Stake Conf. Topic: Sexaul Intimacy

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

This thread is Exhibit A on why layman male leadership of the Church should not be conducting lessons on healthy sexuality to the Relief Society.

ain't that the truth.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by FarrahWaters

I didn't think Archaea was being creepy, I thought he was stating fact. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I was actually paraphrasing Dr. Laura Brotherson, an LDS psychologist, who advocated married Mormon women explore their sexuality through masturbation. I'm not a woman, so all I can do is refer to the professionals, you can find this in And They Were Not Ashamed.

It's not the focus of the book as it is simply addressed in one chapter. It's a book written by a professional for a lay audience, a very prudish one at that.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Now that I look back, how pathetic that I was 25 years old and still really didnt know for sure what the rules were within our own Church. There was never really a single specific talk about it in YM. Or EQ. Nothing, really. And i think that it is pretty common that the Bishop has to answer these questions to engaged couples.

I guess I've had good luck with leaders and teachers on the topic. At BYU, I had a bishop who taught the ward (singles) about sexual behavior. He started with a large blackboard and said, "This board represents the entire universe of sexual conduct. Anything you can imagine, and a whole lot more, can be found in this universe." Then he drew a large oval that filled most of the board. “This oval,” he said, “represents all sexual behavior that is appropriate for married people. Outside the oval, are behaviors like bestiality, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, sadomasochism, and any conduct in which both partners do not join in willingly and happily.” I don't think he mentioned anything else.

Then, within the oval, he drew a small circle and said, "This is your world of acceptable sexual behavior. It includes holding hands, and hugs and kisses of affection, but not of passion. Beyond that, you jump straight to outside the oval." But then he and his wife talked to us about how great sex is, and how, even though it's often very difficult, it's worth the wait.

I used that approach a lot while I was bishop, and I had young marrieds talk to the youth, essentially to confirm that (i) sex is really, really good, and (ii) it's best if one plays by the rules and waits for the right person and time.

Given that, statistically, devout churchgoers (of any denomination) report more satisfying sex lives than those who don't go, I don't buy the notion that, on balance, religion promotes unhealthy hangups. I know it happens, but it's unfair to conclude faith hinders, rather than promotes, a healthy sex life.

That said, while wading through this thread I couldn’t get Marvin Gaye’s “Sexual Healing” out of my head.

[danimal]

I haven't read through the 11 pages of comments, so maybe I'm just redundant. Does the church have an overly prudish approach to sex? Definitely. Do most churches? Certainly.
At the same time, sex is just a tough thing to negotiate in a relationship. I've done a lot of pre-marriage and couples counseling and couples from all walks of life have trouble synchronizing their sexuality. It's not unique to Mormons or Christians or anybody. It's a human problem. The church could do lots of things better to address sex; that is clear. But to think that outside of the church that it's some sort of panacea of women without any sexual inhibitions is just plain silly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

I guess I've had good luck with leaders and teachers on the topic. At BYU, I had a bishop who taught the ward (singles) about sexual behavior. He started with a large blackboard and said, "This board represents the entire universe of sexual conduct. Anything you can imagine, and a whole lot more, can be found in this universe." Then he drew a large oval that filled most of the board. “This oval,” he said, “represents all sexual behavior that is appropriate for married people. Outside the oval, are behaviors like bestiality, adultery, fornication, pedophilia, sadomasochism, and any conduct in which both partners do not join in willingly and happily.” I don't think he mentioned anything else.

Then, within the oval, he drew a small circle and said, "This is your world of acceptable sexual behavior. It includes holding hands, and hugs and kisses of affection, but not of passion. Beyond that, you jump straight to outside the oval." But then he and his wife talked to us about how great sex is, and how, even though it's often very difficult, it's worth the wait.

I used that approach a lot while I was bishop, and I had young marrieds talk to the youth, essentially to confirm that (i) sex is really, really good, and (ii) it's best if one plays by the rules and waits for the right person and time.

Given that, statistically, devout churchgoers (of any denomination) report more satisfying sex lives than those who don't go , I don't buy the notion that, on balance, religion promotes unhealthy hangups. I know it happens, but it's unfair to conclude faith hinders, rather than promotes, a healthy sex life.

That said, while wading through this thread I couldn’t get Marvin Gaye’s “Sexual Healing” out of my head.

You had me until you made this correlation, and the Marvin Gaye thing. A mighty empiricist are you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by danimal

I haven't read through the 11 pages of comments, so maybe I'm just redundant. Does the church have an overly prudish approach to sex? Definitely. Do most churches? Certainly.
At the same time, sex is just a tough thing to negotiate in a relationship. I've done a lot of pre-marriage and couples counseling and couples from all walks of life have trouble synchronizing their sexuality. It's not unique to Mormons or Christians or anybody. It's a human problem. The church could do lots of things better to address sex; that is clear. But to think that outside of the church that it's some sort of panacea of women without any sexual inhibitions is just plain silly.

Of course not, they are beset by different hang ups. Our hang ups are always the worse ones, don't you know?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
That said, while wading through this thread I couldn’t get Marvin Gaye’s “Sexual Healing” out of my head.

Great song, and Gaye's rendition of the national anthem at the NBA All-Star game is a national treasure. I listen to it all the time, and it moves me every time.

I'd be remiss if I didn't recount a recent conversation I had in the foyer with a gentleman in my ward. The ward temple visit was switched from Saturday night to Saturday morning. We did this to accommodate the many mid-singles in our ward who wanted to go to the temple on Saturday morning so they could party on Saturday night. Anyways, a 50-year old gentleman approached me to say we shouldn't have switched ward temple night. His words: "I'm a sex therapist, and I bet you couldn't guess when couples are most likely to have sex: Saturday morning. So I strongly suggest that we switch the temple visit back to Saturday night."
I smile and nod, and think, "Riiiight. I'll bring that up in the next ward council meeting."

[FarrahWaters]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Being a girl you'd know what he was commenting on better than I......

Thanks, but you don't need to be a girl to know that girls and women masturbate.

Originally Posted by danimal

I haven't read through the 11 pages of comments, so maybe I'm just redundant. Does the church have an overly prudish approach to sex? Definitely. Do most churches? Certainly.
At the same time, sex is just a tough thing to negotiate in a relationship. I've done a lot of pre-marriage and couples counseling and couples from all walks of life have trouble synchronizing their sexuality. It's not unique to Mormons or Christians or anybody. It's a human problem. The church could do lots of things better to address sex; that is clear. But to think that outside of the church that it's some sort of panacea of women without any sexual inhibitions is just plain silly.

At last, someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in. Thanks danimal.

Originally Posted by ERCougar

This thread is Exhibit A on why layman male leadership of the Church should not be conducting lessons on healthy sexuality to the Relief Society.

No kidding.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by FarrahWaters

Thanks, but you don't need to be a girl to know that girls and women masturbate.



At last, someone who knows what they're talking about chimes in. Thanks danimal.


No kidding.

If I may borrow from TripleD.......rowrr!

[exUte]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I agree.

Problem is the church has always shied away from dealing with the subject and instead used an approach strongly based in guilt mongering...which ends up creating an army of sexual camels with major issues to overcome later on.

when teaching the YM and YW of the Church?