Lucretia MacEvil wrote: 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 knew psychology, Lucretia, you would know that asking how things are done is vital to knowing what kind of information you have. To ask such question is not to discredit. No scholar objects to those questions. In fact, he/she wold be delighted to tell you all about how he/she conducted such a study.
She cannot make even a tiny case ofr "Mormon men aren't good lovers" until we know what she is basing her statement on.
If you say this was just a converation starter, she could have as easily asked the question, instead of making a statement.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
liz3564 wrote: Then, when you're married, you're supposed to "flip a switch", and anything goes.
Uh... no. "Anything" does not go. Sex is only acceptable if it's acceptable to the 15 old men in SLC. So... take out oral. Take out doing it while watching R rated movies. Take out sexual talk. Heck, take out skinny dipping in your own hot tub in the back yard. No wonder there's no spontenaity. And no wonder those women were so resigned to enduring to the end.
Marriage should not have to be something that is only endured!
And I think you're onto something, with the whole "don't explore your bodies" thing.
Maybe you should talk to LDS men about how often their wives are uninterested, not adventuresome, too tired, unwilling to wear something sexy, think too many things are deviant, think sex is mostly just to make babies and so on......this is not just and LDS man problem dear ladies.
Jason, I think I've stated repeatedly that if there's a problem in the bedroom it's up to the woman to control the dynamics. Really, if a man wants nookie (let's assume he desires his wife) he'll do whatever the hell she wants. Right?
In society in general, the cliché is that women have lower sex drives than men. I'm not entirely convinced this is true, but maybe it is. I used to think that women who didn't want sex just didn't know how to do it "right" (by "right" I mean accessing the amazing female capacity for mind-blowing orgasms, multiple orgasms, and lengthy orgasms).
Dare I comment? I think it amazing that it often seems that men are more interested in sex than women especially given the fact that women seem much more biologically capable of mush more intense, long and multiple orgasms then men. I have commented to my wife multiple times :-) after a wonderful lovemaking session where I have been part of giving her intensely long and many orgasms how jealous I am that I end up with only one out of the deal that while the build up is certainly wonderful it does not last all the long at climax. Course if I could do that I would probably want to have sex all nigh every night. Generally sex can and should be much better for women, if they have a talented lover to help them on the way.
Moniker wrote:Jason, I think I've stated repeatedly that if there's a problem in the bedroom it's up to the woman to control the dynamics. Really, if a man wants nookie (let's assume he desires his wife) he'll do whatever the hell she wants. Right?
Well I hate to admit we are such simple minded creature, but YES, you are right.
harmony wrote: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.
Hey Charity; read this story that I'm cutting & pasting ;.
Here is what happened: I was 18 years old and just completed my first year at BYU. It was time for me to be ordained an Elder. I was home for the summer (BYU semester ended late April). I was in the Seattle East Stake
In our stake, there was some kind of stir, some talk going around. I was young and naïve, but learned it had to do with whether oral sex was OK among married couples. Apparently the question was raised in prior weeks/months, and bishops and the Stake Pres were attempting to give counsel. The Regional rep of the 12 got wind of this, and guess what? They immediately scheduled Mark E. Peterson to address our Stake at the next Stake conference!
It was Sunday, May 25th, 1975. They quietly scheduled a meeting for all ADULTS, to be held 3 hours prior to regular Stake conference. I showed up early, and it was amazing, the parking lot was totally full at 6:30am, with cars parked clear down the street. The chapel was packed to overflowing.
During this "meeting", actually a dictator-style lecture by Elder Peterson, it was said very sternly that oral sex is an abomination, and had no place in marital relations. wow, you could have heard a pin drop. Peterson wielded a mighty, authoritative presence. And he was a bit cranky. He seemed displeased that this was even an isssue!
He also spoke during our regular conference meeting. A long, boring tirade. He somewhat carried this "purity in marriage" theme over. I clearly remember him saying "you know, I've been married to my wife for 44 years, and never once have seen her body uncovered". Again there was silence. What a joke; implicit in his remarks was the idea that sex is ONLY for procreation, and the visual enjoyment of bodies is dirty, not beautiful.
Putting this in context, can you imagine the power & influence of a bigshot apostle coming from SLC, enjoying the unquestioned favor of 2500 people? And all this in the name of God? Can you say, "brainwashed, cult"? He put that sexual issue to bed, for years to come!
By the way, I had requested in advance through my Stake President that apostle Peterson personally ordain me an Elder, while he was in town that Sunday. At the last minute, I was handed a note "request denied, Elder Peterson much too busy"...... I remember being hurt and disapointed.
That wasn't really worth one post, much less two. :)
What is your point with that? I suppose it is that we take what an apostle says every time he speaks to be revelation? And that makes us a "brainwashed" cult.
What those stake members were supposed to do, have been instructed to do, is to seek for their own confirmation of that. That is the procedure.
You don't understand what "brainwashed" was supposed to mean, even when it was considered a legitimate term. Which it is not now.
Moniker wrote:Jason, I think I've stated repeatedly that if there's a problem in the bedroom it's up to the woman to control the dynamics. Really, if a man wants nookie (let's assume he desires his wife) he'll do whatever the hell she wants. Right?
Well I hate to admit we are such simple minded creature, but YES, you are right.
See... I've said it alllll along sex = simple
:)
~~edited to add~~
Unless the woman is in the bedroom with a manipulative, controlling jerk, then the above scenario does not apply.
Dare I comment? I think it amazing that it often seems that men are more interested in sex than women especially given the fact that women seem much more biologically capable of mush more intense, long and multiple orgasms then men. I have commented to my wife multiple times :-) after a wonderful lovemaking session where I have been part of giving her intensely long and many orgasms how jealous I am that I end up with only one out of the deal that while the build up is certainly wonderful it does not last all the long at climax. Course if I could do that I would probably want to have sex all nigh every night. Generally sex can and should be much better for women, if they have a talented lover to help them on the way.
I guess it has to do with quantity versus quality. Some men can "reperform" after the first climax, but if a second climax occurs, it tends to be fairly weak. I think we all understand the physiology of how and why this is so with men. But I wonder if there's something similar in women, too - obviously not in terms of specific orgasms, but perhaps in terms of sexual tension that builds up over time. I have noticed that when my boyfriend and I, for whatever reason, go longer between lovemaking than normal, the next episode tends to be quite explosive on both of our parts.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.