Law of Chastity and self-control in marriage

[Bad Karma]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Waiting 6 weeks is perfectly normal, we had to do iit after each of our 6 kids were born.  Mind you, being there seeing her give birth made the first 4 weeks kind of easy.  Still there are other things a couple can do to be intimate during that time.  I have no respect for somebody who would bail on a marriage for such selfish reasons.

Nor should you. 

[eddified]

On 10/14/2015 at 0:12 PM, Eowyn said:

 

I just can't decide whether society is overrating or undervaluing sex. 

Both. Society is cheapening and debasing sex. They are overvaluing sexual pleasure in general, and undervaluing the closeness and love that proper sexual expression provides.

[MrShorty]

Interestingly, through a few other coincidences, this idea of the "value of sex" has been crossing my mind -- may I kind of play devil's advocate on this claim. I will admit ahead of time that this is a little scattered, with different ideas going different directions.

We say that "society" (whoever that is) cheapens and debases sex, implying that we as a church body place a proper value on sexual expression. Are we certain this is true?

Looking back on my own experience and education, I am fairly confident that I did not learn the true value of sex from the church. I learned it from secular/non-LDS authors like Dr. Harley (who is a Christian but does not make his arguments from his Christianity) and Michelle Weiner-Davis and David Schnarch. I came across (non-authoritative) LDS sources (like Laura Brotherson) afterwards.

After years in a sexless marriage, I find myself often thinking that perhaps sex is too valuable. Maybe valuable is not the right word, maybe expensive is a better word (though it puts value into more of an economic sense). I find myself not wanting to "pay the price" anymore to initiate sexual activity. It just doesn't seem to be worth the effort.

If sex is so valuable, why is it so difficult to find authoritative LDS sources who condemn sexually inactive marriages? Even 1 Cor. 7:3-5, which is such a common part of discussion on this topic in non-LDS circles, seems to get very little traction in LDS circles.

After years in a sexless marriage, I find myself sometimes wishing that sex had less value. "You wanna?" "Nothing better to do, sure!" I am reminded of a discussion on another forum in response to a non-LDS marriage blogger's claim that " God is not upset when married couples use sex as entertainment; He intended that to be one of it's functions! ". Do we believe in "casual" sex within marriage, or is sex so valuable that we must avoid casual sex and always pursue deep and meaningful sex? I think this shows up a lot as "sex is a reaction to love, but cannot cause love" thinking that I see a lot.

Any talk of how LDS "value" sex would probably be incomplete without some reference to Elder Holland's "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" talk. Do these kinds of talks place too much value on sex -- sex is too sacred to get too involved in even for married couples? I find Elder Holland's talk quite interesting and that it challenges me in many ways, but I am not sure it fully reflects all there is to say about the value of sexual expression.

On 2/16/2017 at 5:28 PM, eddified said:

They are overvaluing sexual pleasure in general, and undervaluing the closeness and love that proper sexual expression provides.

Are sexual pleasure and closeness and love necessarily mutually exclusive? Is it possible that we as LDS undervalue sexual pleasure? IMO, sexual pleasure and the closeness and love tend to go together.

I apologize that my thoughts are not well organized, but there some of them are. Make of them what you will.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

On 2017-02-18 at 11:41 AM, MrShorty said:

Looking back on my own experience and education, I am fairly confident that I did not learn the true value of sex from the church. I learned it from secular/non-LDS authors like Dr. Harley (who is a Christian but does not make his arguments from his Christianity) and Michelle Weiner-Davis and David Schnarch. I came across (non-authoritative) LDS sources (like Laura Brotherson) afterwards....

If sex is so valuable, why is it so difficult to find authoritative LDS sources who condemn sexually inactive marriages? Even 1 Cor. 7:3-5, which is such a common part of discussion on this topic in non-LDS circles, seems to get very little traction in LDS circles...

Any talk of how LDS "value" sex would probably be incomplete without some reference to Elder Holland's "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" talk. Do these kinds of talks place too much value on sex -- sex is too sacred to get too involved in even for married couples? I find Elder Holland's talk quite interesting and that it challenges me in many ways, but I am not sure it fully reflects all there is to say about the value of sexual expression.

Are sexual pleasure and closeness and love necessarily mutually exclusive? Is it possible that we as LDS undervalue sexual pleasure? IMO, sexual pleasure and the closeness and love tend to go together.

I apologize that my thoughts are not well organized, but there some of them are. Make of them what you will.

I get what you are saying, there are several places where LDS leaders have said that sex is for bonding a couple emotionally, and having sex for the enjoyment of it would certainly count in that category.  Most recently with Sister Nelson's remarks at a worldwide YSA Fireside where she said (among other things) that "God-ordained marital intimacy is glorious and will continue eternally for covenant-keeping husbands and wives."
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01/love-and-marriage?lang=eng

A member of the RS General Presidency made some great remarks about the emotional importance of intimacy in a GenConf talk a couple of years ago, and there are other quotes too.  Brotherson's first book has a chapter of them. 

The thing is there is no objective standard they can offer on the frequency.  Some couples have valid reasons why their sex life is limited or non-existent, some people have huge barriers and past trauma(s) to deal with before they are able to really give themselves.  They should not be given a standard of sexual frequency that is for them unrealistic or even harmful.  Each couple has to work it out themselves and the church teaches the principles of kindness, serving you spouse and making their happiness your goal, and the wonderful righteous nature of sex in marriage.  I know that can be frustrating and it is natural to want a 'law of Moses' type solution, but that isn't how it goes.

[Guest]

On February 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, MrShorty said:

Are sexual pleasure and closeness and love necessarily mutually exclusive? Is it possible that we as LDS undervalue sexual pleasure? IMO, sexual pleasure and the closeness and love tend to go together.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks the two need to be separate.

[MrShorty]

13 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

The thing is there is no objective standard they can offer on the frequency...

I agree that there is a lot of nuance here that does not lend itself to an objective standard for frequency. The thing I like about society's approach (that makes me suggest that they value sex and we maybe don't) is they are talking about it. I don't know where the 10x per year that most use to define a "sexless" marriage comes from, but that number is out there and they are talking about it -- including those that don't like that "quota" (I observed how many on this forum were opposed to this "quota" in an earlier discussion here). They will talk about how "frequency of sexual activity" (whatever sexual activity means in a given context) is correlated or not correlated with relationship satisfaction, and then talk about how it doesn't mean what we think it means. And so on. There may not be a solid, "objective" quota that can be put forth, but society values sex enough to talk about it. It often seems to me that the Church does not place enough value on sexual expression to even talk about this part of the issue.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

 It often seems to me that the Church does not place enough value on sexual expression to even talk about this part of the issue.

The church has often said that intimacy is an important and sacred part of marriage, but I don't see it as being part of the role of the church to counsel members on how often to have sex.  They teach the principles of putting your spouse's happiness first and serving each other in love and kindness and leave it to them to apply those principles in their individual circumstances.

[Backroads]

18 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I get what you are saying, there are several places where LDS leaders have said that sex is for bonding a couple emotionally, and having sex for the enjoyment of it would certainly count in that category.  Most recently with Sister Nelson's remarks at a worldwide YSA Fireside where she said (among other things) that "God-ordained marital intimacy is glorious and will continue eternally for covenant-keeping husbands and wives."
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01/love-and-marriage?lang=eng

A member of the RS General Presidency made some great remarks about the emotional importance of intimacy in a GenConf talk a couple of years ago, and there are other quotes too.  Brotherson's first book has a chapter of them. 

The thing is there is no objective standard they can offer on the frequency.  Some couples have valid reasons why their sex life is limited or non-existent, some people have huge barriers and past trauma(s) to deal with before they are able to really give themselves.  They should not be given a standard of sexual frequency that is for them unrealistic or even harmful.  Each couple has to work it out themselves and the church teaches the principles of kindness, serving you spouse and making their happiness your goal, and the wonderful righteous nature of sex in marriage.  I know that can be frustrating and it is natural to want a 'law of Moses' type solution, but that isn't how it goes.

I read several years ago a rather fascinating book based on a big study of love/sex/relationships/all that. The professional answer to sexual frequency? Whatever works for the couple, but here's what seems to be the average...

I thought that was fair.

[SilentOne]

11 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The thing I like about society's approach (that makes me suggest that they value sex and we maybe don't) is they are talking about it... There may not be a solid, "objective" quota that can be put forth, but society values sex enough to talk about it. It often seems to me that the Church does not place enough value on sexual expression to even talk about this part of the issue.

I generally think of it as more similar to we don't talk about it much because it's sacred than we don't talk about it much because it isn't important. And we talk about it less than other sacred things because it's also private. But then, I never felt like it was really avoided as a subject.

[MrShorty]

On 2/21/2017 at 6:49 PM, SilentOne said:

I generally think of it as more similar to we don't talk about it much because it's sacred than we don't talk about it much because it isn't important. And we talk about it less than other sacred things because it's also private. But then, I never felt like it was really avoided as a subject.

I think this is the kind of thing I was thinking of when I suggested that perhaps we place too much value on sex -- that sex might be too sacred. Perhaps part of what I am wondering is if it would be helpful to treat it as less sacred -- less valuable so that we can have a deeper discussion about it. As Backroads's example shows, I think it can be tackled in a respectful and generic fashion without needing to go too far into the personal or the sacred.

Also, I am glad that you and others don't find the subject taboo. It has always seemed to me that Church and even greater American culture treats sex as a taboo subject. Perhaps by placing less value on sexuality, we can help break down these taboos.

On 2/21/2017 at 11:19 AM, Latter-Day Marriage said:

I don't see it as being part of the role of the church to counsel members on how often to have sex. 

I agree with you, though I admit that most of my reticence in having the Church tackle these questions is a lack of trust that the Church can effectively tackle these topics. If it is not the role of the Church to delve into these areas, then why are we so bothered when society steps in to fill that void?

Perhaps some of this is rooted in how we so often draw a stark dichotomy between "us" and "them" (society, the world, or whoever "they" are). If it is inappropriate for the Church to tackle these kinds of issues, then perhaps it would be helpful to draw less of a line between us and society. To identify the stuff that the Church is not going to do, and encourage us to seek for learning on those topics from society -- with the proper discernment skills to sort through the good and the bad.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

13 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps some of this is rooted in how we so often draw a stark dichotomy between "us" and "them" (society, the world, or whoever "they" are). If it is inappropriate for the Church to tackle these kinds of issues, then perhaps it would be helpful to draw less of a line between us and society. To identify the stuff that the Church is not going to do, and encourage us to seek for learning on those topics from society -- with the proper discernment skills to sort through the good and the bad.

I'm more concerned about the tendency members have to want the church to micromanage out lives  (the 'law of Moses' approach) rather than leave us to use our judgement.