Sex before marriage equals happiness

[Northwestcoug]

Honey, will you take me out to the ball game? Sure, how about we tour the parade of homes first.

Aaaand this is usually the way I get to go to the ball game as well...

[Topper]

This is just a complicated topic. The Church oversimplifies it on one side, this author oversimplifies it on the other. If anything, the evidence supports the church, although it's very correlational and poor. Common sense supports the author somewhat, but not completely.

What I plan to teach my kids:
-Sex can be a very powerful experience, and thus really rewarding or really damaging. Be careful and judicious.
-Sex is just one of a whole series of issues you're going to have to negotiate with your partner. There's no amount of preplanning or trying it out that is going to eliminate these negotiations, either in the sex arena or in the parenting or finance or toilet seat position arena. So marry someone who's flexible. That can come in handy in sex too.
-Treat people well.

I agree with these points.

My children are grown, so it is unknown to me if the approach taken was successful or otherwise. They grew up hearing the Church position on the subject, were told that communication about all subjects is important, yet received poor modeling from their parents.

Due to a failed marriage, I encouraged pre-marital counseling and encouraged open discussion on topics of finance, sexuality, sensitivities, politics, needs and expectations and hopes and dreams. It will be interesting to see how things play out and whether I will feel guilt if things don't work out well.

Modeling good behavior for children seems to be the most important. Do you and your spouse model good communication between each other. Do you show sensitivity for her needs, public ones. Do you show affection so that your children see it as natural? Do you jump to her assistance and does she for you?

OTOH, I can make no corrections to the past relationship, but I can model good behavior for the present one. That is that is possible.

Capable, caring children who communicate and who know to question things, while showing an appreciation for tradition and other people are likely to be able to form meaningful relationships. At least, that is my hope.

[LA Ute]

Apparently, these threads bring out the worst in us.

Porn is not an interesting topic to me, but happiness is. Matters impeding happiness are matters of concern.

Although, I unwittingly stepped on toes here, my concern is more for those who might be impacted by cultural vestiges arising out of our more puritanical strains. Apparently, many here in authority do not believe those are real concerns.

The studies are sparse and difficult to determine how credible they are. One might automatically suspect the credibility of any study generated by BYU to support the official "Church" position. That doesn't mean the position is always wrong either.

I would find it interesting to see a discussion and debate, without resorting to testimony, why people believe the law of chastity is divine and not the result of ancient tribal influences culminating in a reinvigoration as a Victorian response to the anti-polygamy tendencies. As a footnote, arguing against the absolute nature of the law of chastity as currently enforced does not suggest a no-holds bar rule.

Perhaps that does not interest people either.

OK, my friend, now I will get serious. Well, a little serious.

First, on the cultural issues you raise. One of our closest friends is an LDS psychotherapist. She is not part of LDS Family Services (a mark in her favor) and yet is the #1 choice of the bishops in a very large metropolitan area. (They generally do not trust LDSFS.) They send her couple after couple. She could spend all her time on LDS couples, she tells us. (A positive thing is that in cases where the couple can't afford the counseling, the church pays for it or she provides it cut-rate.)

The most common problems she deals with are about money and sex. The two issues are almost always intertwined, she says. According to her, getting past the negative LDS cultural hangups is pretty easy and, as someone said earlier, the really difficult problems stem from childhood abuse or other issues unrelated to being LDS. Most people like sex and want to find ways to enjoy it. Still, being LDS is a big part of the reasons the couples (a) want to stay together and (b) have problems. Being in an LDS marriage is simply not like being in another type of marriage, for many obvious reasons.

(BTW, she says that in today's LDS world oral sex is just part of the lansdscape. It's a cultural taboo that has pretty much gone away in practice and it's up to each couple to figure out their joint approach.)

Second, on the law of chastity (LOC). You know I love you, but doesn't it strike you as unfair to ask for "a discussion and debate" about "why people believe the LOC is divine" without resorting to testimony? I mean, you're asking me to fight with one hand tied behind my back!

So although I will not follow your rules of engagement fully, I will add reason to my answer. I believe God gives us commandments because he wants to bless us. This makes a great deal of rational sense to me, given what I believe about God. No, it is not a new idea at all. You'd probably call it a "standard" response, but I love the old standards anyway.

That we screw up our obedience to commandments -- either by over-compliance or non-compliance -- is nothing new. It's kind of the way we humans roll, as far as religion is concerned. The LOC is an especially important commandment, I think. It goes to our strongest biological impulses and to our most complex human emotions and psychology. As life issues go, human sexuality is a biggie, no matter how you look at it.

The LOC also goes to the center of our faith -- especially since we believe in an anthropomorphic, procreative God and that someday, our greatest eternal happiness and our highest reward will be to be like him and have "eternal lives," whether we fully understand that concept or not.

My experience, both personal and observational, is that there is great peace -- both peace of mind and family peace -- in trying hard to obey the LOC, as best we can understand it. Conversely, -- also in my experience -- the human lives that I've seen become the biggest train wrecks, with the most pain and the most lasting, tragic damage, get there by violating the LOC, or by actions related to such behavior.

I am still being rational here. How am I doing?

Anyway, given that framework of belief (and I have not even touched on the spiritual underpinnings of that belief, i.e., the forbidden topic of testimony), the notion that the LOC is "the result of ancient tribal influences culminating in a reinvigoration as a Victorian response to the anti-polygamy tendencies" does not appeal to my reason at all.

Now I have to go back to my real work.

[Topper]

OK, my friend, now I will get serious. Well, a little serious.

First, on the cultural issues you raise. One of our closest friends is an LDS psychotherapist. She is not part of LDS Family Services (a mark in her favor) and yet is the #1 choice of the bishops in a very large metropolitan area. (They generally do not trust LDSFS.) They send her couple after couple. She could spend all her time on LDS couples, she tells us. (A positive thing is that in cases where the couple can't afford the counseling, the church pays for it or she provides it cut-rate.)

The most common problems she deals with are about money and sex. The two issues are almost always intertwined, she says. According to her, getting past the negative LDS cultural hangups is pretty easy and, as someone said earlier, the really difficult problems stem from childhood abuse or other issues unrelated to being LDS. Most people like sex and want to find ways to enjoy it. Still, being LDS is a big part of the reasons the couples (a) want to stay together and (b) have problems. Being in an LDS marriage is simply not like being in another type of marriage, for many obvious reasons.

(BTW, she says that in today's LDS world oral sex is just part of the lansdscape. It's a cultural taboo that has pretty much gone away in practice and it's up to each couple to figure out their joint approach.)

Second, on the law of chastity (LOC). You know I love you, but doesn't it strike you as unfair to ask for "a discussion and debate" about "why people believe the LOC is divine" without resorting to testimony? I mean, you're asking me to fight with one hand tied behind my back!

So although I will not follow your rules of engagement fully, I will add reason to my answer. I believe God gives us commandments because he wants to bless us. This makes a great deal of rational sense to me, given what I believe about God. No, it is not a new idea at all. You'd probably call it a "standard" response, but I love the old standards anyway.

That we screw up our obedience to commandments -- either by over-compliance or non-compliance -- is nothing new. It's kind of the way we humans roll, as far as religion is concerned. The LOC is an especially important commandment, I think. It goes to our strongest biological impulses and to our most complex human emotions and psychology. As life issues go, human sexuality is a biggie, no matter how you look at it.

The LOC also goes to the center of our faith -- especially since we believe in an anthropomorphic, procreative God and that someday, our greatest eternal happiness and our highest reward will be to be like him and have "eternal lives," whether we fully understand that concept or not.

My experience, both personal and observational, is that there is great peace -- both peace of mind and family peace -- in trying hard to obey the LOC, as best we can understand it. Conversely, -- also in my experience -- the human lives that I've seen become the biggest train wrecks, with the most pain and the most lasting, tragic damage, get there by violating the LOC, or by actions related to such behavior.

I am still being rational here. How am I doing?

Anyway, given that framework of belief (and I have not even touched on the spiritual underpinnings of that belief, i.e., the forbidden topic of testimony), the notion that the LOC is "the result of ancient tribal influences culminating in a reinvigoration as a Victorian response to the anti-polygamy tendencies" does not appeal to my reason at all.

Now I have to go back to my real work.

I appreciate you for trying.

Your argument boils down to, "the LOC blesses lives as I have anecdotally witnessed and those who violate it have been unhappy."

My question to you, is the unhappiness a result of the consequences within the culture of Mormonism?

For example, a missionary gets sent home from his mission because he confesses on his mission a "sin" he committed before his mission. So culturally he is reaping the unhappiness of violating the LOC because the culture assesses a penalty.

I am familiar with many couples who did not follow the LOC but who have wonderful and fulfilling marriages.

I do not advocate adolescent sexuality expressing itself. Primarily because the subject is so complex, their minds are not prepared for the full consequences of such conduct. Adolescent restraint makes sense. It is an adult activity, not a child's playroom.

If your examples relate to teen pregnancy, I agree that children involved in adult activities will be unhappy because they are not emotionally prepared for the full consequences of such conduct.

[LA Ute]

I appreciate you for trying.

Your argument boils down to, "the LOC blesses lives as I have anecdotally witnessed and those who violate it have been unhappy."

Don't you think that is an oversimplification?

My question to you, is the unhappiness a result of the consequences within the culture of Mormonism?

For example, a missionary gets sent home from his mission because he confesses on his mission a "sin" he committed before his mission. So culturally he is reaping the unhappiness of violating the LOC because the culture assesses a penalty.

I am familiar with many couples who did not follow the LOC but who have wonderful and fulfilling marriages.

I do not advocate adolescent sexuality expressing itself. Primarily because the subject is so complex, their minds are not prepared for the full consequences of such conduct. Adolescent restraint makes sense. It is an adult activity, not a child's playroom.

If your examples relate to teen pregnancy, I agree that children involved in adult activities will be unhappy because they are not emotionally prepared for the full consequences of such conduct.

I am talking about things like what the church would call the use of procreative powers outside of marriage: e.g., pre- and extra-marital sexual relations (regardless of age), pornography (uh-oh! I've raised it!), and masturbation. I think the greatest happiness comes from keeping those things within the bounds I believe God has set. (I am not a hard-liner on things like masturbation or oral sex, BTW.) One might say it's about bridling our passions, but I think that one's been used already.

Of course Mormon culture plays a role -- sometimes a huge one -- in the related happiness or unhappiness. I am talking about peace of mind, trust and confidence between husband and wife, and among parents and children, spiritual contentment, and being in tune with the Spirit. Those are ideas often ridiculed or at best unappreciated here, but they matter to me.

You seem to want a cogent rational argument for beliefs that, at bottom, are based on an acceptance of the supernatural -- spiritual commitments of the heart. I can't give you that. I can't even try, so no need to thank me for trying this time. I am not.

[Topper]

Don't you think that is an oversimplification?



I am talking about things like what the church would call the use of procreative powers outside of marriage: e.g., pre- and extra-marital sexual relations (regardless of age), pornography (uh-oh! I've raised it!), and masturbation. I think the greatest happiness comes from keeping those things within the bounds I believe God has set. (I am not a hard-liner on things like masturbation or oral sex, BTW.) One might say it's about bridling our passions, but I think that one's been used already.

Of course Mormon culture plays a role -- sometimes a huge one -- in the related happiness or unhappiness. I am talking about peace of mind, trust and confidence between husband and wife, and among parents and children, spiritual contentment, and being in tune with the Spirit. Those are ideas often ridiculed or at best unappreciated here, but they matter to me.

You seem to want a cogent rational argument for beliefs that, at bottom, are based on an acceptance of the supernatural -- spiritual commitments of the heart. I can't give you that. I can't even try, so no need to thank me for trying this time. I am not.

Are you familiar with the statement by BY about his apostle Alexander Carrington, who carried on a ten year affair. BY commented he was surprised how the Spirit was not disturbed.

The point is, is your sensitivity also a construct of your preconditioning?

I am not advocating infidelity, but wondering if you don't set limits on the Spirit by your own mental pre-conditions. Apparently, Apostle Carrington was able to wield the Spirit while violating the LOC.

JS was apparently able to wield the Spirit while having polygamous and polyandrous relations.

Isn't it possible that we exclude the Spirit through our own self-judgments, not as the result of most of our conduct?

In terms of fidelity within marriage or relationship, I agree with that. The confidence that a couple is sharing only with themselves brings confidence to me. However, I am aware others do not feel the same way. I have read some recent articles on European beliefs and studies where couples seem quite comfortable with the concept of modified infidelity. That would make me uncomfortable.

[Topper]

There are times when I believed I felt the Spirit, even though our culture would suggest I shouldn't.

For example, I have, shudder, skipped Church, gone into nature, helped a fellow human being and felt the Spirit more than I could have by attending one of our nondescript meetings. While I was a mullah Mormon, I remember shaking my head at a sinful relative who skipped church to attend a movie with family. When I tried I literally felt the Spirit leaving.

In comparing the two events, it seems my pre-conditioning affected the Spirit more than the conduct itself.

[DU Ute]

Of all the great moments in this thread, LA Ute discussing oral sex with a female friend has to be my favorite.

[doctorcoug]

What I'm saying is that there is dysfunction, not because the women don't want sex per se, but because their husband isn't pleasing them. Sexual satisfaction will help mental health. Men need to please the women and sometimes a vibrator will really help women who aren't regularly having an orgasm.

via a galaxy s3 far far away

[LA Ute]

Of all the great moments in this thread, LA Ute discussing oral sex with a female friend has to be my favorite.

Perv.

Truth be told, it was my wife who had the discussion with our therapist friend.

[LA Ute]

Are you familiar with the statement by BY about his apostle Alexander Carrington, who carried on a ten year affair. BY commented he was surprised how the Spirit was not disturbed.

The point is, is your sensitivity also a construct of your preconditioning?

I am not advocating infidelity, but wondering if you don't set limits on the Spirit by your own mental pre-conditions. Apparently, Apostle Carrington was able to wield the Spirit while violating the LOC.

JS was apparently able to wield the Spirit while having polygamous and polyandrous relations.

DH Oaks said something about this in a recent book that I will find and share with you. The idea was that the Lord won't cause those who need his servant's help to be harmed because of the servant's hiding his sins, so he works through the servant anyway. Eventually the servant is the one who's accountable.

Isn't it possible that we exclude the Spirit through our own self-judgments, not as the result of most of our conduct?

Of course it is possible, but we are taught that our conduct is a big part of our worthiness for spiritual help.

[LA Ute]

There are times when I believed I felt the Spirit, even though our culture would suggest I shouldn't.

For example, I have, shudder, skipped Church, gone into nature, helped a fellow human being and felt the Spirit more than I could have by attending one of our nondescript meetings. While I was a mullah Mormon, I remember shaking my head at a sinful relative who skipped church to attend a movie with family. When I tried I literally felt the Spirit leaving.

In comparing the two events, it seems my pre-conditioning affected the Spirit more than the conduct itself.

My approach to matters of the Spirit is not to ask myself continually whether or not what I felt was something real and from the Spirit. I believe I know the difference now. That's just me; I know others experience and approach such matters differently.

[Topper]

My approach to matters of the Spirit is not to ask myself continually whether or not what I felt was something real and from the Spirit. I believe I know the difference now. That's just me; I know others experience and approach such matters differently.

Why do you not continually question what you feel you know?

[TripletDaddy]

Of all the great moments in this thread, LA Ute discussing oral sex with a female friend has to be my favorite.

How much mileage has LA Ute squeezed out of his repeated references to this phantom psychotherapist?

[Pheidippides]

Perv.

Truth be told, it was my wife who had the discussion with our therapist friend.

I'm much less disturbed then. I know my wife has that conversations with her girl-friends all the time. Fashion, kids, oral sex. All they ever talk about.

I'm just funnin' ya. I get it was a therapist, and I find that insight interesting if not surprising.