Sex before marriage equals happiness

[Topper]

That's not exactly what he said. He said that the bishop said it was ok for a woman to refuse sex if she doesn't want it. Are you arguing that's not true?

Now, whether Topper is obligated to stay in the marriage is a different story. It looks like he didn't. Good.

The more interesting question, and it's definitely not unique to Mormons but a more common phenomenon among them, is why is there so much sexual dysfunction among Mormon women (and men)? That, I think, has a lot to do with the combination of the no sex before marriage rule and the idea that adultery is the sin next to murder. Both of these could use a good reworking.
It's hard to make a complete switch from "this is evil" to "this is good", no matter what the logic behind it says.

Good observations. The structure of the Church makes for good business modeling, but in dealing with health and social issues, it seems a bit inept, because what makes it successful on the business front, makes it incompetent on the social and mental health front.

[kccougar]

Two comments:

Is there evidence that LDS people have more sexual hangups than the general population? I don't think that's true.

Just as I wouldn't go to my Bishop for advice on sex and marriage relationships, I don't think I'd take what some OD tells me as gospel either.

[Topper]

Two comments:

Is there evidence that LDS people have more sexual hangups than the general population? I don't think that's true.

Just as I wouldn't go to my Bishop for advice on sex and marriage relationships, I don't think I'd take what some OD tells me as gospel either.

The answer to your first question is mixed. Data in this area is difficult to harmonize and to correlate. There is data for example that Mormon tendencies to early marriages lead to more divorces than would be if the marriages started later. There is also evidence LDS suffer from some sexual dysfunctions other groups similarly situated also suffer.

The repression of sexuality causes dysfunction. That cannot be denied. How it manifests itself is difficult to determine.

The conflict is that business leaders seek to impose an injunction with harsh exclusionary penalties without regard to the health consequences.

[Sullyute]

I think that SoCalCougs statement that wack-a-do bishops are outliers (unless in SoonerCoug's ward where they are the norm) is probably correct. FMH had a recent post about a bishop teaching to the whole relief society that they should put out whenever the husband requested.

Doing your wifely duty

The bishop states, “The person who has the need TRUMPS the person who doesn’t.”

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's not exactly what he said. He said that the bishop said it was ok for a woman to refuse sex if she doesn't want it. Are you arguing that's not true?

You are nitpicking on semantics. Perhaps you missed this post:

Let's hope you are correct, but the sister who hates sex receives a lot of sympathy in our culture. And I do not doubt my marriage was a horrible aberration. It left me doubting the advice of the Church in almost anything. I quote you from the ex, "if I want to go five years without sex, the bishop said it is okay."

[Topper]

Sully, in word, "weird".

The woman got it, the bishop didn't.

Trying to discuss it from a religious perspective is the first error of the bishop. Duty sex. How wonderful. Sarcasm intended.

[ERCougar]

You are nitpicking on semantics. Perhaps you missed this post:

To continue the nitpicking... Is it not ok for her to go without sex for five years?

(its actually not nitpicking. The problem doesn't lie with a bishop telling a woman she's in charge of her body. It lies with the feeling that sex is 'icky'. That's not the bishop's fault.)

[Topper]

To continue the nitpicking... Is it not ok for her to go without sex for five years?

(its actually not nitpicking. The problem doesn't lie with a bishop telling a woman she's in charge of her body. It lies with the feeling that sex is 'icky'. That's not the bishop's fault.)

But a woman, not as likely to happen with a man, might develop that sense from this part of LDS culture.

You tell youth, "don't, don't, don't, it's sinful."

Girls thinks boys who want sex, "are bad and sinful." The exchange of fluids is messy.

You can see how a girl could slide down that slope.

And then after hearing how sinful it is to have sex, you are now allowed to have sex after marriage. "No, NO, No, save it for somebody you love."

The message is unclear and ambiguous. Depending upon the skill of the bishop and the young women leaders, we can color what our youth, especially girls feel about one of life's blessings.

[Jeff Lebowski]

To continue the nitpicking... Is it not ok for her to go without sex for five years?

(its actually not nitpicking. The problem doesn't lie with a bishop telling a woman she's in charge of her body. It lies with the feeling that sex is 'icky'. That's not the bishop's fault.)

Sure. But I think it is entirely pointless for us to sit here and dissect and speculate on what was wrong with Topper's ex when she isn't here to defend herself or explain her side of the story.

My only point was, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that any bishop would greenlight a five-year sex hiatus in a marriage.

[Topper]

Sure. But I think it is entirely pointless for us to sit here and dissect and speculate on what was wrong with Topper's ex when she isn't here to defend herself or explain her side of the story.

My only point was, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that any bishop would greenlight a five-year sex hiatus in a marriage.

given her propensity to misinterpret matters, I find her credibility on the issue suspect of what he said. Nonetheless, the point wasn't to identify her difficulties but rather to highlight a significant problem in the culture, even if it is a minority issue. That was the point.

You seemed diverted by a tangential issue. Bishops should not entertain any discussion of sex and should refer to specialists. The discussion on law of chastity leads to awkward discussions and bad advice.

[ERCougar]

Sure. But I think it is entirely pointless for us to sit here and dissect and speculate on what was wrong with Topper's ex when she isn't here to defend herself or explain her side of the story.

My only point was, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that any bishop would greenlight a five-year sex hiatus in a marriage.

Well, I doubt he "greenlighted" things as they were indefinitely, but I don't doubt he told her not to have sex if she didn't want to--perfectly legitimate advice.

But say she never comes around on this. Despite having every indication that she would like sex, she discovers that she doesn't and that she just can't get over the ickiness factor of it? What then? Don't you think there's a little value in navigating some of this beforehand (hence the author's advice)? Instead, Elder Scott advises us to "not stimulate those feelings" (or whatever the words were), which seems like a recipe for disaster.

Of course, this isn't really a problem for guys, nearly every one of whom knows pretty closely what he's in for. Hmm....

[ERCougar]

But a woman, not as likely to happen with a man, might develop that sense from this part of LDS culture.

You tell youth, "don't, don't, don't, it's sinful."

Girls thinks boys who want sex, "are bad and sinful." The exchange of fluids is messy.

You can see how a girl could slide down that slope.

And then after hearing how sinful it is to have sex, you are now allowed to have sex after marriage. "No, NO, No, save it for somebody you love."

The message is unclear and ambiguous. Depending upon the skill of the bishop and the young women leaders, we can color what our youth, especially girls feel about one of life's blessings.

Completely agree.

[DU Ute]

But not all. My father gave me marital advice based clearly on that letter, years after it came out. It has shaped the views toward sexuality and what is permitted in an LDS marriage of a generation, if not more. How many people today still believe oral sex is an "unholy and impure practice"? Is it? If it's shaped currently existing opinions of church members, it's still relevant, is it not?

The complete extent of my MIL's sexual advice and education to my wife growing up was don't ever french kiss, not even with your husband. I'm very grateful that was the only thing she told her. I can't imagine what she would think of oral sex. I wish she could have had healthy discussions with my wife, it would have been very helpful for us starting out, but that wasn't going to happen.

I'm glad my wife isn't uptight like her mom about many things, but she is having a bit of a hard time with it because she feels like she can't talk with her mom or even her twin sister about most stuff because they have become so fanatical. My wife is what I'd classify as a moderate Republican and is a believing, active member of the church, but her family is so ultra conservative and orthodox she feels like she can't even mention religion or politics. Everything is so black and white, right or wrong with no room for discussion and anyone who disagrees is bad and has evil intent. It is sad that it has become so bad that my wife no longer feels close to her family.

[LA Ute]

My only point was, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that any bishop would greenlight a five-year sex hiatus in a marriage.

We all see this based on our anecdotal experience, but looking back on the last 10 bishops I've had here where I live (and I've known them all quite well) not one of them would have given such advice. Any fool can see that in a marriage of a young healthy couple, a total absence of sexual relations is a serious indication of other problems, and of a troubled marriage. Every one of those 10 bishops would have sent the couple for counseling. So would all 3 of the SPs I've had. If Topper's bishop really told his ex that a 5-year hiatus was OK, then the bishop was...tragically mistaken. (I experimented with harsher words. They all would have fit, but I try not to call men fools.)

[DU Ute]

I can see Topper's wife simply asking the bishop if she has to have sex when she doesn't want to. The answer to that should be "No!" Now, if she asked if going 5 years without wanting sex is ok or healthy in a marriage, the answer should be "FETCH NO!!!!" and some sort of intervention or counseling is in order.