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

[_why me]

I am startled at how many think this is an appropriate subject for a man to lecture the women of the congregation on Sunday morning at church.

Well, you do have a point. Of course, this would make it all rather suspicious. Did the talk actually happen and if it did, did it occur as the woman stated. My guess: no.

[_why me]

I am startled at how many think this is an appropriate subject for a man to lecture the women of the congregation on Sunday morning at church.

Without their husbands being present.

Which may make it unlikely that it occurred the way the woman claimed, if you think about it a little.

[_Drifting]

I am startled at how many think this is an appropriate subject for a man to lecture the women of the congregation on Sunday morning at church.

Well, you do have a point. Of course, this would make it all rather suspicious. Did the talk actually happen and if it did, did it occur as the woman stated. My guess: no.

I thought you valued the testimony of witnesses....?

[_Drifting]

Without their husbands being present.

Which may make it unlikely that it occurred the way the woman claimed, if you think about it a little.

Except that the Church has a track record of inappropriate conversations and going behind husbands backs that can be traced all the way back to Joseph...

[_cafe crema]

I am startled at how many think this is an appropriate subject for a man to lecture the women of the congregation on Sunday morning at church.

Well, you do have a point. Of course, this would make it all rather suspicious. Did the talk actually happen and if it did, did it occur as the woman stated. My guess: no.

I thought you valued the testimony of witnesses....?

Cate has remained steadfast in her testimony, that's powerful witness to the truth of her testimony.

[_Blixa]

Sure, the bishop could've been more sensitive and/or politically correct, but I really don't see how or why his presentation inspires such white hot rage among his female hearers/readers. Let's face it: Aside from the "the partner with the need Trump's the partner without the need" part, what did he say that was incorrect?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

No kidding, lulu.

Back to Sethbag:

I agree, generally, but there's more to this than it seems. I've heard from, uh, a friend, that sometimes his wife isn't interested in sex, but will sometimes "give in" and have it anyway, and she never, ever regrets it. That adds a different dimension to what Jhall said.

1) Having sex when you don't want to, or have been manipulated or guilted into it, sucks. No matter what "your friend" has been told by his wife. Perhaps there is an individual dynamic that explains "your friend's" experience, but that doesn't change the larger social scenario where women end up uncomfortably giving in/being coerced more than men and for reasons of cultural power and not biology (I really think the issues at play here are cultural ones and not biological ones). I could have a lot more to say about this, but this board being what it is, I've never been comfortable talking about sex here because of a general sophomoric atmosphere about the subject (I don't mean you, sethbag, by the way). The bishop's unbelievably unsound advice just strengthens this already problematic unbalance. That he is oblivious to this, is part of what makes me angry.

2) The other thing that really makes me angry is the fathead bishop's assumption that he is some kind of expert and is in a position to give a damned power point (of all things!) lecture on it. It is this presumption and arrogance that pisses me off. Unfortunately, I think this is a problem with the entire "lay clergy" structure in the LDS church, where men with no expertise are called to positions for no good reason and then whatever personal clap trap comes out of their mouths is taken as stamped by god by the membership.

I have to echo madeleine here too:

Communication between the couple is what is needed. Not a male authority presuming to lecture women on their bedroom "duties". I can't imagine what he was was thinking. All those women made to feel they are sexually inadequate and need to "step it up". There's a whole bunch of WTF going on there.

[_Cicero]

The other thing that really makes me angry is the fathead bishop's assumption that he is some kind of expert and is in a position to give a f*****g power point (of all things!) lecture on it.

I'm not meaning to trivialize this very important subject, but what I've been thinking since I first read this thread is that there is something sick and wrong (and very Mormon) about a Powerpoint slide deck on sexual disfunction within a marriage. It's a vastly complex issue that will vary greatly from couple to couple. It's just not reducible to bullet points. It reminds me of the sinking feeling I always had as a missionary when I would see how stats-focused the Church is . . . it just didn't seem right to me to see items of eternal significance like convert baptisms reduced to statistics, pie charts and graphs.

[_Blixa]

The other thing that really makes me angry is the fathead bishop's assumption that he is some kind of expert and is in a position to give a f*****g power point (of all things!) lecture on it.

I'm not meaning to trivialize this very important subject, but what I've been thinking since I first read this thread is that there is something sick and wrong (and very Mormon) about a Powerpoint slide deck on sexual disfunction within a marriage. It's a vastly complex issue that will vary greatly from couple to couple. It's just not reducible to bullet points. It reminds me of the sinking feeling I always had as a missionary when I would see how stats-focused the Church is . . . it just didn't seem right to me to see items of eternal significance like convert baptisms reduced to statistics, pie charts and graphs.

Exactly! The power point pushed me over the top!

[_Sethbag]

I do agree, by the way, that the bishop giving a powerpoint slide presentation on sex in church is pretty laughworthy, or cringeworthy, whichever you like. I couldn't agree more with that point.

1) Having sex when you don't want to, or have been manipulated or guilted into it, sucks. No matter what "your friend" has been told by his wife. Perhaps there is an individual dynamic that explains "your friend's" experience, but that doesn't change the larger social scenario where women end up uncomfortably giving in/being coerced more than men and for reasons of cultural power and not biology (I really think the issues at play here are cultural ones and not biological ones).

I guess I needed to say a little more. I'm not talking about a woman still not wanting to have sex during the act. Take a woman who wasn't "in the mood" enough that she would have initiated. So the man initiates. I guess whether "initiating" amounts to manipulation or guilting depends on the couple, and the point of view, but I cannot accept that the man having to initiate most of the time amounts to guilting or manipulation. It could, if the guy really is guilting or manipulating, or it could not.

Once the man has initiated, the woman faces a choice. She either 1) accepts the overture and decides to go along and develops an enthusiasm that she lacked prior to the initiation and has a great and loving experience as the mood develops and hormones start flowing and whatnot. Or 2) she accepts and goes along with it grudgingly and "thinks of old England" during the act. Or 3) she rejects the overture and it doesn't happen.

What I'm saying is that 1) is possible, and that is what I am advocating for woman who aren't really interested in sex with their husbands but are interested in their husbands enough to want to do things to strengthen the relationship and not further weaken it. I think 1) occurs as the result of a choice the woman makes. I think 2) occurs when the woman won't make that same choice, but nevertheless goes along with at least the physical act, and I think this option truly is the crappy one which won't really help the relationship long-term. If that is the option you and others were thinking of with the idea of woman going along with the man's wishes because his need is a lot stronger than hers, then I would agree that this sucks. I just don't think that's the only option, and certainly not the best one.

I could have a lot more to say about this, but this board being what it is, I've never been comfortable talking about sex here because of a general sophomoric atmosphere about the subject (I don't mean you, sethbag, by the way). The bishop's unbelievably unsound advice just strengthens this already problematic unbalance. That he is oblivious to this, is part of what makes me angry.

I agree that any sex-related talk on this board usually devolves rather quickly into the sophomoric. I am starting to understand better what made you angry about the Bishop's talk. It seems you are mad because the bishop seems overconfident in his judgments and overconfident in his delivery, and his definciency of insight into the topic plus his hamhanded delivery offend your sensibilities. Is this a reasonable read on my part?

[_just me]

What the bishop did was spiritually and emotionally abusive.