The sex thread

[_truth dancer]

There is a lot of talk from church leaders on what NOT to do....

Not a whole lot on what TO do. ;-)

I get the sense that many church leaders see sex as a necessary evil sort of thing. Not anything to be encouraged, discussed, embraced, enjoyed but a instinct that must be accomodated once in a while.

My observation isvthat there could be a lot of help in this area that would strengthen marriages, reduce extra-marital affairs, and make life more pleasurable for quite a number of couples.

Don't see it happening any time soon. :-)

~dancer~

[_Moniker]

I do not think that the phrase natural man in Paul has much to do with sexuality. But a related observation might be that the natural man has absolutely no knowledge of femine desires, responses, emotions and romance. Unless some teaching from a woman occurs that absolute zero knowledge remains absolutely no knowledge. this is not complicated a mans sense of romance emotion and desire are a mans while a womans is a womans. They have to share to create an overlap.

It is possible that a man might think fancy dinners have more to do with some asexual performance than with romance. How is that divide crossed? He doesn't understand, she doesn't understand, he is unfeeling, she's a cold fish. etc etc.

Well, there is a lot of potential for finding overlapping desires, makes sense to seek.

Yeah, God's little joke. By the time a man figures women out, he's past his sexual prime, and the woman is just entering hers.

In the immortal words of Eddie Murphey, "HA HA!! Very funny, mutha f**ker!!"

No friggin way is a man's sexual prime as a young man. It's the older they get that they're more experimental, open to playfulness, and willing to consider their partner's desires. Young man stamina =/ good lover

Anywhoha. I think women must communicate with men. I stated, in the other thread, that if a woman doesn't know what she finds pleasing how can the man know? I mean, I think the ability to essentially know your own body is incredibly important before sharing it with another. I posted a link on that a while back and am too lazy to go look for it. But, the link talked about how sexual intimacy and the ability to enjoy sex is linked to knowing your own body.

[_Scottie]

No friggin way is a man's sexual prime as a young man.

That isn't to say that an older man doesn't like sex. You know the steriotypical phrase that a man thinks about sex once every 7 seconds? Well, this is true for about 10 years between the ages of 14-24. Then it's downhill from them. Hell, I'm up to only thinking about sex once every 12 seconds now!! ;)

It's the older they get that they're more experimental, open to playfulness, and willing to consider their partner's desires. Young man stamina =/ good lover

True. Plus we can last longer than 30 seconds.

Anywhoha. I think women must communicate with men. I stated, in the other thread, that if a woman doesn't know what she finds pleasing how can the man know? I mean, I think the ability to essentially know your own body is incredibly important before sharing it with another. I posted a link on that a while back and am too lazy to go look for it. But, the link talked about how sexual intimacy and the ability to enjoy sex is linked to knowing your own body.

Do you think that it is possible to explore the female body together as partners? Does a woman have to explore it alone before she can know what she likes?

[_Moniker]

No friggin way is a man's sexual prime as a young man.

That isn't to say that an older man doesn't like sex. You know the steriotypical phrase that a man thinks about sex once every 7 seconds? Well, this is true for about 10 years between the ages of 14-24. Then it's downhill from them. Hell, I'm up to only thinking about sex once every 12 seconds now!! ;)

That can't really be true? Is it? That's sorta wacky... I mean, don't tell anyone -- for real. Shhh... it's best, I think, women don't know this....

True. Plus we can last longer than 30 seconds.

Thank God.

Do you think that it is possible to explore the female body together as partners? Does a woman have to explore it alone before she can know what she likes?

Well certainly! All, I'm saying if a woman has NEVER explored her own body there could be some hesitancy, ESPECIALLY if she's felt that she shouldn't do something as that. And really when you get married quite young most young men could care less about "exploring" a woman's body in an erotic nature for too long a time -- I mean... urgh. I need to get out of this thread. I just think most young men (and that's when they usually get married in the Church) aren't going to necessarily know what to do with a woman - -and the female isn't even going to know what to do with herself. IF both of them are willing to take the time, that'd be great! But, most men need directions from women, I think.

[_ajax18]

Generally speaking, their dreams and expectations from young womanhood had been replaced by a resigned enduring to the end. Dreams of romantic candlelit dinners and torrid sex afterwards with their husbands gave way to the reality of multiple cranky children and a husband who worked hard in the fields all day and was tired at night. Sex was an afterthought for some, a duty for others, and endured with little passion by nearly all.

What exactly are the dreams and expectations they've had since young womanhood? Are they even realistic? Are they fair to both people in the relationship?

I had always hoped to marry a beautiful woman. That didn't work out too well. So I made the best I could with what I was given. Real life isn't perfect, nor do I think pressuring the other person to be what you want makes it any better, at least not in the long run.

[_charity]

Okay, since I managed to inadvertantly derail the thread about the latest MAD bannings, perhaps I can redeem myself by moving the sex discussion to another thread.

Thus...

In my admittedly small sample of married LDS TBM women, the general consensus is that LDS men are pretty low on the lover scale.

Please describe the method for this study. A "scholarly" report, if you will. Sample number. Method of obtaining the sample. What testing instrument was used? When was the demographic information gathered?

I would like to know the details please.

[_ajax18]

Okay, since I managed to inadvertantly derail the thread about the latest MAD bannings, perhaps I can redeem myself by moving the sex discussion to another thread.

Thus...

In my admittedly small sample of married LDS TBM women, the general consensus is that LDS men are pretty low on the lover scale. Words they used include:

unimaginative
unromantic
insensitive
some took too long
some were too quick
unskilled/lacking finesse and technique

Had these women also fooled around with nonLDS men to see the difference?

[_marg]

The Jewish religion seems to have a healthy attitude towards sex, it's not perfect.


http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Okay, since I managed to inadvertantly derail the thread about the latest MAD bannings, perhaps I can redeem myself by moving the sex discussion to another thread.

Thus...

In my admittedly small sample of married LDS TBM women, the general consensus is that LDS men are pretty low on the lover scale.

Please describe the method for this study. A "scholarly" report, if you will. Sample number. Method of obtaining the sample. What testing instrument was used? When was the demographic information gathered?

I would like to know the details please.

Oh, brother. Harmony made it quite clear that it wasn't any kind of serious study. It's a topic starter. Trying to discredit Harmony won't make Mormon men better lovers, now will it? Why even go there?

If you ask me, praying before sex is a pretty good way to doom it before it even starts.

[_Gadianton]

I don't think there is any question that the lack of experience would make LDS males (and LDS females -- there's a lot of latent man bashing in some of these recent threads, I'm a student of Leykis 101 so I need to hold my ground at some point) objectively less capable lovers as compared to a porn star, for instance. What I wonder though is how sexually satisfied married people are in general and how that compares to LDS. For the fact that I'm a student of Leykis 101, I happen to know that marriage, across the board, is a) doomed b) the worst way to go about getting one's sexual needs met. And this is entirely irrespective of any Mormon topic.

Shaping my views on sexual satisfaction outside of experience and common sense observations as relayed in platforms from Leykis's radio show to the unsatisfied lives of hollywood stars as portrayed in the trash magazines my wife reads, are some odd interests I've had. Since Ray brought up Jean Jacques Rousseau's Enquirer worthy sex life in another thread, I'll mention Jacques Derrida's deconstruction of Jean Jacques Rousseau's sex life had a significant impact on how I view sexual satisfaction. Then there is my inner battle with the notion of qualia, and the less abstract portion of that inner battle inquires as to how expectations factor into experience. Then there was that study I read a while back, can't remember where from, that seemed to make a good case for unsatisfied couples sticking together having yet more fulfillment than those that divorced in pursuit of the conventional wisdom of the day to go out and live life to its fullest, get laid etc...

So, not to say that LDS couples couldn't benefit from loosening up a bit and defying Mormonism's rampent victorianism and subconscious belief that a rigid member is a lightning rod inviting the fiery wrath of God, but that the situation is a somewhat complicated one even after eliminating Mormonism's odditities.

Oh, also a factor here, is that I spent the evening with an old friend of Coggins'. Mr. Daniels always accentuates my weirdness.