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

[_zeezrom]

Here's what I don't get. Why didn't the bishop just tell his members to masturbate more? I mean, isn't that better than obligatory sex? If one party is not interested, then the other is using that person as a masturbation tool. In essence, the couple is engaging in masturbation - demoralizing obligation. Why not take one side of the equation out - the obligation part? I understand they sell tools at the store that can assist with masturbation. Maybe they can listen to some music and drink some wine to help?

Maybe bishops are still hung up about this whole masturbation thing?

[_Morley]

Here's what I don't get. Why didn't the bishop just tell his members to masturbate more? I mean, isn't that better than obligatory sex? If one party is not interested, then the other is using that person as a masturbation tool. In essence, the couple is engaging in masturbation - demoralizing obligation. Why not take one side of the equation out - the obligation part? I understand they sell tools at the store that can assist with masturbation. Maybe they can listen to some music and drink some wine to help?

Maybe bishops are still hung up about this whole masturbation thing?

Oh no. Masturbation is dirty and a grievous sin.

Well, unless you can manipulate someone else into doing it to you. Then it's okay. Holy, even...

[_Blixa]

Well, Bob covered most of this, but its the whole having someone else inside of your body that makes it a very intimate kind of abuse. And by inside, I mean physically and psychologically since head games are usually involved in guilt and manipulation. So by saying it "sucks" I was making a rhetorical understatement. It is a horrible and humiliating experience.

thanks for responding.

i think my problem is i'm looking at this too much through the lense of my own safe, comfortable, and familiar long term relationship in which it's hard to imagine feeling that much trauma, even if one of us were to slip up and be manipulative in one instance.

Yeah, its hard to really get at what would be a great discussion without feeling like one could open up more. I'm older and likely have had more sexual experience than some on this board, because it existed entirely outside of Mormonism. Still, I credit my upbringing in Utah with making me a great deal more shy and uncomfortable with things than I should have been. So my experiences are hardly reflective of the broader American culture either. I've had the Sex/Love thing and the Sex/Sex thing and both are fine as long as all partners are more or less equal in their expectations.

And those expectations, sometimes even when consciously egalitarian, are embedded in broader power relations that have a funny way of seeping back in. Plus, for me---maybe for many women---the realization that men are usually bigger and physically stronger is something that is always there too: if push comes to shove, I'm the one who's going to be getting pushed and shoved.

[_just me]

Here's what I don't get. Why didn't the bishop just tell his members to masturbate more? I mean, isn't that better than obligatory sex? If one party is not interested, then the other is using that person as a masturbation tool. In essence, the couple is engaging in masturbation - demoralizing obligation. Why not take one side of the equation out - the obligation part? I understand they sell tools at the store that can assist with masturbation. Maybe they can listen to some music and drink some wine to help?

Maybe bishops are still hung up about this whole masturbation thing?

Oh no. Masturbation is dirty and a grievous sin.

Well, unless you can manipulate someone else into doing it to you. Then it's okay. Holy, even...

Oh Em Gee! This is the truth as taught by the church!!!

[_cafe crema]

and yes, sometimes it is nothing more than an inch that needs scratching. so what?

My bold.


So sad.

Yep sad that your spouse is just a tool to scratch your itch.

[_palerobber]

Here's what I don't get. Why didn't the bishop just tell his members to masturbate more? I mean, isn't that better than obligatory sex? If one party is not interested, then the other is using that person as a masturbation tool.

great point.

[_Spanner]

Here's what I don't get. Why didn't the bishop just tell his members to masturbate more? I mean, isn't that better than obligatory sex? If one party is not interested, then the other is using that person as a masturbation tool.

great point.

Agreed. That is the legacy of the church anti-masturbation policy. It cannot but contribute to the objectification of women.

[Guest]

[...] I've had the Sex/Love thing and the Sex/Sex thing and both are fine as long as all partners are more or less equal in their expectations.

And those expectations, sometimes even when consciously egalitarian, are embedded in broader power relations that have a funny way of seeping back in. Plus, for me---maybe for many women---the realization that men are usually bigger and physically stronger is something that is always there too: if push comes to shove, I'm the one who's going to be getting pushed and shoved.

i think what you're saying here is true. i always like to think that my spouse and i can inhabit a world apart, where the normal rules and modes and anxieties don't necessarily apply because we're both so enlightened. but it's probably naïve to think that i'm entirely unaffected, even if only subconsciously, by the "man's world" that we live in.

[_palerobber]

Yep sad that your spouse is just a tool to scratch your itch.

wow, what an ugly thing to say.

look, i'm sorry if you can't find an actual misogynist on this thread to kick against, but that doesn't excuse you trying to grossly distort what i wrote to better suit your righteous indignation.

[_Dr. Shades]

I can't say more about my own experiences because I'm already alarmed by the fact that someone thinks we're all in agreement that it was the bishop's delivery and not his content "per se" that we disagree about. Ye gods.

I'd like to say more about my experiences too, but I'm unable to do so because I'm alarmed by the fact that someone gets white-hot angry over the lack of qualifications of the messenger, of all things, and not the factual accuracy (or lack thereof) of the message itself. Ye gods indeed!