Keys To Sexuality

[Linked]

The Natasha Helfer ex-ing saga got me thinking about the brighamite sect of the mormon church's view of sexuality. I had a little metaphor I used to make sense of it before:

You keep the keys to your sexuality until you are married, then you give them to your spouse. Only your spouse is allowed to use them.

This view means no masturbation or porn or cheating or pre-marital fooling around. But I think it is a little different now, and worse:

The church attempts to take the keys to your sexuality, then gives one to your spouse. Only your spouse is allowed to use it.

This still disallows the activities above, but I think this distinction highlights the church's role. You are born with your sexuality, whatever it may be. It is yours and only yours. Then the church tries to convince you that in order to be a good, worthy child of god, you must do what they say with it. It's gotta fit in their box. Their box goes against natural human development in many cases. And their box prevents people from understanding their own sexuality at all. If you break their rules then they bury you with guilt. If you don't break their rules then you are in for a rough wedding night, and possibly rough marriage. If you break their rules and actually know how your sexuality works then your spouse may hold that against you. Since the church has given your spouse the keys to your sexuality what do you do when they are interested and you aren't, or vice versa?

To be fair, the mormon church is not the first group to do this, nor are they the worst. But it's still messed up.

[jfro18]

I saw a post I think on Facebook but maybe it was here where the church says that the libido is a 'myth.'

For some reason that just struck me as something that can only happen from an organization that has a need to control you - again it's completely contradicting what we know about nature/people/etc - the idea of a sex drive is a real thing, and the church again tries to infantalize members in order to control them so that their identity belongs to the church.

But you're right - it's not a good thing, they aren't the only ones to do it, and it's messed up.

[Red Ryder]

I think that’s why pornography use is higher among religious people. There’s no other outlet for sexual desire if a spouse is not fully participating in marital relations. Guilt and shame feed the need to use porn.

The church attempts to take the keys to your sexuality, then gives one to your spouse. Only your spouse is allowed to use it.

I would argue they keep every key so that they can keep control except when it’s time to procreate.

They steal sexuality in a variety of ways.

Instilling shame through cup cake and gum analogies. Shame towards masturbation. Youth modesty standards etc.

Garments steal visual intimacy and shared sexuality between couples. Temple recommends interviews, etc.

Everything the church does is to keep people in an infantilized state of being. Controlling Sexuality is one of the most toxic ways to maintain control.



I

[Linked]

I saw a post I think on Facebook but maybe it was here where the church says that the libido is a 'myth.'

For some reason that just struck me as something that can only happen from an organization that has a need to control you - again it's completely contradicting what we know about nature/people/etc - the idea of a sex drive is a real thing, and the church again tries to infantalize members in order to control them so that their identity belongs to the church.

But you're right - it's not a good thing, they aren't the only ones to do it, and it's messed up.

I just saw that too. Looks like it is discussed is in the A Parents Guide manual. The relevent quote below.

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union.

ETA - This is some messy false philosophies of church mingled with claims of science. Will I die if I don't express my sexuality? No. But can suppressing my sexuality be harmful? Hell Yes! Not to mention, sex can be super fun and awesome. There is a lost opportunity by denying that if it is something of value to you. And then at the end the note that "physical and emotional needs are fulfilled through sex..." basically admits that sex drive is NOT a myth.

Are they defining sex drive as "A need for sex that if unfulfilled will kill you"? I think they are by comparing it to breathing and eating. I'm pretty sure that is not how most people understand the phrase. Typical. Redefine the word. Bastards.

[2bizE]

Sex drive is not a myth. I would like to see a peer reviewed national or world medical study suggesting that having a drive to reproduce is a myth.

[Red Ryder]

Wow, I just read through that in Elder Oaks conference talk voice. {{{shutter}}}}

I’d say it’s an admission that General Authorities don’t have a sex drive. Therefore it must be a myth.

Who wrote that garbage?

[Corsair]

I just saw that too. Looks like it is discussed is in the A Parents Guide manual. The relevent quote below.

The intimate relationship between husband and wife realizes its greatest value when it is based on loving kindness and tenderness between the marriage partners. This fact, supported by valid research data, helps newly married couples recognize that the so-called sex drive is mostly myth. Sexual intimacy is not an involuntary, strictly biological necessity for survival, like breathing and eating. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife can be delayed or even suspended for long periods of time with no negative effect (for example, when the health of one or the other requires it). Husbands and wives are not compelled to mate because their genes or hormones order them to do so. Sexual powers are voluntary and controllable; the heart and mind do rule. While sex drive is a myth, husbands and wives do have physical and emotional needs that are fulfilled through sexual union.

The Parent's Guide is a clear basis for their preferred path forward for LGBT people. Getting married to someone you are not attracted to and suppressing your desires for intimacy is a valid strategy. Staying single and celibate would be accepted even if regular does of condescension would be heaped upon you. The LDS church long ago denounced and discard support for religious orders that include celibacy like monastics. That path would be a potential solution to some LGBT people. But I don't see the institutional church producing a policy like that at all.

[hmb]

My grandparents, very TBM, had never seen each other naked. They had a large herd of children, but did the dirty deed through sheets with openings. This tells me that they only did the act for procreation. It also tells me that while grampa got to enjoy some of it, grandma probably didn't. I wonder if this was a normal practice? Early 1900's.

[Mormorrisey]

My grandparents, very TBM, had never seen each other naked.

Apparently, neither had Elder Mark E Peterson and his wife. Although that's an "oral" report from someone who heard it. No written record.

But I agree with the general tone of this thread. Money and sex - the keys to Mormon control.

[Not Buying It]

It is absolutely about control, but a lot of it is about using sexuality to inspire guilt to get that control. You see, contrary to the Parents' Guide nonsense on the subject, the sex drive is very real, and very, very difficult to control to the extent Mormonism expects you to. Particularly in men (not being sexist, just biologically men tend to have stronger libidos, and that's not to say women never have strong libidos, I am just speaking in general). Few men will get far through any given day, never mind through life, without having thoughts that the Church categorizes as impure and often behaviors as well.

So - they have an infinite, renewable, inexhaustible, almost universal source of guilt to draw upon in maintaining control over their members. It isn't just about controlling the behavior per se, it is about exploiting the inevitable guilt most members will experience thanks to an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation of "purity" in thought and action. Convince people the Church has the only means to absolve that guilt, and they have you right where they want you.

Yes they want to control the behavior, and by controlling access to sex they get some degree of power (think of how young women are taught to only marry returned missionaries, the Church essentially pimps them out to get guys to go on missions). But is the guilt that gives them the most power over members.

[Palerider]

In my early psych classes we were taught that there's a difference between "instinct" and physical "drives".

If you take a Canada goose and put him in a cage when it's time to fly south for the winter he will beat himself to death trying to break out and join his fellow geese. He has no control over that instinct. It's hard wired.

Humans as I understand it may have only ONE instinct and that is the instinct to suckle when an infant is first born. The rest of the body's "DRIVES" are relatively controllable but may be controlled as a detriment to one's human development if done so in the extreme.

Only an idiot would deny the existence of the sex drive. And I don't see a problem in exercising appropriate SELF-control in relation to that drive. GENERALLY speaking, wise use of the sex drive can save people a lot of heart ache.

In the particular cases of LGBTQ I think the individual strengths and belief systems of those individuals are going to prevail in their lives. I think the more closely they follow Christ and his teachings the happier and better off they will be and I have some scripture that I believe backs that up but don't have time or space to delve into it now.

I certainly wouldn't put myself in the place of judgement regarding those who have to make those life decisions unless their intent is to harm others.

The church only hurts itself by taking such a negative, punishment based approach to member sexuality. People who are paying the price of misusing their sexual urges (disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.) don't need the church piling on unnecessary guilt.

Sexual mistakes can be difficult but they aren't the end of the world.

[moksha]

... the church says that the libido is a 'myth.'

Can't remember exactly, but didn't the Libido come to life in the form of an angel with a throbbing drawn sword?

[Linked]

Apparently this meme is 7 years old, but it's new to me and seems to apply here. Just replace Jesus' face with whoever is trying to control your sexuality. Mom, is that you?

[Reuben]

Apparently this meme is 7 years old, but it's new to me and seems to apply here. Just replace Jesus' face with whoever is trying to control your sexuality. Mom, is that you?

I could imagine President Nelson's face on it and it being unironic cringe created for an actual seminary class assignment.

[2bizE]

I haven’t seen that meme before either, but it makes sense....for millennia religion has played a key role in controlling human sexuality.

[Oliver]

Apparently this meme is 7 years old, but it's new to me and seems to apply here. Just replace Jesus' face with whoever is trying to control your sexuality. Mom, is that you?

That meme is creepy to me. It would lead to the logical conclusion that Jesus is a voyeur...

[Linked]

That meme is creepy to me. It would lead to the logical conclusion that Jesus is a voyeur...

Jesus and your ancestors...

[Reuben]

That meme is creepy to me. It would lead to the logical conclusion that Jesus is a voyeur...

Jesus and your ancestors...

Joseph Smith on the spirits of the just:

Enveloped in flaming fire, they are not far from us, and know and understand our thoughts, feelings and motions, and are often pained therewith.

If they're pained by what they see, they have only themselves to blame.

[hmb]

I thought you had to invite him, with prayer, before you get going. Maybe that's the HG. Perhaps Jesus and the HG are both there. And here I thought the church frowned on group YOU KNOW WHAT. Well it does explain a lot. The HG is too busy to whisper that the church is true. No wonder I never felt special and blessed with a testimony that was beyond a shadow of a doubt!