Sacred Sexuality and the Law of Chastity

[Senator]

Totally agree with this. But I have a question and it may seem pretty personal. You don't have to answer, but its just something to think about. I hope this isn't to explicit and if the mods deam it is, go ahead and delete it.

Over the past 15 years with my wife I know that if I reach the top before she does and then after she never makes it. I feel really guilty. So what I try to do is focus on her and her pleasure. I also pay attention to myself and what I am feeling and then I try and Idol, some times stopping completely and taking a little break, I try and make myself last for her. There is nothing in the world like, nor anything that brings you closer together as a couple than reaching the top together. And lets face it. How can two happy people who love each other feel guilty, when they are lying in each others arms after something like that?

Stop it Zak.

You're getting the teenagers all excited!!!

[Zakuska]

At the time I hadn't connected to the fact that he was under 18. I guess the cops could bring me in for lewdness with a minor.

[wenglund]

maybe this is your problem. You want some mystical experience to occur from having sex with your wife and your guilt is that your fulfillment of your "duty" leaves you feeling more like a animal than a god.

more importantly that a person married for 9 years, feels guilty for having sex with their spouse, that is very interesting, and why you feel guilty and what you feel guilty about is the root of your issue that magic/mystical sex can not solve.

Exactly! The symptom here is irrational guilt. The core cause seems to be a loss of proper perspective (as evinced by what may have been mis-thought to be of most importance on this thread). Such can happen to very good people. The wonderful news is, the problem can be fixed--in part by following some of the wise suggestions kindly offered on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frankenstein]

A thread about masturbation and lying to ones bishop about it, was closed because the thread was deemed to be a personal issue thread, the author of the thread never directly said he was the one the thread was about.

This thread is admittedly about ones personal issue involving sex. And now we have a few posts about orgasm and who reaches orgasm first (if you can't handle the word orgasm, you shouldn't discuss sex). I do not understand how this thread remains open. Secondly MADB seems one of least appropriate places to discuss sexual relations and hangups with ones spouse.

How about satisfy your wife first, then you don't have to worry who had a orgasm first, and remember there is more than one way achieve ones goal.

[Garden Girl]

Intellectually, I know that married couples are supposed to do certain things together, but psychologically, whenever I perform my husbandly duties even after 9 years of marraige, I still feel horribly guilty. ( I still do it, I just feel unhappy about it.)

This has to be one of the saddest statements I've ever read... As someone who was married for 38 years, I have cherished memories of the deep relationship shared with my dear husband... if I thought for one moment that he was "feeling guilty" or that it was a "duty" to be performed, I'd be hurt and confused...

as for your guilt about it. Did you grow up LDS? It is my opinion that the excessively rigid message of all things related to what is under my clothes and the "your bodies are evil" (editorializing on that one) message given to minors in the Church, produces sexual dysfunction in adult.

This is not what the Church teaches, at least that I remember (that our bodies are evil) from growing up... yes, it wasn't until Jeffrey Holland's talk, mentioned by Darin, and one I've cited numerous times, "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" that I felt a truly reasoned explanation of the WHY of being chaste was given, and, importantly, one that would help the youth fully understand the why of the no-no admonishments.

Intellectually, I know that my feelings are incorrect, but no arguments have been able to eliminate the completely insane feelings I get.

Then I agree with the others that you need professional counseling...

I am sorry, but this is Freudian nonsense that is demonstrably false on a number of levels. If there is sexual dysfunction within the LDS Church, it is a result of the distorted way in which SOME people misinterpret and mis-apply the prefectly reasonable and function moral precepts taught therein.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree...

I can't recall ever having read something that complicated a rather simple thing as this thread seems to do.

I agree Nathair... you have taken what should be a beautiful, enjoyable part of the marriage relationship that brings a husband and wife closer, and strengthens them, and turned it into something complicated and confusing. And that you feel guilty about it is something I feel sorry for you about.

GG

[saemo]

John Paul II "Theology of the Body" might give you some insights. It's pretty popular among young married Catholics and people who are struggling with sexual intimacy (for whatever reason) in their married life. It is a series of lectures given by JPII. So, it isn't a short read.

And, it speaks to being chaste within marriage. (Chaste, not celibate.)

[frankenstein]

frankenstein,: on 18 November 2010 - 02:34 PM, said: as for your guilt about it. Did you grow up LDS? It is my opinion that the excessively rigid message of all things related to what is under my clothes and the "your bodies are evil" (editorializing on that one) message given to minors in the Church, produces sexual dysfunction in adult.

Garden Girl: This is not what the Church teaches, at least that I remember (that our bodies are evil) from growing up... yes, it wasn't until Jeffrey Holland's talk, mentioned by Darin, and one I've cited numerous times, "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" that I felt a truly reasoned explanation of the WHY of being chaste was given, and, importantly, one that would help the youth fully understand the why of the no-no admonishments.

Here is why I stated it the way I did, I do agree with Wenglund statement.

Once a Institute Director and his wife were teaching a class, the subject of sex was brought up, the Wife of the Director said in essence "I understand, we (the Church and those teaching the standards) teach you to always protect your bodies and cover yourself, but we do not tell you anything to prepare you for sexual relations when you are married"

below are all separate LDS Couples:

I know of a couple, where the wife thinks the husband is a pervert for wanting sex more than once a month.

I know of another couple where the wife thought "we have a great sex life, we have sex twice a month" she thought this was normal for couples.

I know of another couple where the husband has to demean himself to begging just to have sex for frequently than a full cycle of the moon.

[Jason]

as for your guilt about it. Did you grow up LDS? It is my opinion that the excessively rigid message of all things related to what is under my clothes and the "your bodies are evil" (editorializing on that one) message given to minors in the Church, produces sexual dysfunction in adult.

Not for my wife and I. Even though we got married (both for the first time) relatively late at age 36 and 38 we got very comfortable with each other very fast.

[saemo]

frankenstein,: on 18 November 2010 - 02:34 PM, said: as for your guilt about it. Did you grow up LDS? It is my opinion that the excessively rigid message of all things related to what is under my clothes and the "your bodies are evil" (editorializing on that one) message given to minors in the Church, produces sexual dysfunction in adult.

Garden Girl: This is not what the Church teaches, at least that I remember (that our bodies are evil) from growing up... yes, it wasn't until Jeffrey Holland's talk, mentioned by Darin, and one I've cited numerous times, "Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments" that I felt a truly reasoned explanation of the WHY of being chaste was given, and, importantly, one that would help the youth fully understand the why of the no-no admonishments.

Here is why I stated it the way I did, I do agree with Wenglund statement.

Once a Institute Director and his wife were teaching a class, the subject of sex was brought up, the Wife of the Director said in essence "I understand, we (the Church and those teaching the standards) teach you to always protect your bodies and cover yourself, but we do not tell you anything to prepare you for sexual relations when you are married"

below are all separate LDS Couples:

I know of a couple, where the wife thinks the husband is a pervert for wanting sex more than once a month.

I know of another couple where the wife thought "we have a great sex life, we have sex twice a month" she thought this was normal for couples.

I know of another couple where the husband has to demean himself to begging just to have sex for frequently than a full cycle of the moon.

What I see is a desire to teach young teens that chastity is desired over the promiscuity of the world. What I see some of the young people coming away with is that sexual desire, in and of itself, is not desirable. Sexual desire is normal. Chastity is a purposeful self-mastery of those desires, not in the sense that something bad or evil must be tamed, but that something good and desirable is made even more so in a monogamous, marital, relationship.

[frankenstein]

What I see is a desire to teach young teens that chastity is desired over the promiscuity of the world. What I see some of the young people coming away with is that sexual desire, in and of itself, is not desirable. Sexual desire is normal. Chastity is a purposeful self-mastery of those desires, not in the sense that something bad or evil must be tamed, but that something good and desirable is made even more so in a monogamous, marital, relationship.

that is even better than what wenglund wrote.

sexual desire normal and given of God, Chasity is self-mastery of that gift.

[Mark Beesley]

Perhaps but in an otherwise loving marriage (which I assume the OP has) I would rather be the object of my husband's lust than his guilt. Ps. Since you are only 17, perhaps you shouldn't participate in this thread?

I thought your comment about doing it often enough until the guilt goes away was funny, and said with tongue-in-cheek . . . it was, wasn't it?

And, Zakuska, if you ever feel guilty cause you get to the top and your wife doesn't, then she doesn't love you. Otherwise, she'd fake it.

[ELF1024]

below are all separate LDS Couples:

I know of a couple, where the wife thinks the husband is a pervert for wanting sex more than once a month.

I know of another couple where the wife thought "we have a great sex life, we have sex twice a month" she thought this was normal for couples.

I know of another couple where the husband has to demean himself to begging just to have sex for frequently than a full cycle of the moon.

...and the same could be found among Non-LDS couples.

As I stated before my previous wife was Lutheran, and she had serious sexual hang-ups.

Sexual communication issues, sexual hang ups, and other sexual dysfunctions are not unique to people of the LDS faith.

However, I agree with your previous statement:

"Secondly MADB seems one of least appropriate places to discuss sexual relations and hangups with ones spouse."

[Jason]

Our bodies are not evil. The sexual act is not evil. Sexual desire is not evil. They are, however, powerful.

Powerful forces can be used for either good or evil. Used properly they lead to enormous good and joy. Used incorrectly they lead to devestation, self-loathing, and despair.

[Zakuska]

Once a Institute Director and his wife were teaching a class, the subject of sex was brought up, the Wife of the Director said in essence "I understand, we (the Church and those teaching the standards) teach you to always protect your bodies and cover yourself, but we do not tell you anything to prepare you for sexual relations when you are married"

I once knew of a couple who would only have fun with the lights off for this very reason. I always like to bring up the garden in this situation.

Gen. 2: 25

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Then Paul throws in some good blurbs...

Heb 13

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:

[Brenda]

frankenstein,: on 18 November 2010 - 02:34 PM, said: as for your guilt about it. Did you grow up LDS? It is my opinion that the excessively rigid message of all things related to what is under my clothes and the "your bodies are evil" (editorializing on that one) message given to minors in the Church, produces sexual dysfunction in adult.

This was not my experience growing up LDS. We were taught modesty and respect for our bodies.

Here is why I stated it the way I did, I do agree with Wenglund statement.

Once a Institute Director and his wife were teaching a class, the subject of sex was brought up, the Wife of the Director said in essence "I understand, we (the Church and those teaching the standards) teach you to always protect your bodies and cover yourself, but we do not tell you anything to prepare you for sexual relations when you are married"

below are all separate LDS Couples:

I know of a couple, where the wife thinks the husband is a pervert for wanting sex more than once a month.

I know of another couple where the wife thought "we have a great sex life, we have sex twice a month" she thought this was normal for couples.

I know of another couple where the husband has to demean himself to begging just to have sex for frequently than a full cycle of the moon.

These extreme situations exist in any group. Not just LDS.

What I see is a desire to teach young teens that chastity is desired over the promiscuity of the world. What I see some of the young people coming away with is that sexual desire, in and of itself, is not desirable. Sexual desire is normal. Chastity is a purposeful self-mastery of those desires, not in the sense that something bad or evil must be tamed, but that something good and desirable is made even more so in a monogamous, marital, relationship.

I agree with you, but again, as a youth, I didn't come away with the idea that it was anything but normal. (And my teen years were decades ago. We were told almost nothing.)

[Nathair/|\]

A thread about masturbation and lying to ones bishop about it, was closed because the thread was deemed to be a personal issue thread, the author of the thread never directly said he was the one the thread was about.

This thread is admittedly about ones personal issue involving sex. And now we have a few posts about orgasm and who reaches orgasm first (if you can't handle the word orgasm, you shouldn't discuss sex). I do not understand how this thread remains open. Secondly MADB seems one of least appropriate places to discuss sexual relations and hangups with ones spouse.

How about satisfy your wife first, then you don't have to worry who had a orgasm first, and remember there is more than one way achieve ones goal.

I agree, this thread has gotten too personal. Darin and Elf covered what I am interested in here, greatly increasing my respect for them. Can we stop talking about me? If not, perhaps the thread should be closed.

How about this for a new introductory paragraph:

I am learning to approach all areas of life from a sacramental and magical perspective. One of the most important and least understood aspects of life is marital intimacy. In my explorations in the alternative spirituality communities, I have discovered some things that seem to shed an interesting light on the Law of Chastity and I would like to explore them here.

Yours under the re-directing oaks,

Nathair /|\

edit to add: If I wanted to talk about myself and the stuff in the original first sentence with anyone on this board, I would have PM'd our resident therapist.

[volgadon]

Nathair, you might have overlooked it, but I posted a Kabbalistic quote for you.

[Nathair/|\]

I once heard a chaste man bemoaning the fact that sexual union is inherently pleasurable. He preferred that there be no physical pleasure at all, so that he could unite with his wife solely to fulfill the command of his Creator: "Be fruitful and multiply."

What he said helped me understand a saying of our rabbis, may their memory be a blessing: "One should hallow oneself during sexual union." I took this to mean that one should sanctify one's thought by eliminating any intention of feeling physical pleasure. One should bemoan the fact that pleasurable sensation is inherent to this act...

Sometime later, God favored me with a gift of grace, granting me understanding of the essence of sexual holiness. The holiness derives precisely from feeling the pleasure. The secret is wondrous, deep, and awesome.

-Baruch ben Abraham of Kosov, Ammud ha-Avodah, as found in pg. 157 of Daniel C. Matt's The Essential Kabbalah.

Thank you, Volgadon, I had a hunch you would come up with something relevant.

[Mark Beesley]

I have discovered some things that seem to shed an interesting light on the Law of Chastity and I would like to explore them here.

Really? The Law of Chastity is very simple. It's ok to have sex with your wife, and only with your wife. No sexual relations with anyone except your wife. Period. How much more light do you need???

You might want to steer clear of those alternative spiritual communities and get back to the Temple real soon.

[katherine the great]

I thought your comment about doing it often enough until the guilt goes away was funny, and said with tongue-in-cheek . . . it was, wasn't it?

Actually yes it was. However, I have noticed that it is easy to become increasingly disconnected from our spouse if we neglect that part of our marriage so there is a valid argument for purposely increasing the frequency of marital intimacy if our marriage is suffering. The OP's case, of course is more complicated.

[wenglund]

"I understand, we (the Church and those teaching the standards) teach you to always protect your bodies and cover yourself, but we do not tell you anything to prepare you for sexual relations when you are married."

I disagree, in part, with this. While the Church may not directly provide sex manuals for married couples, and this because such falls mostly outside the bounds of the Church's interests and purvue, key elements of effective marital sexuality are frequintly taught by the Church throughout a person's life and do provide sufficient preparation for married couples. Those key elements include love, respect, fidelity, honor, gratitude, kindness, charity, forgiveness, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frankenstein]

Those key elements include love, respect, fidelity, honor, gratitude, kindness, charity, forgiveness, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

yes, key elements for how a couple should get along in their non-sexual dealings. and yes, what goes on in the bedroom between lawfully married couple who are members of the LDS Church, is almost none of the LDS Church business. But those things you list fall short of helping a person understand the sexual desire is normal, is God given, is essential to God plan, and is essential to healthy happy married life.

If you respected me you wouldn't ask for sex with me your spouse.

Rebuttal: If you respected me you would have sex with me your spouse.

If you loved me you wouldn't ask for sex with me your spouse.

Rebuttal: If you loved me you would have sex with me your spouse.

If you honored me you would not want to see me in the nude.

Rebuttal If you honored me you would see me in the nude.

The attitudes towards our bodies start when we are young and being taught about our bodies.

[wenglund]

Yes, key elements for how a couple should get along in their non-sexual dealings. and yes, what goes on in the bedroom between lawfully married couple who are members of the LDS Church, is almost none of the LDS Church business. But those things you list fall short of helping a person understand the sexual desire is normal, is God given, is essential to God plan, and is essential to healthy happy married life.

I see it quite differently. To me, the key elements I listed were not just for "how a couple should get along in their non-sexual dealings", but they are also critical "in the bedroom between lawfully married couple," and can be quite instramental in "helping a person understand the sexual desire is normal, is God given, is essential to God plan, and is essential to healthy happy married life."

In short, to my way of thinking, sacred sexuality consists of far more than a mutually pleasurable physical interaction between married couples (though I understand that some people may view it in such rudimentary terms). To me, it isn't just about the body, it also consists of the heart and mind, and predominately of the key elements I listed. It goes well beyond what non-human animals experience when procreating, and touches on, if not somewhat encompasses, the divine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

To me, it isn't just about the body, it also consists of the heart and mind, and predominately of the key elements I listed. It goes well beyond what non-human animals experience when procreating, and touches on, if not somewhat encompasses, the divine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

AMEN!

Its about connecting with each other in the most intimate way possible which includes several different fascits of our being! it's about becoming the One, and AT-one

[Zakuska]

And, Zakuska, if you ever feel guilty cause you get to the top and your wife doesn't, then she doesn't love you. Otherwise, she'd fake it.

She tells me she had a headack.