Christmas Housecleaning at MADB

[_Yoda]

But are non-TBM posters here prepared to boycott MADB? (Those who are still allowed to post, that is.) If what John said is true, they need antis & exmos more than antis & exmos need them (hmmmm, must there be opposition in all things?).

I don't know. If we boycotted this board would the same thing happen?

The difference is that this MB does not have biased moderating.

Yeah, but would this board turn into RFM if the believers left? I'm not sure.

I don't think it would turn into RfM. The majority of critics here do not seem to be as embittered as the majority of critics on RfM. Plus, RfM has a different purpose.

I think that a lack of believers on this board would definitely make the discussion less interesting. But, as Shades pointed out, this board will be what the posters want it to be. The posters shape the board.

[_beastie]

Moniker,

I agree with everything you said. I also believe most, although not all, LDS men would be only too happy to take their wife's direction on learning how to better please her in bed. Some LDS men have other issues that prevent that, of course, but I do believe MOST would like more, and better sex, and aren't so stupid as to not realize that their wife's pleasure has quite a bit to do with that.

But women who have been taught to suppress their sexual drive and to not touch their own bodies all of their lives are going to have problems connecting with that sexual drive just because a ring is suddenly on their finger, and are going to have a hard time figuring out HOW to help her husband help HER more in bed, either. She probably doesn't know.

[_Coggins7]

Oh, and not for any sort of *odd* reason... I'm just interested in how the indoctrination of shame impacts people later on in life. Anywhoha. I think it would be interesting if it could be done in a gentle way, without being hurtful, or harmful to anyone. okey dokey

First, my disclaimer. I didn't grow up LDS so my experience is a bit different. Plus, in my own informal conversations with other sisters as believers, it seems to me that many LDS women are just not that interested in sex in the first place, and view it as a chore or obligation, so are only too happy when their husbands lose interest. Most of the complaints I heard were about husbands who wanted sex too much and bugged their wives, rather than poor performance in bed.

That's sort of the impression I'm getting as well...

Having said that, I think LDS men are handicapped by lack of experience. Unless a man is lucky enough to match up with a woman who knows her body extremely well (another handicap for LDS women) and is secure enough to share that with her man, often neither really have a clue how to make things work better. OTOH, men who have had more than one partner have the advantage of being able to accumulate information garnered from different partners to help provide a pool of possibilities for experimentation to figure out what works best. (of course the same is true for women, as well, but the topic was male LDS performance in bed)

Well, if you have one partner that is not willing to experiment then all is not well. If you have a woman that shames a man for his sex drive, that's not well either -- you have the Church telling men that their natural impulses should be controlled in an EXTREME fashion and then if they marry and their wives are not gungho I could see how that could just impact the problem. Of course if the woman is told she shouldn't be sexual as well, no sexual thoughts, etc... that could certainly spell disaster for any sort of acquainting one another with themselves and their partner. It's very sad, actually. :(

I don't think lack of experience is NECESSARILY an indicator of anything -- I think the lack of experience could create hesitancy though... and that's not really good either. Although if a male is partnered with a female willing to experiment I would think that he wouldn't be necessarily against doing so -- unless I'm just totally out of the loop of the normal LDS, ex-LDS mind set. Although, I must say I think I'm getting well versed in the ex-LDS male sex drive and their frustration with their wives.............. ......... .......... for some reason or another. *insert confused smilie here*

Don't even get me started on this clap trap. This kind of thing is soooooo easy to dismantle, and intellectually stimulating as well, once one gets into it, but its also dispiriting. The idea that adult human beings in a serious committed relationship may have sexual problems because of a lack of prior experience is an old social liberal trope left over from the sixties; something Hugh Hefner and his ilk thought up to justify their new philosophy (the "Playboy Philosophy") of pansexual hedonism.

After a lifetime in the Church, I'm aware of no such sexual disinterest, generally, among the LDS married population. As the Church teaches that sexual expression is an emotional and romantic bonding agent between a man and woman, I see no reason to think that most married LDS would "lose interest" in it. I would imagine that sexual problems are perhaps as common among modern LDS as among the general population, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that among the more spiritually mature in the Church, they are, as with most other social pathologies, in a greater degree of abeyance than in the general population.

Sexual problems in a marriage can arises for any number of reasons, but lack of prior, premarital technical experience isn't one of them, at least, not in and of itself.

Our society's obsession with sexual performance and technique, above and beyond it's relevance as an expression of mature, committed love in a relationship that is larger than just the two individuals, is here on display in the reptile house of post sixties and seventies Oprahculture.

[_Dr. Shades]

Their wives tell them.

ROTFL!

Like that's going to happen!

If they won't even tell their husbands what they want, then they have no one to blame but themselves for their husbands' lackluster performance in that department.

[_harmony]

Don't even get me started on this clap trap. This kind of thing is soooooo easy to dismantle, and intellectually stimulating as well, once one gets into it, but its also dispiriting. The idea that adult human beings in a serious committed relationship may have sexual problems because of a lack of prior experience is an old social liberal trope left over from the sixties; something Hugh Hefner and his ilk thought up to justify their new philosophy (the "Playboy Philosophy") of pansexual hedonism.

After a lifetime in the Church, I'm aware of no such sexual disinterest, generally, among the LDS married population. As the Church teaches that sexual expression is an emotional and romantic bonding agent between a man and woman, I see no reason to think that most married LDS would "lose interest" in it. I would imagine that sexual problems are perhaps as common among modern LDS as among the general population, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that among the more spiritually mature in the Church, they are, as with most other social pathologies, in a greater degree of abeyance than in the general population.

Sexual problems in a marriage can arises for any number of reasons, but lack of prior, premarital technical experience isn't one of them, at least, not in and of itself.

Our society's obsession with sexual performance and technique, above and beyond it's relevance as an expression of mature, committed love in a relationship that is larger than just the two individuals, is here on display in the reptile house of post sixties and seventies Oprahculture.

Your lifetime in the church means nothing, in regards to this issue, Loran. You're a man. No woman is going to open up to you about the sexual shortcomings of her husband.

Now, once you've had the sex change operation, removed your male appendage, taken the hormones, and had your beard lasered off, so you can fit in in Relief Society, you can open up this particular subject and see where the conversation takes you.

Until then... sit down and learn. Or not. Somehow I doubt your wife would give you a straight answer either.

[_Coggins7]

But women who have been taught to suppress their sexual drive and to not touch their own bodies all of their lives are going to have problems connecting with that sexual drive just because a ring is suddenly on their finger, and are going to have a hard time figuring out HOW to help her husband help HER more in bed, either.

Does this kind of pseudo sociological navel gazing really add anything to such a debate? Hefner and his editors have been writing this kind of facile, empirically baseless stuff for decades in their magazine, all to demonstrate that unless one masturbates routinely from childhood into adulthood, and has a solid backlog of premarital sexual encounters under his or her belt, it for some reason follows that in some manner, married sexuality will suffer.

Lost in all of this hoary sexual revolution rhetoric is, of course, the fact that for many, sex isn't just about performance; its about expression; expression of feelings and emotions deeper and more permanent that the sexual behavior itself. Strange how social liberals prate on and on about how sex is natural, and in the same breath lament premarital chastity because it simply puts off sexual experience until, usually, adulthood sets in (a major argument in favor of premarital chastity, as most teenagers have no business having sex for the simply reason that they have no capability to make good on the emotional, psychological, and social bonds and commitments implicated by such physical intimacy. Casual sex, or sex without the promise of commitment and long term sexual solidarity are rather like dark clouds that promise rain but never actually do. Sex implies commitment; it implies a unity and bonding of two individuals even when none is intended).

If sex is so "natural", then it certainly must be the case that holding forth until one is more intellectually, psychologically, and emotionally mature, will not, in any necessary way, retard its expression when the time comes. Trust me, its rather easy to learn once you get into it. Its...uh...natural.

[_Coggins7]

Your lifetime in the church means nothing, in regards to this issue, Loran. You're a man. No woman is going to open up to you about the sexual shortcomings of her husband.

Here we have a mind (a small one, to be sure), formed, flaked, molded, and finally, dismembered by pop ideologies and inner demons that give such an one as this little rest.

I won't even go into the sheer intellectual vacuity, not to mention the shallow, self important presumptiveness, of Harmony's attempt at a Catharine MacKinnon imitation.

There's a world out there beyond the tiny cubicle of your own dimly lit heart and mind Harmony. Go for it!

Oh, and for the road, at least I, unlike you, actually have a lifetime in the Church.

Keep up the pose.

[_harmony]

Your lifetime in the church means nothing, in regards to this issue, Loran. You're a man. No woman is going to open up to you about the sexual shortcomings of her husband.

Here we have a mind (a small one, to be sure), formed, flaked, molded, and finally, dismembered by pop ideologies and inner demons that give such an one as this little rest.

I won't even go into the sheer intellectual vacuity, not to mention the shallow, self important presumptiveness, of Harmony's attempt at a Catharine MacKinnon imitation.

There's a world out there beyond the tiny cubicle of your own dimly lit heart and mind Harmony. Go for it!

Oh, and for the road, at least I, unlike you, actually have a lifetime in the Church.

Keep up the pose.

A lifetime in the church won't help you in this discussion, Loran. You don't have a lifetime in the church (or anywhere else) as a woman.

Come back when you can add something to the discussion. Until then, take notes, learn, and get a clue.

[_Moniker]

Don't even get me started on this clap trap.

Okay.

Woops looks like you already did! :O

This kind of thing is soooooo easy to dismantle, and intellectually stimulating as well, once one gets into it, but its also dispiriting. The idea that adult human beings in a serious committed relationship may have sexual problems because of a lack of prior experience is an old social liberal trope left over from the sixties; something Hugh Hefner and his ilk thought up to justify their new philosophy (the "Playboy Philosophy") of pansexual hedonism.

r

I think beastie and I both were in agreement that lack of prior experience is not necessarily an indicator of anything. When you mix in lack of experience with lack of masturbation, shame of ones sexual drive, shame of sexual thoughts, shame of exploring their own body, and have a partner that is the same boat as you -- THEN there are going to be problems.

After a lifetime in the Church, I'm aware of no such sexual disinterest, generally, among the LDS married population.

Perhaps, Coggins, you're not the man they come to? ;) Gotta say, I've been informed of quite a bit of sexual dysfunction from men and women -- and have observed it as well.

As the Church teaches that sexual expression is an emotional and romantic bonding agent between a man and woman, I see no reason to think that most married LDS would "lose interest" in it. I would imagine that sexual problems are perhaps as common among modern LDS as among the general population, though I wouldn't be surprised to find out that among the more spiritually mature in the Church, they are, as with most other social pathologies, in a greater degree of abeyance than in the general population.

You have GOT to be kidding. Do you think most people confess masturbating or french kissing to an old dude in their Church? GET WITH IT COGGINS! Sexual expression is taught in the form of shame as well -- not just as a romantic bond between women and men. Are women and men allowed to explore their bodies in private before sharing with each other? HOW in the world would a man know how to please a woman if the woman does not even know what she likes, what feels good, what is stimulating to her? Seriously-- how Coggins? If a woman knows NOT the sexual gratification that can come from sexual interludes what is in it for her? This is just a set up for disaster. You have a man, most likely that would be eager and willing to help his partner enjoy sex... you have a woman that doesn't even recognize how pleasurable sex can be -- the intimacy and erotic nature of it -- and then you throw into the mix that thinking about it and figuring out what feels good on oneself is not only discouraged but a SIN then that's a big ole bugaboo in the bedroom.

Sexual problems in a marriage can arises for any number of reasons, but lack of prior, premarital technical experience isn't one of them, at least, not in and of itself.

Agreed! It's all the other crap the LDS Church teaches that causes the problems!

Our society's obsession with sexual performance and technique, above and beyond it's relevance as an expression of mature, committed love in a relationship that is larger than just the two individuals, is here on display in the reptile house of post sixties and seventies Oprahculture.

Oh sheesh. Yanno what Coggins? Bad sex/no sex == crappy marriage. And that's just the truth of it. Go stick your head back in the sand.

[_karl61]

For Coggins7: