Popular Post BlueDreams Posted January 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 9, 2017 39 minutes ago, cinepro said: With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. You'd be surprised what you can learn from books . I don't remember a lot of euphemisms, though I wish she'd have used the word sex more. I think part of the reason was a) the variety of audience, some who may be extremely squeamish about such words. And b) that she was trying to make the point that it wasn't just about a specific act. Like I said I would have worded a number of things differently. In all truth this assumes that sexuality and intimacy starts at marriage. It doesn't, it's a continuation. Minus how her own body works, it really shouldn't be that much of a jump, just a continuation to what already started prior. It is for many, but it doesn't need to be. With luv, BD 6
The Nehor Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 3 hours ago, cinepro said: With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. Wait....theoretical knowledge is not that useful????? I've wasted my life....... 4
ERayR Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I really don't know if you realize that what is being revealed here in each post is how well each poster is doing in their sex lives- clearly implied in each statement. I really have no desie to know that For those who care mine is wonderous. Now can we get on with something worthwhile? Anything to find fault with, dontcha know? 1
canard78 Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 10 hours ago, BlueDreams said: You'd be surprised what you can learn from books . I don't remember a lot of euphemisms, though I wish she'd have used the word sex more. I think part of the reason was a) the variety of audience, some who may be extremely squeamish about such words. And b) that she was trying to make the point that it wasn't just about a specific act. Like I said I would have worded a number of things differently. In all truth this assumes that sexuality and intimacy starts at marriage. It doesn't, it's a continuation. Minus how her own body works, it really shouldn't be that much of a jump, just a continuation to what already started prior. It is for many, but it doesn't need to be. With luv, BD I've really appreciated the contribution you've made to this thread. Your second paragraph is a good point, but very different to the prevailing message in the lessons and manuals of Mormonism. The idea that the day of your marriage should be a continuation of a personal sexuality and intimacy that had started before marriage is not one that I heard at church. How do you teach a single (Mormon) person to start a process of sexuality that will continue into marriage? 2
CV75 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, canard78 said: I've really appreciated the contribution you've made to this thread. Your second paragraph is a good point, but very different to the prevailing message in the lessons and manuals of Mormonism. The idea that the day of your marriage should be a continuation of a personal sexuality and intimacy that had started before marriage is not one that I heard at church. How do you teach a single (Mormon) person to start a process of sexuality that will continue into marriage? It is taught from the earliest stages through the environment described in the The Family: A Proclamation and by teaching from the proclamation directly. But more importantly, it is individually discovered in an environment conducive to purity (a nurturing family, familiarity with the light of Christ and the power and Gift of the Holy Spirit, covenants, standards, etc.). Edited January 10, 2017 by CV75 2
rodheadlee Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) On 1/9/2017 at 4:06 AM, canard78 said: The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults: "The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be" https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng (19:13 on the full video) I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. What I'd like to ask is for references and evidence. What evidence does she or you have to back up such a specific statement? If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough? Is it either them or their spouse that is not holy enough and spoiling their intimacy? In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter? Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors? Given the sensitivity of the topic, can I suggest we discuss it "implicitly" rather than "explicitly?" Given it was raised by Sister Nelson and to a, relatively, young audience, I hope it's something we can discuss responsibly. Well according to Florida Georgia Line it is: Edited January 10, 2017 by rodheadlee
Meadowchik Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 21 hours ago, Tacenda said: I guess I don't like to think anyone such as God or the Holy Ghost should be around during marital intimacy. It feels just wrong. I once felt uncomfortable when my sister in law said she and her husband had a great sex life and she and her husband have served several missions. Maybe I needed this talk early in my life. I think it's the basics of the gospel that help the most: that we're each of infinite worth, that love has real power, that we can forgive and heal...all of this encourage a hopefulness, optimism, and excitement about couplehood, about being together and good potential in all acts of love. My mama spoke about sex as something that can be "marvelous." It helped me to not stigmatize it. 3
canard78 Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 19 hours ago, cinepro said: With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. Threads even on this board have been shut down for not being "implicit" enough, so had initially suggested the conversation not be overly explicit in nature. I agree with you, however, that the talk tiptoed too much around certain language. The ambiguity in her language meant that many could be left with the wrong impression of what does and does not constitute "purity" in sexual relationships.
Jane_Doe Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 5:06 AM, canard78 said: The following statement, specifically in the context of discussing fulfilling sexual relationships, was made by Sister Nelson in last nights broadcast to young adults: "The more pure you are, the more marvelous your marital intimacy will be" https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/archive/worldwide-devotionals/2017/01?lang=eng (19:13 on the full video) I'd be interested to hear from any of you who agree her statement. She is 100% right. On 1/9/2017 at 5:06 AM, canard78 said: If one or both partners in a married Mormon couple is NOT finding their "marital intimacy" to be "marvellous" and "glorious" then is there an implication that one of them is not pure enough? No. There could be many other things going on, such as medical conditions. But someone who is contaminating their relationship with porn (which is the topic at hand) is going to see a degradation in all aspects of their relationship. On 1/9/2017 at 5:06 AM, canard78 said: In her talk she contrasts "worldly sex" with "God-ordained marital intimacy." She makes the point that the latter needs the presence of the holt spirit to be such. In that case, is a mixed faith or non-member marriage the former or the latter? The Holy Spirit does exist outside the church, so your question doesn't make much sense. On 1/9/2017 at 5:06 AM, canard78 said: Phyisical intimacy has many, many aspects that can make it "marvellous" and fulfilling and many reasons why it might not be (for one or both in the marriage). What evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit is one of those factors? Do I really need to convince you that cheating, dishonesty, abuse, disrespect, or any one of many other things result in unhealthy relationships? Do I really need to convince you that the Spirit makes things better? 1
bcuzbcuz Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 20 hours ago, cinepro said: With all due respect, I'm not going to take advice from someone who can't use the word "sex" when discussing sex. Using euphemisms and indirect language may be appropriate when talking to children and those with limited understanding, but when talking to adults about adult things, feeling the need to speak indirectly is a bad sign. She's also been giving sex advice since long before she was married. Interestingly, her views on the subject don't seem to have expanded or changed since she got off the bench and into the game, so we must conclude she had learned everything she needed to know from books and no experience was necessary. Which I wouldn't have believed to be the case on the subject. She wasn't giving sex advice. She was stating that the unmeasurable quality of purity would make the unmeasurable value, marital intimacy, marvellous. As is evident by the many posts here, purity is not qualifiable nor quantifiable and marital intimacy, equally the same. I'd be convinced to listen if someone, anyone, could give examples that could differentiate between one person and another regarding purity. Sure, examples of sinner vs non-sinner could be used but they are, by their all encompassing nature, virtually worthless. Her statements are like the proverbial, meaningless, report card comment, "Johnny could do better". Since none of us are perfect, it is easy to make a statement like "the more pure you are....". Everyone can nod their head in self condemnation, "yes, I must be more pure." but it means nothing because there is no specific idea about how to get from point A to point B except 'do more of the same'. 'Marital intimacy will be more marvelous' is also a say nothing comment. How does one move from "marvellous" to "more marvellous"? Some posters have stated here that their intimacy is already 'marvellous'. Fantastic. Does your partner agree? I've been married twice, (in two separate marriages, so all you polygamy advocates can back off) for a total of more than 30 years. I don't remember any instructions in the temple that defined what "God ordained marital intimacy" was or is. I've heard some opinions but definitely nothing from scripture. Since no one is allowed to talk about it in clear, explicit language, does one person to another even know what the term means? 3
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 51 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Do I really need to convince you that cheating, dishonesty, abuse, disrespect, or any one of many other things result in unhealthy relationships? Do I really need to convince you that the Spirit makes things better? What do any of those things have to do with sexual purity?
ERayR Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: What do any of those things have to do with sexual purity? It would depend what form the abuse and dishonesty is manifest.
Thinking Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 File this talk under the "speaking as a man, er woman" umbrella. 1
ERayR Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Thinking said: File this talk under the "speaking as a man, er woman" umbrella. I think it would better fit under the category of "He/she who has ears to hear will probably understand". 4
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 52 minutes ago, ERayR said: It would depend what form the abuse and dishonesty is manifest. Please don't misunderstand not being abusive and/or dishonest are good things always, but I don't see the connection with sexual purity.
Jane_Doe Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: What do any of those things have to do with sexual purity? It has to do with being pure. Being pure effects everything, including marital intimacy and sex. For example, a spouse which abuses the other is going to have an unhealthy relationship and have lesser happiness because of it, including in the sexual category. The abused spouse will always be holding back, and the abuser disregards them. If the spouses were to respect and treat each other as they should then they could more fully connect on every level. Edited January 10, 2017 by Jane_Doe 2
bcuzbcuz Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said: She is 100% right. No. There could be many other things going on, such as medical conditions. But someone who is contaminating their relationship with porn (which is the topic at hand) is going to see a degradation in all aspects of their relationship. The Holy Spirit does exist outside the church, so your question doesn't make much sense. Do I really need to convince you that cheating, dishonesty, abuse, disrespect, or any one of many other things result in unhealthy relationships? Do I really need to convince you that the Spirit makes things better? How do you make the leap in reasoning from "what evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit" to be factors in making physical intimacy 'marvelous'? To "cheating, dishonesty, abuse and disrespect. ?? It is possible to have an argument or an emotional storm in a relationship without "cheating, dishonesty, abuse or disrespect" being factors, is it not? Even TBM, tithe paying, temple recommend carrying, prayerful, active members can have disagreements. That doesn't mean that either of the parties are unfaithful on the internet or in person. Disagreements do not entail abuse. Even when I was right, in an argument, it didn't mean my wife had been dishonest . But turn it around. If both in the relationship are doing their best, living as purely as possible, do they in an examination of their relationship determine that things would be even better if they were just More pure? Or more spiritual? Would their level of marvelous be noticeably "more marvelous"? 1
Jane_Doe Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: How do you make the leap in reasoning from "what evidence is there that "purity" and presence of the spirit" to be factors in making physical intimacy 'marvelous'? To "cheating, dishonesty, abuse and disrespect. ?? They are examples of how not being pure hurts a relationship. 54 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: It is possible to have an argument or an emotional storm in a relationship without "cheating, dishonesty, abuse or disrespect" being factors, is it not? Even TBM, tithe paying, temple recommend carrying, prayerful, active members can have disagreements. That doesn't mean that either of the parties are unfaithful on the internet or in person. Disagreements do not entail abuse. Even when I was right, in an argument, it didn't mean my wife had been dishonest . No one said having an argument made you not pure. On the other hand, abuse/dishonesty/cheating/etc, do make a person not pure. Edited January 10, 2017 by Jane_Doe
ERayR Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 0:18 PM, Tacenda said: I guess I don't like to think anyone such as God or the Holy Ghost should be around during marital intimacy. It feels just wrong. I once felt uncomfortable when my sister in law said she and her husband had a great sex life and she and her husband have served several missions. Maybe I needed this talk early in my life. IMO that feeling comes from a wrong understanding of sex. The problem is that sex is taught (for the most part) as wrong, and dirty instead of teaching it is a beautiful experience in the confines of marriage. It is a sacrament of marriage and marriage is one of the highest orders that can be entered into. 2
Tacenda Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 12 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I think it's the basics of the gospel that help the most: that we're each of infinite worth, that love has real power, that we can forgive and heal...all of this encourage a hopefulness, optimism, and excitement about couplehood, about being together and good potential in all acts of love. My mama spoke about sex as something that can be "marvelous." It helped me to not stigmatize it. I love my mom, but when I was around 12 she and my sister tried to give me the sex talk, and all I remember is them giggling and nothing ever came of it. And I'm afraid I failed my children the same way, I'm ashamed to say I really haven't had a decent talk about sex with them either. Although it was a lot better than what I got, it still could have been better.
Meadowchik Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: But turn it around. If both in the relationship are doing their best, living as purely as possible, do they in an examination of their relationship determine that things would be even better if they were just More pure? Or more spiritual? Would their level of marvelous be noticeably "more marvelous"? Think of it this way: Bob and/or Jan want sex to be more marvelous. Their options are to try an infinite number of changes in their relationship in Column A which are impure, or an infinite number of changes in their relationship in Column B which are pure. The idea is that the relationship change in Column B, identical to the one in B except being pure, will do more to result in a marvelous intimate experience. One of the major challenges is what it means to be "pure," especially in a world that thoroughly abuses human sexuality. Many of us probably make some missteps trying to improve, thinking we have, especially by titillating the sexual experience in a strategic nature instead of seeking a better relationship that naturally improved the sexual experience. Or, many of us may stigmatize sex so much or have developed such a jaded perspective of it that we don't or won't allow ourselves to enjoy it. Complicated stuff. Edited January 11, 2017 by Meadowchik 1
BlueDreams Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 21 hours ago, canard78 said: I've really appreciated the contribution you've made to this thread. Your second paragraph is a good point, but very different to the prevailing message in the lessons and manuals of Mormonism. The idea that the day of your marriage should be a continuation of a personal sexuality and intimacy that had started before marriage is not one that I heard at church. How do you teach a single (Mormon) person to start a process of sexuality that will continue into marriage? well, I had a whole presentation about that for my YSA ward for an FHE night. If you like, you're welcome to see the handout I had. The gist I've got down is giving consistent definitions. Accurate information on Sex, anatomy, and what happens to both men and women in arousal and sexual encounters. Discuss that men and women experience sex differently and that there isn't a right way to experience arousal. Also note that one cannot control or help another partner's arousal and that you are responsible for your body primarily, while respecting the desires, concerns, and boundaries of another's. I replace our sacred/bad model with a good, better, best (and bad) model. I talk about consent, not just to intercourse but any physical act. I change out the term "sex" to practicing sexuality And define that as anything that brings one feeling closer through physical connection. A hand hold can be sexual, depending the context. Pointing out that vest is still within marriage and that good and better often have strains of what makes it best in a marriage (commitment to varying degrees, fidelity, willingness to work with a partner, etc). Discuss following the LoC less about what you do or don't do and more about congruency and what best meets up with ones goal for fidelity to one's spouse. Discuss that this may vary from person and that I don't have authority to tell you what's ok or not, but that decisions as to what to do in a relationship should be made with prayerful consideration. Then I talk about bad, which includes any form of coercion, abuse, or insisting on ones own sexual desires be met over another's. Talk about consent and what entails sexual assault and that when doing something new to the relationship be tentative and ask. And if there's pulling away to stop and have a discussion as to what's the other partners concern. No labeling, and emphasize that women have a right to the own sexuality and how they choose to express it or not. In short, I believe heavily in value congruent sex with meaningful encounters that are representative of ones relationship as best. I think that that covers a good chunk of it. I also challenge common definitions that have become culturally ingrained. With luv, Bd 2
Meadowchik Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Please don't misunderstand not being abusive and/or dishonest are good things always, but I don't see the connection with sexual purity. This is a good point. Culturally, the idea of purity is not thoroughly understood. What does it mean to be impure, why is pornography impure, for example? One reason porn is impure is because it objectifies or in other words ignores the personhood and indeed the divine identity of another child of God. When we use a person for our own sexual gratification outside the protective bonds of marriage, that's impure. And if within marriage we put our needs above our spouse's needs it's also a form of objectification and therefore impure. Nobody is perfect but her statement in my opinion is essentially that purity in the relationship won't wreck it sexually but will in fact improve it sexually. Edited January 11, 2017 by Meadowchik 2
Bernard Gui Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) On January 10, 2017 at 0:52 AM, canard78 said: I've really appreciated the contribution you've made to this thread. Your second paragraph is a good point, but very different to the prevailing message in the lessons and manuals of Mormonism. The idea that the day of your marriage should be a continuation of a personal sexuality and intimacy that had started before marriage is not one that I heard at church. How do you teach a single (Mormon) person to start a process of sexuality that will continue into marriage? Start out by saving the real stuff for after the ceremony. There can be a whole lot of building up before marriage that is based on love, devotion, companionship, kindness, respect, and spiritual intimacy that pay great dividends in marital intimacy but won't result in regrets later. Edited January 11, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Monster Posted January 11, 2017 Posted January 11, 2017 The notion that Mormon Leaders have any better understanding of sex than than the average member is wrong. All this kind of talk does is put another restriction on the intimacy of couples. I am not saying those who view themselves as righteous can not experience intimacy, but it really has noting to do with it. Leaders tend to spout stuff like this because it fits into their world view. Generally it is never backed up with anything more than opinion Besides what does pure mean? If someone is cheating on a spouse that would certainly cause problems. But if one drinks a glass of wine does that reduce in intimacy? I would say communication between couples is way more important than some arbitrary notion of pureness. In my opinion and it is just that my opinion, super righteous couples would tend to have less intimacy. To many road blocks in their minds to good sexual relations.
Recommended Posts