastity or sex? If we eliminated this discussion there would be no awkward interviews or bad advice.

They shouldn't be discussing sex. In fact I've told both my daughters that I don't approve of them discussing their sexuality with a Bishop. I've told them it's not appropriate. At the same time, it's also been my experience that biology usually trumps Church teachings. That was one of the first things I learned my freshman year at BYU...nobody says "no".

[wuapinmon]

I think that oral sex is the true mark of whether you love your spouse more than yourself. I love my wife more than a blowjob, and to have her humming Yankee Doodle Dandy for a couple of minutes of the 15 I've been granted is a huge waste of time, and a bit demeaning. It's not worth it. There are a 101 things a couple can do to develop an intimate bond, and I just don't see where oral sex is uplifting and edifying. However, I'm sure of one thing, after 28 years of marriage, it's apparent to me that my wife is yet to love me more than herself. I had to put my foot down when she wanted to move my back inverter into the bedroom from the garage.

There is oral sex out there so exquisite that if you had an inckling of what you are missing you would be crushed and debilitated under an intolerable weight of despair and regret.

[MarkGrace]

Well, as someone who didn't have premarital sex, it was interesting to me that sex got worse for them after marriage. But not only that, it's her refusal to see that her children could very easily follow her example. I'm not sure if I can make any generalizations, but I find it interesting.

Neither did I. I'm just saying that marriage doesn't seem like a huge factor, so much as the normal cycle relationships go through. I have plenty of friends who went through the same thing, even where marriage was not involved. They start dating, have tons of sex, end up in committed relationships/living together, and the same thing happens as you described above at some point. Similarly, you have couples who wait until they're married, have a ton of sex when they're first married, and then it fizzles out. I think what you mentioned about your friends would have happened whether or not marriage was introduced into the equation. It's just kind of what happens in a lot of relationships.

[SoCalCoug]

They shouldn't be discussing sex. In fact I've told both my daughters that I don't approve of them discussing their sexuality with a Bishop. I've told them it's not appropriate. At the same time, it's also been my experience that biology usually trumps Church teachings. That was one of the first things I learned my freshman year at BYU...nobody says "no".

I guess I should have asked.

[clackamascoug]

Now you guys are just making fun of me.

[wuapinmon]

Now you guys are just making fun of me for making a case between Jesus approved sex, and devil sex.

(This church calling of a "internet mission" where I try to help out the young urban professionals is much more difficult that I expected. Reminder memo to ask for more computer time at the Family History Center at the Stake Center. I've got my work cut out for me.)

I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious about oral sex or not. But, if you are, follow Lou Reed's Candy advice and then let us know what you think.

[Non Sequitur]

I'm not entirely sure if you're being serious about oral sex or not. But, if you are, follow Lou Reed's Candy advice and then let us know what you think.

Doo do doo, doo do doo, doo do doo...

[clackamascoug]

My final thought as I'm done here.

I just don't see Celestial Beings gnawing at each others genitals. Sorry. And just because I'm still in this telestial existence, I don't think it's a free pass to act to my lowest base desires. I aspire to greater things than dirty sex. I'm waiting for the Millennium when I can take my game up a notch.

cc. President Monson.

[Topper]

This is a non-sequitor.

A faith is fully within its rights to teach a law of chastity based on its respect for procreation, life, and the unity of body and soul. When some have emotional complications with sex within the law as prescribed, then I agree, the Church may not be the best vehicle for dispensing counseling. But that does not mean a faith cannot provide its views on the proper use of the procreative power.

I once shared that view but cannot today. If you are unprepared for making observance joyful then you shouldn't go there.

Teaching about sex is a form of control in a manner that can be quite heinous. The inconsistencies in its application shows the teaching is not divine but was a practical advice good two thousand years ago but useless today.

[Donuthole]

My final thought as I'm done here.

I just don't see Celestial Beings gnawing at each others genitals. Sorry. And just because I'm still in this telestial existence, I don't think it's a free pass to act to my lowest base desires. I aspire to greater things than dirty sex. I'm waiting for the Millennium when I can take my game up a notch.

cc. President Monson.

Dude, no teeth involved! No wonder you're opposed to oral sex!

[wuapinmon]

My final thought as I'm done here.

I just don't see Celestial Beings gnawing at each others genitals. Sorry. And just because I'm still in this telestial existence, I don't think it's a free pass to act to my lowest base desires. I aspire to greater things than dirty sex. I'm waiting for the Millennium when I can take my game up a notch.

cc. President Monson.

Gnawing? It's not dirty. That kind of attitude has kept you from untold pleasures. I almost pity you.

[TripletDaddy]

considering all the posts about alternative dimensions and priesthood physics, I think clackamas coug is rivaling taekwondave as the resident nutjob.

[Topper]

This is a non-sequitor.

A faith is fully within its rights to teach a law of chastity based on its respect for procreation, life, and the unity of body and soul. When some have emotional complications with sex within the law as prescribed, then I agree, the Church may not be the best vehicle for dispensing counseling. But that does not mean a faith cannot provide its views on the proper use of the procreative power.

It is at the core and at the core of the gay Mormon question. Is the law of chastity divine or simply a man-made instrument to control the distribution of females to promote clan harmony?

You have a faith community that embraced polygamy and to a lesser degree polyandry, yet monogamy is esteemed today.

The strictness of the enforcement is such that a person is a non-believer and excommunicated if one does not adhere to the Victorian principle. This element has caused conformity within the ranks, but has not been the cause of happiness.

Should a religion be able to proscribe something which is not fully able to address within the realm of its expertise?