Mormon sexuality part two

[_just me]

Make sure she understands that sex is currency. It'll make her hot between the legs.

Or it'll make her want to kick someone between the legs.

Okay, I may have been sarcastic with that comment. (LOL) Yeah, women don't generally want to be treated like prostitutes or sex slaves, but that is just my very not humble opinion.

Actually, I need to go scream and tear my hair out. brb

[_Bob Loblaw]

yes. Make sure she understands that sex is currency. It'll make her hot between the legs.

If you're having to bargain or threaten to get sex, you have bigger problems than just mismatched desire.

[_just me]

yes. Make sure she understands that sex is currency. It'll make her hot between the legs.

If you're having to bargain or threaten to get sex, you have bigger problems than just mismatched desire.

Bargaining, threatening and begging for sex already means that you are only getting pity sex or duty sex.

And yes...that is a big problem that "punishment" is not gonna fix.

Unless that's both partners kink, maybe.

[_Themis]

yes. Make sure she understands that sex is currency. It'll make her hot between the legs.

If you're having to bargain or threaten to get sex, you have bigger problems than just mismatched desire.

Yup. Reality is that no two people are going to have exactly the same things that will make then happier in a marriage. What will help make a happier marriage is two people who are interested in knowing and wanting to provide for the other things that they know makes them happy.

It also might help if you and your spouse just happen to be sex addicts.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Yup. Reality is that no two people are going to have exactly the same things that will make then happier in a marriage. What will help make a happier marriage is two people who are interested in knowing and wanting to provide for the other things that they know makes them happy.

It also might help if you and your spouse just happen to be sex addicts.

Science seems to agree with you: http://www.salon.com/2012/09/12/science ... _is_right/

[Guest]

Okay, I may have been sarcastic with that comment. (LOL) Yeah, women don't generally want to be treated like prostitutes or sex slaves, but that is just my very not humble opinion.

Actually, I need to go scream and tear my hair out. brb

Of course not, and men generally do not want a prostitute/sex-slave wife. They want a willing partner, especially given that a marriage prohibits a person from seeking sex from another partner. What the hell is the point of being under all the social constraints that a marriage demands when you get the same benefits of a what any random roommate might offer? (a bit of hyperbole, but go with me on this one)

Does the man like the beast of burden role, stressing, working hard year after year, working long hours to provide the materialistic excess that many spouses demands / expects in so many subtle undertones?

How long does a marriage last when the man fails to provide a living wage for the family? How long does the female spouse suffer such an indignity? One year? Two, or three years? You haven't met any women who have left their non-performing male spouse for a higher income version? I have, and not a few.

It is the social contract of marriage. That doesn't mean that the man has license to wear stained sleeveless under-tees or to grow a big beer gut, or, to expect a porn star performance three or four times a week (one could hope at least).

Hey, I get it. The woman doesn't want to be a prostitute / sex slave. No problem. However, it HAS to go both ways. The man doesn't want to be a financial beast of burden either. So, if the woman thinks that sex is not that important, then they should not expect the benefits that the men provide (financial comfort and security) should be part of the equation either if the man decides it unimportant.

Who cares if a man can't or won't work to pay the bills?

It is about love, right?

[_Drifting]

I"m glad someone else thought my little play on words was funny. This is what President P had to say about bishops and counseling in the January 2010 Ensign:

We seem to be developing an epidemic of “counselitis” which drains spiritual strength from the Church much like the common cold drains more strength out of humanity than any other disease. …

Speaking figuratively, many a bishop keeps on the corner of his desk a large stack of order forms for emotional relief.

When someone comes with a problem, the bishop, unfortunately, without a question, passes them out, without stopping to think what he is doing to his people. …If my boy needs counseling, bishop, it should be my responsibility first, and yours second.

If my boy needs recreation, bishop, I should provide it first, and you second.

If my boy needs correction, that should be my responsibility first, and yours second.

If I am failing as a father, help me first, and my children second.

Do not be too quick to take over from me the job of raising my children.

Do not be too quick to counsel them and solve all of the problems. Get me involved. It is my ministry.

We live in a day when the adversary stresses on every hand the philosophy of instant gratification. We seem to demand instant everything, including instant solutions to our problems. …

It was meant to be that life would be a challenge. To suffer some anxiety, some depression, some disappointment, even some failure is normal.

Teach our members that if they have a good, miserable day once in a while, or several in a row, to stand steady and face them. Things will straighten out.

There is great purpose in our struggle in life.

Spiritual independence and self-reliance is a sustaining power in the Church. If we rob the members of that, how can they get revelation for themselves? How will they know there is a prophet of God? How can they get answers to prayers? How can they know for sure for themselves?

In other words, don't bother the bishop, and absolutely never contact the GAs, who are much too busy to care about individual members.

Didn't Packer also counsel young men against 'Bashing the Bishop'?
In which case he's not exactly practicing what he preaches....

[_just me]

Okay, I may have been sarcastic with that comment. (LOL) Yeah, women don't generally want to be treated like prostitutes or sex slaves, but that is just my very not humble opinion.

Actually, I need to go scream and tear my hair out. brb

Of course not, and men generally do not want a prostitute/sex-slave wife. They want a willing partner, especially given that a marriage prohibits a person from seeking sex from another partner. What the hell is the point of being under all the social constraints that a marriage demands when you get the same benefits of a what any random roommate might offer? (a bit of hyperbole, but go with me on this one)

Does the man like the beast of burden role, stressing, working hard year after year, working long hours to provide the materialistic excess that many spouses demands / expects in so many subtle undertones?

How long does a marriage last when the man fails to provide a living wage for the family? How long does the female spouse suffer such an indignity? One year? Two, three? You haven't met any women who have left their non-performing male spouse for a higher income version? I have, and not a few.

It is the social contract of marriage. That doesn't mean that the man has license to wear stained sleeveless under-tees or to grow a big beer gut, or, to expect a porn star performance three or four times a week (one could hope at least).

Hey, I get it. The woman doesn't want to be a prostitute / sex slave. No problem. However, it HAS to go both ways. The man doesn't want to be a financial beast of burden either. So, if the woman thinks that sex is not that important, then they should not expect that the benefits that the men provide (financial comfort and security) should be part of the equation either. It is about love right?

I'm taking deep breathes here. What of all the work the woman does??? Or does that not count, somehow?

My god.

[Guest]

I'm taking deep breathes here. What of all the work the woman does??? Or does that not count, somehow?

My god.

Ok, this is a lighthearted tirade, so please take it with a bit of humor. My comments were specifically directed to that LDS mindset as anecdotally relayed on the website linked in the OP. Just a way to vent some male testosterone frustration tongue in cheek.

Marriage is a grueling slog sometimes, no doubt about it. Your "normal" married guy gets it, just as your "normal" married gal does (that sex is important, but that it may not occur as often as the male... or woman would like).

It is this mindset that one enters a marriage with all the responsibilities, stresses and commitments, but that a fundamental aspect of what constitutes a marriage "shouldn't" be important for the other spouse. In this case, sex.

If one spouse demands that some part of marriage "shouldn't" be important, then I am advocating that men should impose to the female what "shouldn't" be important from their perspective. Money, security, food on the table, why should that affect the love that a marriage is supposed to be?

Sex may be less frequent, but G**damnit, it is important to most men, and G**damnit, don't tell a man that it "shouldn't" be important. See my big smilee?

Thanks MDB readers for allowing me to express my porno expectations of marriage.

[_Drifting]

I'm taking deep breathes here. What of all the work the woman does??? Or does that not count, somehow?

My god.

Please don't worry you pretty little head over man stuff. Just lie back and think of Engand... [/sarcastic humorous (hopefully) patronization]