Mormon Sexuality?

[Guest]

I was looking at more articles on Mormonhub.com and found one that was particularly interesting.

https://mormonhub.com/blog/life/relationships/5-lds-approved-ways-to-enhance-your-sex-life/

What I found interesting was the chart that it produced.  It suggests that lingerie be used to help men get in the mood.  But I've always found that it bunches up in my...  oh, you meant the wife wears it to... oh, I get it.  Just kidding.

No, the thing about it was not the article itself, which was a pretty good one (yes, I know it's old).  It was the comments.  While largely positive responses, some thought it disturbing that someone would publish an article about sexual intimacy in marriage on a website designed for the Saints.

Quote

I am really concerned about what i just read.  There is no way that anyone can use the name of the church to publish this type of article.  I´ve found it because of was translated to spanish and published in losmormones.org as a “great article”.

In first place, i would like to say that i´m not trying to be mean, or rude, but… don´t you think that if it was necesary some instruccion like that, our leaders wouldn’t have done some publication about it?  In my opinion, what you have wrote is no more than just one opininon that shouldn’t be here, where the Church´s name is involved.

I can not imagine, neither of our leaders, giving to us a speech about Marital Intimacy and using the kind of terms that appear on what you wrote, it is gross, and in any way is ” anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy".  

I can´t imagin either at our leaders giving to us the kind of advices that you provide, especially the one that has to do with “buying a book”. You really think that it is a good advice? I mean… just think about it. can you imagine some of the First Presidency or some of the Twelve Apostles talking as you are doing it?

I strongly believe and recommend that this kind of personal opinion should be on your personal blog, and no as something related to our church.

It really bothered me this article.-

--"Sara"

Really?  We're told to multiply and replenish the earth and we're not supposed to talk about sex?  Did it ever occur to anyone that "being fruitful" means "being fruitful"?  

Another poster made a comment about one of the pictures showing a woman with a skirt that was "not garment friendly."  What the heck?  With comments like that I'd feel no guilt in pulling out my grammar Nazi hat and going to town on such posts.  Just look at the quote above.  But to be fair, English may not have been her first language.

So, what is up with that?  Are we really that reticent to talk about sex as a culture?  Why?  We should be the most sexually satisfied people on earth.  We know the divine nature of such a gift.  It is not just an animalistic urge.  It is a divine power given to man to perform the most important work that we as mortals can do--raise up seed unto the Most High.  Why is it still taboo to so many?  Or is it?

Edited May 12, 2017 by Guest

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

What I found interesting was the chart that it produced.  It suggests that lingerie be used to help men get in the mood.  But I've always found that it bunches up in my...  oh, you meant the wife wears it to... oh, I get it.

If it bunches up, maybe you made it wrong.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

If it bunches up, maybe you made it wrong.

Now, there is an article on the Church website itself that says it's OK. 

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Are we really that reticent to talk about sex as a culture?

Short but useless answer to a Yes/No question -- Yes, we really are that reticent to talk about sex. I recall one observation on another forum where the individual went through all the "strengthening marriage" articles they could find at LDS Living, and noted that none of these articles included a "physical intimacy" bullet point or section. If we stick to our schedule, this Sunday we will discuss chapter 10 in the Pres. Hinckley manual about "Nuturing the eternal partnership of marriage", but I don't expect anyone to respond "make love" to a "how do you nurture your marriage?" question. So, Yes, we are reticent (or some other variation of "don't want to talk about it") to discuss sex.

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Why?

I don't know, but this is the internet where any nutcase (including me) can speculate. Some possibilities:

A group version of "Good Girl syndrome". We have somehow (erroneously) convinced ourselves as a group that sexuality is so opposed to spirituality that we should not even talk about sexuality in the Church or in any of our "church-like" communities (including online communities). I think I can summarize what I learned as a youth/single as some form of "a truly spiritual man does not feel these urges" as if a good Mormon man was inherently asexual/demisexual. Or maybe we get the idea (as you emphasized without explicitly stating it as the only goal) that sexuality is about procreation/reproduction, which does not really require any discussion about pleasure or any "enhancements". If sex is solely about procreation, then we can talk about "procreation" but we should not talk about all of this nonsense about pleasure or enhancement because we should "overcome the natural" man by trying not to enjoy sex. Maybe those are extreme to make the point, but I see elements and variations on those kinds of themes running through our culture.

It isn't The Church's place to discuss these issues. One way of reading those comments suggests to me that, maybe it is less about general reticence to talk about sex, but more discomfort with the idea that someone unofficially representing the Church (such as on a website like then lds.net now mormonhub.com which, no matter how many times the site claims to not be officially related to or endorsed by the Church, some still are afraid that it might be seen that way) would talk about sex. I have seen several comments in these forums that have suggested that many believe that the Church has no place in sex ed. I suspect that some of us believe strongly enough that sex ed is outside of the Church's role in our lives that they bristle whenever anyone that looks like they are from the Church gives even the appearance of sex ed.

Sexuality is too sacred to discuss. I recall a discussion here where someone claimed that LDS members should not pursue careers as sex therapists, or that members should not seek out sex therapy because sexuality is just too sacred to discuss outside of husband and wife. That particular extreme proposal was generally not well received, but I expect that there are much milder threads of the same idea running throughout our culture. One way these threads could surface is in response to this kind of article.

I really don't know the answer to why. Nor do I really know what level of discussion in what contexts is appropriate. I certainly appreciated that the article exists, and that much of the content is good. I would like to see more discussion like this, but cannot say whether mormonhub is really the best place to have those discussions, or if there are other places that are better. It sometimes seems that, because the "conservative" side or our religion tends not to have these discussions, the discussion is happening in "liberal" corners of our community. IMO, this means that the discussion tends to lean towards more liberal conclusions, and leaves the conservative viewpoint underrepresented (though that is based on my observations alone, so it could easily be wrong). If nothing else, I think that conservative communities permitting and encouraging these kinds of discussions helps balance that scale.

[Fether]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I was looking at more articles on Mormonhub.com and found one that was particularly interesting.

https://mormonhub.com/blog/life/relationships/5-lds-approved-ways-to-enhance-your-sex-life/

What I found interesting was the chart that it produced.  It suggests that lingerie be used to help men get in the mood.  But I've always found that it bunches up in my...  oh, you meant the wife wears it to... oh, I get it.  Just kidding.

No, the thing about it was not the article itself, which was a pretty good one (yes, I know it's old).  It was the comments.  While largely positive responses, some thought it disturbing that someone would publish an article about sexual intimacy in marriage on a website designed for the Saints.

Really?  We're told to multiply and replenish the earth and we're not supposed to talk about sex?  Did it ever occur to anyone that "being fruitful" means "being fruitful"?  

Another poster made a comment about one of the pictures showing a woman with a skirt that was "not garment friendly."  What the heck?  With comments like that I'd feel no guilt in pulling out my grammar Nazi hat and going to town on such posts.  Just look at the quote above.  But to be fair, English may not have been her first language.

So, what is up with that?  Are we really that reticent to talk about sex as a culture?  Why?  We should be the most sexually satisfied people on earth.  We know the divine nature of such a gift.  It is not just an animalistic urge.  It is a divine power given to man to perform the most important work that we as mortals can do--raise up seed unto the Most High.  Why is it still taboo to so many?  Or is it?

I personally believe that if it was discussed more casually life would be so much better. My fiancé and I are getting married a week from today. Everything we know about sex is from friends and the internet. I don't remember ever being educated by the church about sex unless it was along the lines if "sex is evil, don't do it before marriage". Sis. Nelson's talk at the last Young Adult World Wide Devotional was SO insightful and I think we need far more of that!

my fiancé and I both have the same frustration towards the lack of sex Ed in the church (and members get appauld over addictions to pornography and incorrect views of what sex us too mean... like deriously??? TEACH US!!). We have talked about discussing sex openly when it arrives, using correct terminology and educating our kids (teaching according to their age of course) before about the basics before their friends start telling them about this deep dark severer called sex.

this is a heated subject for me

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

I personally believe that if it was discussed more casually life would be so much better. My fiancé and I are getting married a week from today. Everything we know about sex is from friends and the internet. I don't remember ever being educated by the church about sex unless it was along the lines if "sex is evil, don't do it before marriage". Sis. Nelson's talk at the last Young Adult World Wide Devotional was SO insightful and I think we need far more of that!

my fiancé and I both have the same frustration towards the lack of sex Ed in the church (and members get appauld over addictions to pornography and incorrect views of what sex us too mean... like deriously??? TEACH US!!). We have talked about discussing sex openly when it arrives, using correct terminology and educating our kids (teaching according to their age of course) before about the basics before their friends start telling them about this deep dark severer called sex.

this is a heated subject for me

Why are you blaming the church and not your parents?  

 

 

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don't remember ever being educated by the church about sex unless it was along the lines if "sex is evil, don't do it before marriage".

I'm 54 and was born into the Church. I have been active my entire life. I do not remember ever having heard anything even approaching this.

18 minutes ago, Fether said:

my fiancé and I both have the same frustration towards the lack of sex Ed in the church (and members get appauld over addictions to pornography and incorrect views of what sex us too mean... like deriously??? TEACH US!!).

The Church's place is not to teach people about sex. The Church's place is to teach people about how sex is to be utilized in a Godly manner. The parents are responsible for teaching the mechanics and such.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

IMO, this means that the discussion tends to lean towards more liberal conclusions, and leaves the conservative viewpoint underrepresented (though that is based on my observations alone, so it could easily be wrong). If nothing else, I think that conservative communities permitting and encouraging these kinds of discussions helps balance that scale.

A) the conservative views are not well received. 

B) the conservative view IS to not talk about it.

[mordorbund]

31 minutes ago, Fether said:

We have talked about discussing sex openly when it arrives, using correct terminology and educating our kids (teaching according to their age of course) before about the basics before their friends start telling them about this deep dark severer called sex.

You'll be pleased to know that the church has published some material to guide you in teaching your children. A Parent's Guide can also be found in the Gospel Library App.

[my two cents]

@Fether - First, congrats and best wishes!!  Second, run don't walk to wherever you can purchase the books by Laura M. Brotherson and check her website to glean info (strengtheningmarriage.com).

[NeuroTypical]

BTW, there's a perfectly good "how to do it" book out there, approved by the brethren *.    And They Were Not Ashamed: Strengthening Marriage Through Sexual Fulfillment by Laura M. Brotherson  There's everything here anyone would want to know about the mechanics and how-to's, except for pictures.  

@Fether, maybe before you get even more heated, you should go read this book. 

 

 

 

 

* I know this secondhand, having spoken to a reviewer.  The reviewer was, at the time she told me about it, working for LDS Social Services as a marriage therapist.  She told me the author had the brethren review it, the brethren responded with some comments and proposed changes, which the author made before publishing.  

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I personally believe that if it was discussed more casually life would be so much better.

I tend to agree, though I see some afraid of a "slippery slope" or of "pendulums swinging too far" so that it becomes too casual. I don't know where the middle ground is between speaking about sex too casually and where sex is too sacred/taboo that we don't talk about it. I am working to try to find that place.

As for the mentioned resources. I am lukewarm towards Sister Nelson's brief talk in January. She had some good things to say, some things that I wish there was more time and interaction to get a better understanding of what she meant, and some things that I don't really agree with. I feel much the same way about A Parent's Guide.

I mostly like Laura Brotherson's books, though I notice that she mostly writes from a female perspective to a female audience (more specifically the stereotypical female who is sexually reticent and less interested in sex than her husband). While I expect this represents a majority of marriages, there is a sizeable minority of marriages where the stereotypes don't hold up, and sometimes resources written to/for the stereotype are less than helpful when a couple bucks the stereotype.

Carb's link lists other books, and you can read my reaction to those suggestions in the comments to the article. In my own life, I think my sexual growth was greatly facilitated when I gave myself permission to look beyond LDS authors and church approved resources.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Why are you blaming the church and not your parents?  

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Vort said:

.

The Church's place is not to teach people about sex. The Church's place is to teach people about how sex is to be utilized in a Godly manner. The parents are responsible for teaching the mechanics and such.

You know what, you guys are completely right. I made a comment on a post about the BSA and how the organization isn't to blame, but those using it... I feel I was being rather hypocritical in my post.

I often think of things Elizabeth Smart (ie http://www.ldssmile.com/2015/05/27/how-mormons-need-to-change-when-it-comes-to-sex-education-lessons-from-elizabeth-smart/) and others have brought up and how they have negatively impacted my. It isn't the church, but us not using the sources given to us correctly.

It really isn't the church's duty, but the parents.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

 

It really isn't the church's duty, but the parents.

Indeed... When you said that you and your fiancé were going to teach your own kids you made it sound like you were going to be doing something you shouldn't be...  But teaching your kids the things they need to know to be functional adults is Parenting 101

[my two cents]

52 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In my own life, I think my sexual growth was greatly facilitated when I gave myself permission to look beyond LDS authors and church approved resources.

Glad that worked for you but for others reading this - it doesn't for everyone so I'd be real careful about doing that.  I know someone who did the same and it led to years of issues.

[NeedleinA]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

You'll be pleased to know that the church has published some material to guide you in teaching your children. A Parent's Guide can also be found in the Gospel Library App.

Somewhere tucked in this same area are a series of videos, like 2-3 person panel discussion that I watched. One thing that has always stood out to me is the general thought (paraphrasing) :

"If you are too chicken to talk to your kids about sex (all about sex), be sure to know that the world does not have such reservations. If you don't teach them, the world will do it for you and you may not like what the world has to say about it" - Needle's best recollection right now.

Edited May 13, 2017 by NeedleinA

[person0]

Quote

“if you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorneys, but that is the reason.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, p. 312.)

“‘The Bible celebrates sex and its proper use, presenting it as God-created, God-ordained, God-blessed." (Spencer W. Kimball quoting Billy Graham, Ensign, May 1974, pp. 7–8.)

A second false teaching is that the intimate experiences of marriage are a necessary evil. Yet such experiences when enjoyed in accord with God’s commandments and the Spirit can enrich one’s life and enliven the soul. President Kimball has referred to conjugal relationships in marriage as “inherently good” (Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4; see also Journal of Discourses, 26:217)

Many parents avoid addressing the topic of sexual relations and sexuality with their children. Some parents incorrectly assume that talking about sex will encourage their children to act out sexually or that their children are too young to have questions. . . Whatever your hesitations or fears, it is vital that you discuss sexual intimacy with your children on an ongoing basis. (Sexual Intimacy Is Sacred and Beautiful)

(All of these are quoted from lds.org sources)

The quoted comment in the OP is creating an issue for herself where there clearly is none.  The brethren and the scriptures are strongly in favor of sexual intimacy.  You have to learn about it somehow, and many people, like my wife, were not taught about it appropriately by their parents/family, which is in fact against the Church's teachings.  So, yes, many are that reticent, but they are wrong.  My wife's parents claim that they did talk about it but they wanted to keep it sacred, well, my wife and I can attest that's not entirely accurate.  Where else would someone in that kind of situation find appropriate information besides from helpful and uplifting articles and books like these?  The only other place is from friends, who, while a possibly great resource, are often going to be more biased to their specific circumstances.  I see no problem with this particular article.

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Or maybe we get the idea (as you emphasized without explicitly stating it as the only goal) that sexuality is about procreation/reproduction, which does not really require any discussion about pleasure or any "enhancements".

[MrShorty]

54 minutes ago, my two cents said:

Glad that worked for you but for others reading this - it doesn't for everyone so I'd be real careful about doing that.  I know someone who did the same and it led to years of issues.

The interesting and ironic thing I see in this is that I find myself saying the same thing about "religious" themed sexual resources. Romel Mackelprang in an article in Dialogue (vol 25 no 1 p 51) noted that he almost always sees some kind of religious issue contributing to his clients' sexual issues:

Quote

My experience in clinical practice has taught me that to help Church members with sexual problems, it is almost always essential to address contributing religious issues....However unintentional, Church membership can contribute to sexual problems for some members.

That certainly is not to say that there are not anecdotes out there of couples who have sexual troubles caused by wrong ideas gleaned from secular sources. I just want to point out that I see many anecdotes of couples who have years of issues caused by "Good girl syndrome" wrong ideas gleaned from church contexts. I have no idea which scenario ("years of trouble due to wrong secular ideas" or "years of trouble due to wrong religious ideas") is more prevalent, nor do I have any idea which scenario is a tougher experience (if one even must be worse than the other). In short, if someone suggested that LDS authored material was the best way to learn about sexuality, I might respond with almost the exact same statement -- that might work for some, but there are some who did that and it led to years of issues.

In the end, I have found that discernment is a critical element of my own search for sexual truth -- whether learning from secular source or LDS sources. Even still, I am not sure I have correctly and accurately understood it all. So I still find myself studying and learning and discerning. Which is part of why I am often disappointed that conservative corners of the Church don't like or want to talk about sex. I feel like I need that input to keep my own search balanced, since it so often seems that the real truths I find lie somewhere in between the conservative and liberal.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... When you said that you and your fiancé were going to teach your own kids you made it sound like you were going to be doing something you shouldn't be...  But teaching your kids the things they need to know to be functional adults is Parenting 101

It is a bit of a new concept, we know we need to and we are excited to, but my fiancé had absolutely no discussions with her parents about intimacy and I received very little. Do it is a new concept to us

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Fether said:

It is a bit of a new concept, we know we need to and we are excited to, but my fiancé had absolutely no discussions with her parents about intimacy and I received very little. Do it is a new concept to us

Sadly yours is not an uncommon situation...  As we are told nothing can really make up for failure in the home...  And while they might have been awesome everywhere else they failed here.  Which is why you had to seek elsewhere

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Sadly yours is not an uncommon situation...  As we are told nothing can really make up for failure in the home...  And while they might have been awesome everywhere else they failed here.  Which is why you had to seek elsewhere

The first failure comes from the parents not talking about intimacy. The second failure comes if those kids grow up and then don't discuss it with their own spouse. Suddenly you end up with a couple who don't know how to communicate their needs,  likes or concerns. Rather than talk openly and honestly, intimacy can turn to frustration, confusion,  lack of desire, unsatisfying,  purely procreation, etc. 

Without true heart to heart communication between a husband and wife on this topic, it can simply become physical sex, versus a time to bond and strengthen your marriage connection. 

(Sitting at a priesthood commemoration camp out, quick thoughts)

 

[MrShorty]

Interestingly, I came across this podcast yesterday, which touched on this topic. http://www.mormonmentalhealth.org/104-byu-study-on-pornanxiety-correlation/ Natasha Helfer-Parker interviews Dr. Brian Willoughby -- a porn and sexuality researcher at BYU -- about a recent publication. (Most conservative will not like a lot Natasha's liberal views, so you may not want to listen to the entire 50 minutes). Pertaining the discussion here, Dr. Willoughby makes some interesting observations starting at about the 35 minute mark of the podcast. He describes teaching a general ed. class at BYU where he has decided to spend an entire class period doing a sexuality Q&A for the students. Not only does he make the observation that these college students seem to be lacking in even basic sexual education, when Natasha specifically asks him if it seems related to these students' religious upbringing, he claims to see a relationship. Americans in general are not great at sex ed, but LDS families/parents are worse than the general population. He doesn't try to say why or what we should do about it or anything, but just makes the observation. We may try to blame Fether's parents for his wrong attitudes about sex, but it seems that Fether's experience is far from unique in Mormondom.

As it pertains to our discussion here, perhaps I can re-frame Carb's original question. What is it about being LDS that makes us less likely to have had these conversations with out youth? Why would a sexuality researcher and professor at BYU observe that LDS youth are less likely to have received an adequate sexual education? Why do we have such a hard time discussing this topic? What can/should the Church do to help LDS parents with this delicate but important discussion (up front, I don't think the Church should just "wash its hands" of the issue)?

[estradling75]

I would like to reverse the question @MrShorty asks.  When has society (in and out of LDS circles) ever gotten/given what we consider a Modern Sexual Education?...  I'd say the answer to that question is never.

[Guest]

On 5/12/2017 at 11:32 AM, MrShorty said:

Or maybe we get the idea (as you emphasized without explicitly stating it as the only goal) that sexuality is about procreation/reproduction, which does not really require any discussion about pleasure or any "enhancements". If sex is solely about procreation, then we can talk about "procreation" but we should not talk about all of this nonsense about pleasure or enhancement because we should "overcome the natural" man by trying not to enjoy sex.

Actually, I did mention the pleasure aspect of it.  You just missed it.

On 5/12/2017 at 8:57 AM, Carborendum said:

We should be the most sexually satisfied people on earth.  We know the divine nature of such a gift.  It is not just an animalistic urge.  It is a divine power given to man to perform the most important work that we as mortals can do--raise up seed unto the Most High.

I said satisfied specifically about the pleasure aspect of it.  But I also noted that it isn't just the physical urge that any animal would feel.  When we recognize it as a divine power and gift, we can feel a sense of fulfillment that is beyond anything that an animal would ever feel or that a secular education could possibly provide.

And that is exactly what makes me balk at the following statement:

23 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Not only does he make the observation that these college students seem to be lacking in even basic sexual education, when Natasha specifically asks him if it seems related to these students' religious upbringing, he claims to see a relationship. Americans in general are not great at sex ed, but LDS families/parents are worse than the general population.

I would challenge this notion "from a certain point of view."

1. He admitted that the nation as a whole is not great at sex ed.  I agree.
2. He made no comparisons about who teaches whom.  As you admitted.
3. When "others" are better at sex ed, what does "better" mean?
4. Most conservative Christian faiths are just as "hands off" about teaching sex ed as we are.  There is no difference in that regard.
5. Most other faiths are much more permissive in their attitudes about pornography and many sexual acts than we are.  We teach the law of chastity.  I really don't know what others teach, but from my experience with people of other faiths it ends up being received by their youth as "well, it's not that bad."

So, as Needle pointed out, when we don't teach our kids about sex, the world does.  And what does the world teach?  I'm not going to go into that.  But what I can say is that more of our youth try to stay unpolluted.  Those of other faiths take what the world has to offer.  That is how they get "better trained" than our youth.

But is that really "better"?  I'm not certain it is.  While we can spout all sorts of benefits and problems that occur because of whatever, there are a few things I'd like to point out.

1. I don't know how on earth you could grow up in the public school system anywhere in the US and not know the mechanics of how sex works.
2. It is not appropriate for anyone other than parents to teach their children about the "pleasure" aspects of how sex works.
3. What the world teaches is not about the divine pleasure that I described before.  It only teaches animalistic pleasure.  I think that's sad.
4. I also admit that many parents are not doing their job.

Quote

Human beings are the sexiest creatures on the planet.

-- Desmond Morris

(I know I've touched on this before, but it bears repeating in the current thread).  

The reason he said this was not to sensationalize it, but to state a very technical and scientific observation.  Human beings have several characteristics which make us more sexual than any other life form on earth.

1. We reproduce sexually, not asexually.
2. We have sex personally (e.g. some animals place an egg in a location where the male comes to the egg away from the female to fertilize it).
3. We're the ONLY animals who mate face-to-face.
4. We have the longest copulation time of any animal.
5. We tend to have the longest courtships of any animal.
6. Female of the species are the only animal on earth who have an organ for the SOLE purpose of providing sexual pleasure to the female during copulation.
7. The female of the species can maintain heightened arousal for the longest period than any animal on earth.
8. We are the only animal on earth who can have multiple sexual encounters with the same mate in a single day.
9. We are the only animal on earth who copulates for the sole purpose of pleasure as opposed to procreation.
10. Human females are the only animal on earth who can gain pleasure out of sex even after she is unable to bear children.

(Is it odd to anyone that we have the "good girl syndrome" when the human female is so obviously designed to gain more pleasure out of the experience than males?)

And all this is not simply to make it more difficult for us to obey the law of chastity.  It is actually to increase marital fidelity.  Because courtship is longer, because copulation is longer, because it is a matter of pleasure as much as procreation, we end up developing relationships prior to mating.  These relationships are quite vital to the rearing of human children.  Most other animals are such that if a female were left with the offspring without the male, they wouldn't really be inconvenienced much.  For humans, it is a HUGE deal.

To sum up: The reason we are such sexual creatures and why it is so pleasurable is that we are supposed to be in stable long-term relationships to have sex in the first place.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Guest