Really this is consiced appropriate on a Sunday???? WTF

[_Tchild]

Good Mormon women have regular sex with their husbands in order to keep their marriages “happy” and keep their husbands from sin.

I am sorry, but for all the drivel that LDS leaders spew, finally us men get a meat-and-potatoes revelation we can obey!

I am wiping away tears of joy right now.

[_quark]

I wonder why the Bishop didn't invite the husbands to listen...

Because it would turn into group sex therapy, which the church is against.

Maybe they could host another meeting with the men, where they discuss ways to turn their wives on.

[_Sethbag]

I will frankly admit that I don't understand this woman's response. She felt sick to her stomach? Lost her appetite? Went out and bawled? Couldn't wait for it to stop? Felt like she was being tortured? This all comes across to me as seriously overblown.

From the Mormon point of view, what the bishop said, according to this woman's version of it, was right. Mormon males aren't any different than most other males in the strength of their sex drive, but Mormon men, unlike a lot of other men, are expected to keep very, very tight reign over it, to include no masturbation. The man's sexual release, in Mormonism, is entirely in his wife's hands, no pun intended. The woman should understand this and take it seriously.

Am I advocating "duty sex"? No, of course not. But both the man and the woman in the marriage should take seriously doing what the other person will respond to. Men should know that one of the fastest ways to turn the wife on is to do some dishes, clean up some messes, take out the trash unbidden, etc. Do some things she'd ordinarily do, as a token of appreciation for her, and she'll often respond with increased feelings of tenderness, which may lead to some face time in bed.

Really, this lesson needs to be taught to both sexes. The males need to be taught how to value their wives and make them feel more loved, and the wives need to appreciate that in Mormonism their man's sexuality is only rightfully exercised by her, and he usually really needs that to be exercised on a regular basis. And if the woman has the stronger sex drive, well it's the same thing, the man needs to understand that and do what he can to satisfy her.

But seriously, I'm really having a hard time understanding this woman's POV. If she doesn't want us all to think she must hate sex, hate her husband, not give a crap how he feels, etc. she's doing a piss-poor job of it. Maybe I'd understand this better if I were a woman, who knows, but I'm not.

[_quark]

You know how polygamy was considered "right" under the proper authority and circumstances?

Well, maybe erotic discussions and sex therapy can also be considered "right" under the same conditions. Just a thought.

Maybe the bishop could hold adult parties where couples (and singles) watch an erotic movie and then talk about it afterwards. They could start to express their feelings about fantasy and intimacy. What works, what doesn't - that kind of thing. It would be an excellent learning experience.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Mormonism really screws with people's understanding of sexuality--doesn't it?

[_son of Ishmael]

You know how polygamy was considered "right" under the proper authority and circumstances?

Well, maybe erotic discussions and sex therapy can also be considered "right" under the same conditions. Just a thought.

Maybe the bishop could hold adult parties where couples (and singles) watch an erotic movie and then talk about it afterwards. They could start to express their feelings about fantasy and intimacy. What works, what doesn't - that kind of thing. It would be an excellent learning experience.

That might actually get me back in church...

[_Bret Ripley]

by the way something happened! See my previous comment on this page!

Nice.

[_Blixa]

I will frankly admit that I don't understand this woman's response. She felt sick to her stomach? Lost her appetite? Went out and bawled? Couldn't wait for it to stop? Felt like she was being tortured? This all comes across to me as seriously overblown.

From the Mormon point of view, what the bishop said, according to this woman's version of it, was right. Mormon males aren't any different than most other males in the strength of their sex drive, but Mormon men, unlike a lot of other men, are expected to keep very, very tight reign over it, to include no masturbation. The man's sexual release, in Mormonism, is entirely in his wife's hands, no pun intended. The woman should understand this and take it seriously.

Am I advocating "duty sex"? No, of course not. But both the man and the woman in the marriage should take seriously doing what the other person will respond to. Men should know that one of the fastest ways to turn the wife on is to do some dishes, clean up some messes, take out the trash unbidden, etc. Do some things she'd ordinarily do, as a token of appreciation for her, and she'll often respond with increased feelings of tenderness, which may lead to some face time in bed.

Really, this lesson needs to be taught to both sexes. The males need to be taught how to value their wives and make them feel more loved, and the wives need to appreciate that in Mormonism their man's sexuality is only rightfully exercised by her, and he usually really needs that to be exercised on a regular basis. And if the woman has the stronger sex drive, well it's the same thing, the man needs to understand that and do what he can to satisfy her.

But seriously, I'm really having a hard time understanding this woman's POV. If she doesn't want us all to think she must hate sex, hate her husband, not give a crap how he feels, etc. she's doing a piss-poor job of it. Maybe I'd understand this better if I were a woman, who knows, but I'm not.

I think she had such a strong reaction because the presentation was so egregiously ignorant, patronizing, ignorant, presumptuous, ignorant, repellant and ignorant. It laid the blame for male sexual transgression entirely upon women. It was not an appropriate discussion of the importance of marital intimacy, a topic that needs to be handled with sensitivity. And finally, it endorsed the sick idea that men's sexual needs come before women's.

I agree that in the sexual culture of Mormonism, members, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, are asked to adhere to guidelines for behavior that in themselves set up a lot of problems, but the way you spoke about this in your post, Seth, is light years away from the style in which this puffed-up, arrogant, self-proclaimed "expert" foisted absurd and damaging analogies and "information."

These two responses to the to the post sum up the problem with that bishop's over-the-line BS:

spiderlady says:

Gosh. This is so incredibly damaging, on so many levels. “The spouse with the need Trump's the one who doesn’t?” What about mutual consideration, mutual loving? Ugh. This is just such awful sexist garbage. Makes me sick. Sorry I can’t give a more reasoned response, but this one just hits me in the gut.

Sunshine says:

Not only that, but this leads heavy into spousal rape. I… have no words.

I have to say reading about Bishop Sexpert made me white hot with rage.

[_Sethbag]

I think she had such a strong reaction because the presentation was so egregiously ignorant, patronizing, ignorant, presumptuous, ignorant, repellant and ignorant. It laid the blame for male sexual transgression entirely upon women.

I didn't get that from his remarks. Men are responsible to control themselves in matters of sex. The crass police dog photo even includes that. Notice the dogs weren't going after the cat. Why not? They were exercising self-control, as they had been trained to do.

Most healthy males will have a substantial sex drive. Within Mormonism, the expression/release of that drive is tightly controlled, being solely in the wife's power to bring about. The man is expected to exercise self-control, and save himself only for his wife. Whether they have an easy time, or a really difficult time, is in part influenced by whether or not they are having a healthy amount and quality of sex with their wives. If they aren't, then then man is saving himself for what? If not his wife, because she's not interested anymore, then it becomes a very serious quality of life impairment for that man.

Should the wife care whether or not her willingness, or not, to have sex with her husband seriously impacts his quality of life? And let's be clear on one thing - what influences his quality of life will turn around and influence her quality of life too. Too many failed marriages because of sexual relationship problems attest to that.

Does any of what I say imply that a woman is solely responsible for a man's actions? NO. But to say that the wife's attitudes and actions play no role in his ongoing struggle to stay on the leash that Mormonism puts around his neck is just as egregiously ignorant as you say the bishop's comments were.

It was not an appropriate discussion of the importance of marital intimacy, a topic that needs to be handled with sensitivity. And finally, it endorsed the sick idea that men's sexual needs come before women's.

I 100% agree that the whole topic of sex in a marriage is thoroughly intertwined with marital intimacy, and I mean intimacy in the sense of more than just sex. There's a good chance if the wife is not interested in sex anymore that the husband simply isn't pushing her buttons anymore either. What can the man do to find out what would draw his wife back into a more intimate relationship where she wants to have sex with him more often? If the bishop doesn't think that's just as important as the talk he gave to the women, then I'd agree there's a big problem here. We don't really know what he thinks about it. We only get the PoV of this one sister who attended his "Women's Conference".

I don't think the bishop said that the man's sexual needs come before the woman's. If a man in the relationship has a strong sexual need, and his wife is simply uninterested anymore, even though the man is doing everything he can to improve the quality of the relationship and improve the wife's mood through actions, gestures, etc., then if the woman simply refuses to have sex with him anymore (in other words, acts according to her own impulse or need, or lack thereof), she is greatly contributing to the burden on the man. She is getting exactly what she wants, but he's not getting any of what he wants. How is that fair or acceptable? Is there no obligation within the marital relationship to be watchful and considerate of one's spouse, and do things for them sometimes because they need it, not just because it's convenient for us?

I can't even begin to count how many times I've done things my wife wanted to do that I was utterly uninterested in, because she was interested in it. And she's done many things for me even though it didn't interest her. It's called compromise, and consideration. Does this concept completely disappear in the sexual realm? If so, why?

I'll put this one more way, and I apologize if this is somewhat crass. Let's say a man wants to have sex four times a week, and his wife doesn't want sex more than, say, once a month. If they go with once a month, the wife is getting exactly what she wants, and bears no particular personal burden in this relationship. The man, on the other hand, is having sex far less often than he feels the drive to do, and may well face quite a substantial burden in terms of controlling his thoughts and temptations. If they compromise and have sex once a week, the man is getting much more than just once a month, which may help him out a lot, and the woman bears the onerous burden of three more lovemakes per month than she really wanted. Cry me a river. If they have decent sex that's enjoyable for both partners, it's hard to feel really awful about her situation.

Obviously that decision has to be reached by the two partners, and it has to be something to which they mutually agree. Ideally they'd want to find a compromise both could live with. If they don't, there are probably more underlying issues. What I've said is in no way condoning marital rape or anything like that.

By the way, I know that many women have strong sex drives, and some men do not. We're talking stereotypes here for a reason. Obviously, if the situation is reversed, all my arguments still apply, mutatis mutandis.

I agree that in the sexual culture of Mormonism, members, BOTH MALE AND FEMALE, are asked to adhere to guidelines for behavior that in themselves set up a lot of problems, but the way you spoke about this in your post, Seth, is light years away from the style in which this puffed-up, arrogant, self-proclaimed "expert" foisted absurd and damaging analogies and "information."

I do not agree with Mormonism's way of viewing sexuality, and all the BS that they stuff into the concept. The guy was playing with the deck he was given, which you and I might not regard as full. Given the context, I can see some weaknesses in what he said, but I don't think what he said was nearly as egregiously bad as you and the woman from the quoted article on FMH judge it to be.

spiderlady says:

Gosh. This is so incredibly damaging, on so many levels. “The spouse with the need Trump's the one who doesn’t?” What about mutual consideration, mutual loving? Ugh. This is just such awful sexist garbage. Makes me sick. Sorry I can’t give a more reasoned response, but this one just hits me in the gut.

I don't think he's 100% wrong in this. He probably should have worded this more carefully, but the concept is not as awful to me as it seems to be to you and spiderlady.

Given:
Peter Priesthood has a strong sex drive.
Molly Mormon, Peter's wife, has become uninterested in sex for whatever reason.

If they never have sex, the wife is getting exactly what she wants, while the man is bearing a substantial burden, given the requirements of thought control, the hormonal buildup, the sexual desire that he is having to live with but never act upon, etc.

If they have sex once in a while, the woman is having to do something she's not really interested in, because he is. The burden she bears is having to make love to her husband from time to time. If that's really a burden, then they have some serious damned problems and need to see some therapy.

If what I've said is reasonable, then it becomes a judgment of which side is more onerously burdened should their partner get their way.

by the way, in my arguments here I'm assuming that the man is doing everything in his power to make the relationship happy and fulfilling for his wife. If he's just a pig who treats her like crap and gives her no reason to feel attracted to him then all bets are off of course.

Sunshine says:

Not only that, but this leads heavy into spousal rape. I… have no words.

No it doesn't. Does the concept of some legitimate taxation "lead heavy" into 100% confiscation of one's wealth by the government? I would argue it does not.

Likewise, I think entering into the marital arrangement with a person carries a certain implication that one will be considerate of the other's needs, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and yes, physical.

I have to say reading about Bishop Sexpert made me white hot with rage.

I'm trying to understand your POV. Keep talking. I of course see things from a man's perspective, and you see it from a woman's. Though it's possible that never the twain shall meet, I would very much like to understand your position as well as I possibly can. I'm having a hard time comprehending the rage though. Though there are undoubtedly many things I hope this bishop would promote among the brethren of the ward in terms of how to make their wives happier and more fulfilled, and hence more attracted and "in the mood" to have sex with them, I think he said some things that, while undoubtedly awkward for the women to hear, and in church no less, probably are good for them to hear. Could he refine that message? Of course.

[_why me]

Cate at FMH posted this disturbing recounting of her bishops lecture.
So Mormon women have to be lectured at church on a Sunday morning about satisfying their husbands needs??? I really can't wrap my head around this. No one I know would find this appropriate discussion for a Sunday service, seriously this discussed on Sunday at church would truly shock everyone I know. The very idea of this lecture on a Sunday is disturbing and that is without getting into the horror in the details of the bishops crap.

What would a priest advise women who do not want to have sex with their husbands? Just curious.