Marriage Masturbation

[Hagoth]

If everyone just took control of their own orgasms Mormons in general would be less uptight and overall happier. But the church would lose its most powerful control handle.

[Palerider]

In the LDS church, acting "outside the marriage" (as in adultery, or porn) is a sin. But "acting in the marriage" as in withholding, or using it as a club, is not a sin. Its this one-sided view of sex that poisoned my entire notion of marriage, and began the collapse of my faith shelf.

I think Paul actually addresses this fairly well in 1 Cor. 7.

I don't want to do an extended exegesis here and the King James version may not be the best reading but essentially Paul puts forth the doctrine that:

1. Sex outside of marriage is not approved.

2. Therefore let every man have his own wife and every woman have her own husband.

3. Why? Because remaining celibate is very difficult.

4. In marriage the man gives his wife legal or godly authorization to access his body as does the wife to her husband. Let each render due benevolence/kindness/sexual intimacy to the other.

5. Except in cases where, WITH CONSENT OF BOTH, a short time of fasting or prayerful devotion is desired. But then let the two return to each other, not defrauding one or the other of their holy permission. Otherwise either one might be pushed towards immoral behavior outside the marriage.

6. Because in marriage, the husbands body really is no longer just his own to control or be selfish with. His wife has a godly right to his body. And as with the husband, so the wife's body is no longer entirely her own. She has taken on a holy responsibility to help him maintain his virtue as a husband.

I think under normal circumstances when either husband or wife uses sex as a tool for extracting what they want or to punish the other for whatever reason, you then have something less than a marriage relationship. Rather than being complimentary it has become competitive and that is a deadly attribute in marriage.

So I have a question.

Does the idea of "legal permission" or authority to access a spouses body not sit well with some people?

Do we look at the word "authority" with the subliminal connotation of coercion?

If authority is viewed from the framework of having no legal right to intercourse outside of marriage, does that change our idea of what is meant by authority/permission because both parties have consented by the agreement/covenant of marriage?

[Dravin]

So I have a question.

Does the idea of "legal permission" or authority to access a spouses body not sit well with some people?

The only person who can grant me permission to access my spouse's body is my spouse and that permission can be revoked at any time by my spouse. The idea of "legal permission" or authority to access my spouse's body coming from anyone else leads us into places where people saying things like, "You can't rape your spouse." Even if we agree that said permission comes from my spouse, the idea that she can't revoke that permission leads us to places where people saying things like, "They said yes to begin with, they don't get to change their mind."

We can of course talk about the give and take of a healthy and loving sexual relationship, but as soon as we make it about authority or outside permissions it gets nasty really quick. As soon as I start making assertions that I deserve, have a right to, or have irrevocable permission to the body of someone else we're entering territory where that persons consent doesn't matter and we're justifying rape.

Do we look at the word "authority" with the subliminal connotation of coercion?

It doesn't have to have those connotations, for instance my wife has authority to grant me access to her body (if we want to stick to using such terms) and there is nothing coercive about her doing so on the face of it. If we're talking about some third party or concept (be they a god or marriage vows) however granting authority then we've entered coercion. The only reason to stand on such outside granted authority is because you want to reserve the ability to insist you've got a right to someone's body when they don't want you to. The idea that I have access to another's body by virtue of anything other than that persons consent does not sit well with me.

If authority is viewed from the framework of having no legal right to intercourse outside of marriage, does that change our idea of what is meant by authority/permission because both parties have consented by the agreement/covenant of marriage?

A lack of intercourse may be viewed as sufficient grounds for dissolution of the marriage but this is not the same thing as a legal right to have intercourse with your spouse. The idea that because you are married and therefore consent is granted and irrevocable is the bases for the argument that you can't rape your spouse. That sex with your spouse isn't something your spouse can refuse you because legally it belongs to you already.

[alas]

I think the word authority here is best look at more as authorized to rather than authority over. I am authorized to have sex with my husband, but I have no authority over sex with my husband. The authorization does come from a third party, my state or church or community, because that community has a vested interest in making sure children are born with a legal father. This has changed a bit with our modern attitudes that a couple does not have to be married to recognize parenthood. In the not too distant past, society was concerned with this. So, I am authorized by my community to have sex with my legal husband and no one else. But that gives me no right to demand it at any particular time.

Going a step beyond this is the idea of women as chattel where the husband has the right to demand sex and the wife being a piece of property and not a human, has no right to refuse and there is no such thing as marital rape.

But, since the reason for marriage is children, most governments/communities/religions recognized that lack of sex is also a problem.

Funny, but the Catholic Church has a much better attitude toward this. I did my social work internship at Catholic Family Services, and had a client in for marriage counseling. She was hesitant to name the problem and her husband refused to come in. Turned out they had been married a year and he refused to consummate the marriage, which some of you may know is grounds for annulment. As soon as I found out the real base of the problem, I had a talk with my supervisor, the Catholic Father. I needed more than I was taught in social work classes, in that this was both a doctrinal matter and a marriage counseling matter. He told me the scripture by Paul quoted above that the wife has claim to her husband’s body. And said that if one partner is using sex as a weapon or denying sex, or even unable to perform sexually, that they do not have a marriage, there fore, they can just cancel the legal sham of “marriage” with an annulment. He explained that while Catholics honor a priest or nun, who makes a choice not to have sex, if a person chooses marriage, they are not choosing a non sexual relationship and it is unfair to ask them to forgo what they choose. He mentioned the idea of weakness and driving the partner to commit adultery.

Contrast this attitude with I had a friend who was so shamed by the church and terrifies she would be worthless if she had sex and her marriage went a year without being consummated. Her husband wanted out, and got CRAP from the church over wanting to get out of a temple marriage. Of course, he could divorce of his own free will, no matter what the church said. He wanted an annulment, not divorce because it was not a marriage and entered into under false pretenses, she never told him there would be no sex because the church had her so terrified. The state of Utah was willing to grant him an annulment, but not the church, and it took him six years to get the sealing canceled. He was just supposed to put up with the lack of sex.

[Rob4Hope]

But, since the reason for marriage is children, most governments/communities/religions recognized that lack of sex is also a problem.

Alas...I'm not picking on you but this jumped off the page at me because it underlies a conclusion I reached years ago as a TBM, which eventually led to my own divorce and leaving the church.

1. The only reason for marriage is sex. Period. Why would I say that (you may ask)?...because everything else you can have outside of marriage without breaking LDS rules. For a while I lived with my sister who had some medical problems. I could look her in the face and tell her I loved her; I could hold her, stroker her hair, and try to comfort her; I could merge my assets with her, share expense and living arrangements; I even slept next to her in the same bed sometimes so that I could be there if she needed me--AND I DID ALL OF THIS without breaking moral law. So, the one thing you can't do without breaking moral law, is have sex (and I'm not complicating this by suggesting incest--I just have a good example of some things that happened to me personally because it was with my sister).
2. The LDS church has an attitude that I believe has grown out of the "chattel" days of polygamy--and that is it is not a sin (or at least a serious sin) to withhold sex. Women are "the Queen of their own body" (Quoting David O. McKay). Sexual refusal is the purview of women (or men if the circumstances are reversed), and you don't have to do anything you don't want to. The problem is with the avalanche of porn and problems the church associates with that, there has been a puritanistic polarization away from sex--the old "mortify the flesh" paradigm of early puritans. You have guys like Jeffrey Holland giving talks about "Souls, Symbols and Sacraments" where, if you listen closely, elevates sex to the most sacred thing there is. You see, from my own studies, the temple is made sacred by the marriage covenant, and according to Holland, marriage is made sacred by the sexual union--it all leads to the top.

Its this kindof stuff that use to drive me crazy. When my marriage fell apart sexually, I was given lines about abstinence being a reflection of true manhood, etc. I was taught: "Sex is completely optional and 100% non-essential". The problem was I had already learned that unless there was sex, there was no reason for marriage! So,...was the position of the church that marriage is non-essential?

Its from sh!t like this I concluded the Proclamation on the Family was a bunch of hooey...total crap. I had no idea it was a legal document at this time--I just knew the church didn't mean what they were saying because of the contradictions happening later with what REALLY goes on.

Bottom line for me?....I don't believe in marriage. I think 2 people can do whatever the hell they want if they are in agreement. And I don't think the church has any business being inside the bedroom of ANYONE, be they gay, of whatever. The real coercion comes as much from the church as from a spouse DEMANDING SEX at all costs. The church is just as much to blame as anyone.

PS: I read that in Europe there is a negative population growth rate. People not having sex for children has become a serious problem in some places. Interesting position, because the position of Joseph Field Smith, Bruce McConkie, Harold B. Lee and others is that if you are not having children, celibacy is the ONLY alternative. SEX IS FOR CHILDREN ONLY was their position.

What a bunch of dry scaly old creepy men!

[Wonderment]

I was told by 3 counselors in the Wasatch Front that "sex is completely optional and 100% non-essential".

So, all you people who want sex....you just need more FAITH!

What a joke....what a joke this mess about "M" is...

--------------

Once had someone argue the point that prostitution should be legal across this whole world...both ways. Why?..because, as this person said: "You pay for sex wherever you are." Back in my TBM marriage days, this was certainly true. I would come home and do the dishes, do laundry, clean and vacume the floor, fix the car, put the dog out, play with the kids and do homework with them, then finish my own study, brush my wife's hair, tell her over and over how hot and sexy she was....and AFTER ALL OF THAT...if I 'earned it' I got sex.

She stayed home, went to visit her friends, watched TV, played games, spent money she didn't earn on things she didn't need...etc.

Oh yeh...I paid for it. And from what I've heard, that is not all that unusual. Goes both ways to...some women pay for it as well. AND THIS IS IN MARRIAGE!

How SAD! In the LDS church, acting "outside the marriage" (as in adultery, or porn) is a sin. But "acting in the marriage" as in withholding, or using it as a club, is not a sin. Its this one-sided view of sex that poisoned my entire notion of marriage, and began the collapse of my faith shelf.

Agreed ---Your point is very well taken. - Wndr.

[BlackMormon]

I think this is an issue in American society and probably more accentuated in Mormonism. When I contrast women's sexual behavior and attitudes towards men here in the U.S. versus, say in Poland, it's day and night. Slavic women WANT to please their partners as well as be pleased. If a man has to masturbate while married, his sex life is incomplete or his wife is dormant. I had a friend confide in me that his wife just "lay there" like a dead fish and wait for him to finish. Many marriages then end up being sexless because the fun ends quickly and not too long after the honeymoon. The men, and in many cases the women too, end up living lives of quiet sexual desperation and many men resort to pornography.
I find that most American women are very indifferent to men in general, even before they have a sexual relationship or sex in marriage. I think that if the wife is hot and satisfies her husband fully and vice-versa, there is no reason for masturbation in the shower or elsewhere. Something is wrong and divorce is likely at some point. Or, some don't know what they have been missing so they get used to the routine. Wives that withold great sex from their husbands and vice-versa, are just asking for trouble, sooner or later someone is going to cheat or end the marriage altogether. Interesting is that when men or women cheat after terrible sexual lives, many people are quick to condemn and point out what a sinner they are for cheating. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying, I'm going to cheat on my spouse today. That gradually happens over years of mediocre sex lives.

[Palerider]

Interesting is that when men or women cheat after terrible sexual lives, many people are quick to condemn and point out what a sinner they are for cheating. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying, I'm going to cheat on my spouse today. That gradually happens over years of mediocre sex lives.

Unfortunately this may be true.

But I think people are cowardly when they allow this to happen and they end up causing even more pain than is necessary.

I know it's hard but Americans and especially Mormons need to find the courage to say, "I'm not happy, I'd really like to go to a highly recommended marriage counselor (not our Bishop!) and see if we can enhance our relationship." or else "I'm unhappy, I want to be honest with you and I'm thinking about a divorce."

Having your spouse find out you've been cheating is not the way to tell them you're unhappy.

The chances of finding a remedy for saving the marriage are so much better without infidelity. Or even in a worst case scenario there is at least a better chance of an amicable breakup.

Have a little integrity people!

[Rob4Hope]

Interesting is that when men or women cheat after terrible sexual lives, many people are quick to condemn and point out what a sinner they are for cheating. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying, I'm going to cheat on my spouse today. That gradually happens over years of mediocre sex lives.

Unfortunately this may be true.

But I think people are cowardly when they allow this to happen and they end up causing even more pain than is necessary.

I know it's hard but Americans and especially Mormons need to find the courage to say, "I'm not happy, I'd really like to go to a highly recommended marriage counselor (not our Bishop!) and see if we can enhance our relationship." or else "I'm unhappy, I want to be honest with you and I'm thinking about a divorce."

Having your spouse find out you've been cheating is not the way to tell them you're unhappy.

The chances of finding a remedy for saving the marriage are so much better without infidelity. Or even in a worst case scenario there is at least a better chance of an amicable breakup.

Have a little integrity people!

Paleride,...I agree with your post here 100%. I am also divorced.

I have to confess that somehow, somewhere, I was imbued with a visceral fear, at the deepest levels, of divorce. In my mind, divorce was worse than porn, masturbation, and even worse things. I remember back in my TBM days looking to Church leadership for answers...and that is actually what started my formal faith crisis. The leadership of the church is heavily divided on sexual issues, and not much of anything has been spoken about it since: its a hushed topic. I do know that, as I mentioned above, acting out is a sin. We were, as parents, encouraged to teach our children at age-appropriate levels about the dangers of pornography. However, I have never heard a GA ever encourage parents to teach children at age-appropriate levels the safety and satisfaction, even protection, that comes from a wholesome and vibrant sexual relationship in marriage.

In the church, sexuality is ALWAYS associated with sin, or its not talked of at all.

I don't know where my fear of divorce came from...I really don't. I can tell you that it was something that came from the deepest levels inside of me. Leaving the church has been one of the best things I have ever done in my life. As far as the church is concerned, I'm going to HELL,..unless I repent: ie. play, pray and pay. I reject their position on marriage (I think they use marriage ONLY as a way to control people--I think the proclamation on the Family is a sham), and I VOMIT OUT their position on sex.

I still cringe when I hear that sex outside of marriage is a sin next to murder. What 2 consenting adults who have no prior commitments do is THEIR BUSINESS (IMHO)

So, you have to engaged people making out in the back of a car, and they touch each other's bodies for a few minutes before kissing, calling it quits and heading to their individual homes.....AND THESE 2 JUST DID SOMETHING WORSE THAN BURING DOWN A BUILDING?...THAN BEATING A CHILD?....THAN ROBBING PENSION FUNDS?.....THAN ARMED ROBBERY? According to the church,..they did.

BAHAHAHAHAH....what a load of crock!

The church needs to look at the examples of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and other leaders to see real examples of sin. OH MY HELL!