In Which I saw this on Reddit and it resonates.

[Thoughtful]

The church is a corporation that sells sex. It presumes to be a monopoly supplier of "legitimate" sex. As a woman, I am the supply, not the demand. My body, my sexuality is the currency the church used to purchase my husband's loyalty. This was a profound violation of my dignity as a human.

By design, Mormon women lack sexual autonomy. We are "given" to a man who "receives" us. Our sexual autonomy belongs to our husbands. The most logical act of self-preservation for a woman is to shut down sexually.

Understanding this conditioning, recognizing the subtle and complex ways this conditioning influences both me and my husband, is our most important task in finding liberation. As long as women's sexual autonomy is disrespected and undermined, the church's influence persists.

My ultimate "fuck you" to the church was leading my husband out and working to be sexually healthy.

Author unknown

[FreeFallin]

This is profound. And it explains so much. I've been working for years to understand what healthy sex even is, and I have come to understand that taking back ownership of my own sexuality as a woman is most empowering.

[MoPag]

Wow. I've never thought about this before, but wow! So true.

Lots of pieces are falling into place now.

[Corsair]

I agree with the general sentiment on this reddit thread. But I don't think it is general enough. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all similarly restrict sexuality. It's not the Mormons who invented it. If anything, Joseph Smith probably loosened it up.

And it's probably more general than just among the major monotheist faiths. Are there major faiths that don't try to control sexuality? There probably are faiths that fit this model, but I am venturing beyond my limited knowledge. But we can also note that current biggest cultures on this planet were influenced from faiths that controlled sexuality. I'm not making a judgement about whether or not this is a good idea. I'm just noting reality.

[Red Ryder]

Edited to add: I just read through the reddit post which adds context to the reply referenced here in Thoughtful's OP. Here's the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _lives_of/

Can someone explain this to me in a little more depth? Why does it resonate?

Before I get clobbered let me explain how I see this in a quick list of points.

1. Mormonism and fundamental religions in general are anti sexuality (natural man)
2. This is designed as a form of control;
3. humans (members) are biologically wired for sex;
4. If you convince the members that sex is evil, wrong, etc; they will then internalize that they are a sinner, broken, and irreparably distanced from God.
5. Religion then can sale (provide at a cost) the cure in the form of continued participation in said religion and bring the member closer (back) to God.
6. Religion is needed to bind the member to God.

Does that post resonate because you recognize your role as a pawn in the binding cycle I listed out above? Or because you now recognize that your own sexuality is broken or non-existent? Please educate me.

I'm struggling with my own sexual inadequacy and trying to repair some toxic damage instilled from years of shame at the hands of worthiness and masturbation interviews. To be honest, I think both male and females have been damaged by an unhealthy church narrative. Women more so in that (as noted) they are "given" and often shuffled to the back by creating a containment in the form of motherhood as the one and true gender role. This gender role is biologically true in that men cannot physically have a baby, but not socially true in that not all women actually want to have a baby and actually have a fundamental right to choose. Religion takes away the woman's right to choose.

I personally find a form of beauty in the context that a man "gives" himself to his wife who excitedly and willingly (of course) "receives" him in a loving and trusting manner. I think this form of trust is what I find inherently beautiful. I think it's also this trust when absent in a sexual relationship is what causes harm.

I see sex within Mormonism as a toxic lubricant that keeps the mormon machine going. Men are convinced to work hard on their missions, be successful, find a pretty wife, have a family. Sex is the unspoken reward for years of chaste abstinence and full obedience to god. Unfortunately religion doesn't teach kids how to explore and develop a healthy sexuality.

I've listened to nearly every Jennifer Finlayson Fife podcast in which she attempts to persuade her listener that mormon doctrine (when focused on god given bodies) is pro sexuality. I see her point in a very nuanced way (as in the clitoris only has one purpose which is pleasure producing; god created our bodies, therefore god expects us to have pleasure), but the overwhelming destructive and toxic harm within Mormonism is more evident than I ever noticed before my faith crisis.

[Jeffret]

It's not necessarily the Mormonism; it's the patriarchy. As an intensely patriarchal, conservative, sex-obsessed, authoritarian, hierarchical religion, it certainly describes Mormonism. But, it also describes other religions, organizations, or just patriarchal society in general.

Keep in mind that up until only a few decades ago, a wife could not legally refuse sex to her husband. In other words, there were no legal prohibitions against spousal rape. It simply didn't exist in the law.

And not too many decades prior to that, a woman didn't necessarily have any legal rights. She was essentially owned by her father until he agreed to transfer that ownership to her husband. A woman's lack of sexual virginity could devalue her in the transaction or impede the transfer of ownership.

(This is a bit oversimplified and exaggerated, but the sense of it is true in many situations.)

[Jeffret]

Edited to add: I just read through the reddit post which adds context to the reply referenced here in Thoughtful's OP. Here's the link.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _lives_of/

Can someone explain this to me in a little more depth? Why does it resonate?

Particularly given your edited addition, I'm not entirely sure what your question is. I think my comments in my earlier response also apply here.

First, we should keep in mind that patriarchy harms men, also. Sure the ones in power, particularly at the top, can do pretty well for themselves. And patriarchy gives men in general advantages that it denies women. But patriarchy insists on fitting men into assigned roles, which may or may not be the best fit, just as it does for women. It teaches and expects terrible things from men and women. The church teaches girls that they are the gatekeepers to sexuality and punishes them harder when the expected bounds are crossed. It also teaches boys that they lack the power to control their own impulses and choices. Both are atrocious, harmful teachings. Both serve to maintain women as second-class, submissive people, but they damage men and women.

A healthy sexual relationship is founded on full consent. Each participant is a partner with full voice and autonomy. Each participant is capable of and grants full consent to any shared activity. As you describe, each participant willingly gives themself to their partner who excitedly and willingly receives them. And likewise in return. Whether man or woman, it should be the same. (Other than of course, anatomical differences.) This doesn't mean that for every encounter both partners are 100% ecstatic, focused, and desirous, but that both can and do grant full consent. One of them might be tired and not 100% in the mood but still willingly grants full consent because of their partner's interest.

To be honest, I think both male and females have been damaged by an unhealthy church narrative.

Absolutely.

As the original post describes, women do have it somewhat worse. In the patriarchal structure of the Church and the society within which it exists, the man is semi-autonomous. He can choose to give himself. And under the rape culture that inculcates us, he has some expectation of freedom to demand what he wants, what he thinks should be given to him. The woman is expected to deny or resist those demands. Under the long history of patriarchy in our society, women were literally given by their father to their husband. Her virtue was important to her father because that determined her value in the exchange. Her sexuality was literally owned by her husband. He was generally free to do with it as he wanted. Though, a number of these things have faded away as feminism has advanced though many vestiges remain, in society, in wedding rituals, in expectations, and certainly in the patriarchal Mormon hierarchy, ritual, and culture.

Feminism, fully realized, frees both men and women from the damaging or limiting roles and expectations, enabling each to individually fulfill their desires according to their interests and abilities.

[Red Ryder]

Thanks Jeffret. I think you pointing out the obvious patriarchy and relevant explanation answers my question.

These conversations are great. Stuff we never discuss within the walls of the church.

[Thoughtful]

It's not necessarily the Mormonism; it's the patriarchy. As an intensely patriarchal, conservative, sex-obsessed, authoritarian, hierarchical religion, it certainly describes Mormonism. But, it also describes other religions, organizations, or just patriarchal society in general.

Keep in mind that up until only a few decades ago, a wife could not legally refuse sex to her husband. In other words, there were no legal prohibitions against spousal rape. It simply didn't exist in the law.

And not too many decades prior to that, a woman didn't necessarily have any legal rights. She was essentially owned by her father until he agreed to transfer that ownership to her husband. A woman's lack of sexual virginity could devalue her in the transaction or impede the transfer of ownership.

(This is a bit oversimplified and exaggerated, but the sense of it is true in many situations.)

I believe there are currently some US states that do not criminalize marital rape even now.

[Jeffret]

I believe there are currently some US states that do not criminalize marital rape even now.

Not really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_r ... tates_law)
"Today, marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states."

But kind of: Marital Rape Is Semi-Legal in 8 States
This Daily Beast article overstates the case, though. Some states treat marital rape differently than non-marital rape. If push came to shove, though, it's unclear if this differentiation would hold up to constitutional challenge. As the Daily Beast article admits at the end, "Marital rape is illegal everywhere in the U.S. but the cultural and legal obstacles facing its victims remain formidable."

But, it was only 1993 that the last laws allowing marital rape were changed. 25 years ago. The majority of us here were probably alive when alive when some states allowing a husband to legally rape his wife.

[MoPag]

Why does it resonate?

I had a big "Aha" moment years ago when I realized that my xh didn't really see me as a person. He saw me, and treated me, as a thing. I was something to be used and something that was supposed to make him happy. At first I was a thing that he loved. But I'm not a thing, I am a person with thoughts, feeling, emotions and needs. I was confused as to why he was always so upset and angry with me. I literally couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong.
A quick example: One night I had a really bad cough, and even after guzzling some cough syrup and sucking on cough drops I was still coughing. He got really angry with me for coughing because he was trying to read a book. I remember feeling so guilty for making him upset (thank you church programming) In that moment I was something disrupting his life. He couldn't see me as a sick, exhausted mother that had to get up at the crack of dawn to get to work.

The post Thoughtful shared was another "Aha" moment because I realized just what kind of a thing the church and my ex thought I was. I was a "sex thing." I was the thing he acquired so he could have "legitimate sex." And the church was in control of both of us all along. While I was learning that I was a sexual object for a righteous priesthood holder to consumer (cupcake lessons etc.) he was being shamed for masturbating. The church was warping both of our senses of healthy sexuality.