Polygamy and later sexual repression

Discussions toward a better understanding of LDS doctrine, history, and culture. Discussion of Christianity, religion, and faith in general is welcome.
User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Dravin » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:21 am

Angel wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:32 am
that is how that goes down ladies.... two can play this game.
Good Lord. Red Ryder's I skipped over as soon as I realized it was some weird historical horror bodice-ripper post and I moved on. Yours... got into my head like some sort brain parasite and I'm still trying to shake it. It made me run home as soon as I got off work and spend the evening snuggled up next to my wife watching movies and TV and being so very happy that neither I nor she engage in campaigns that boil down to pernicious manipulative attacks on the psyche of the other.

Edit: Normally I'd just shrug and move on, I'm hoping this post in some weird way helps me dig it out of my head.
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:55 am

alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
Actually the larger culture taught that sex was only for making babies (especially for women) and if you did it just because you enjoyed it, you were committing sin. Look at the Catholics. This idea is where the whole notion of birth control being sinful came from. Birth control was enabling people to enjoy sex without the resulting pregnancy. And so, explain why, if the sexual repression came from polygamy, that Catholics are still worse than Mormons on the sexual repression business and birth control.
I wasn't commenting on the Catholics at all, nor was I addressing the idea of birth control. My point is there was immense damage done by polygamy to THE WOMAN who were forced to live it on pain of damnation. That damage created a culture of abuse and neglect. The title of the book is in Sacred Loneliness. The women were lonely for what? Companionship, affection, maybe even some attention?

Its my contention that many of these women internally came to detest polygamy. If they didn't, then why would they have to "steel themselves" against needing their husband? And why would they treat their husband like any other guest?

From those initial accounts, its pretty clear there wasn't a lot of "romance" happening in these relationships.

Now, if you take that idea a little further--say suppose there were children from the chance sexual encounters they did have. Would those children be immune to what they saw from the relationships between their father and their mother? Would they not be privy to the "dear guest" relationship, as opposed to a thriving romance? And would those ideas NOT infiltrate those children's notion of the place of romance and sex IN a relationship?
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
Especially for women, enjoying sex is sinful. “It makes women more interested and they are likely to have an affair.” Just look at female genital mutilation for what sexual repression looks like. It is women that society has always wanted to repress, and it is out of fear that if women enjoy sex, they are going to turn into wanton lustful ho’s. It is MENS fear that their children will not really be their children that causes sexual repression.
I don't disagree with you on this, but I also don't know its applicability with early pre and post Nauvoo culture. I do believe there is a slant society has taken, making women the "gate keepers" of male sexulaity, and the LDS church MOST DEFINITELY has moved into that space--or at least did when I was growing up.
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
It has nothing to do with polygamy and everything to do with controlling women. The only thing they have in common is that polygamy is about controlling women.
I disagree about this. Let me explain.

You are completely discounting the pressure put on MEN to control themselves. David O. McKay said that "women are the queen of their own body"...and went on to say that men do NOT have the right to demand sex. Furthermore, a most damaging series of statements were said by Joseph Fielding Smith that, in the context of birth control, explained that the primary [and only] purpose of sex was having children, and if you were NOT going to have sex for children, complete abstinence was THE ONLY OPTION. Anything short of this was "serious transgression".

That pressure wasn't leveled at only women--it affected men. You see, I felt that pressure growing up. I didn't feel like sexuality was about controlling women; I felt keenly a sense of pressure that the church was working VERY hard to control MY SEXUALITY--that of a man. I was asked about masterbating, I was asked about porn use, I was told that I wasn't "a man" unless I could control myself,...etc.

So, when you say "it has nothing to do with polygamy and everything to do with controlling women"....ouch. That statement just negated all the pain I felt as a man ALSO having my sexuality controlled, and being hurt by it.
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
So, I was thinking that your theory doesn’t hold water.......except for the idea that many of the polygamous wives ended up hating men because they were so badly treated.
I'm not sure you got my thesis.

My question is: "Because polygamy caused damaged in those made to follow it, many women focused exclusively on their children's well-being, while themselves nursing and dealing with their own deep emotional damaged. Polygamy not only isolated woman emotionally, it was also fueled by sexual appetite of the men involved. If this is the case, is it possible that the women attempted to counter-balance what they saw as a vice in their husband by teaching their children a much more controlled and restricted perspective on the role of sexuality in marriage, in hopes to prevent their children, including their sons, from perpetrating the damage being done to themselves in their current situation?"

A lot of the really restrive sexual rhetoric came from men like Josep Fielding Smith, Harold B.Lee and Spencer Kimball. Kimball is on record as saying that sex for pleasure is ONLY from Satan. It completely negates the idea of sex for enjoyment, BETWEEN 2 married people.

All of these men CAME RIGHT OUT of polygamous families.

I don't want to cloud the issue with whether the Catholics did this or that, or what anything else may have happened. I am interested in just looking at this idea.
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
And women tend to internalize their hatred and end up hating themselves as well as men.
I don't know this. But if this is true, and was something that happened because of polygamy, its just another testament to the horrible destructive practice it was. Its heartbreaking to know how much pain and now even coverup there has been about this whole horrible polygamous time.
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
So, did the mothers of the guys you mentioned remarry after the death of the polygamist, or did they raise their sons as widows. Either way...Men raised by mothers who dote on them, but hate adult men end up with a confused identity. They KNOW their mother hated men, and they grow up to become a man. And that leads to a screwed up dude. Which may very well manifest in sexual repression.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM TRYING TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND.

Alas....with you saying this, I'm not sure we are all that far afield.
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
So, let’s just say it is more complicated than just your theory.
I agree. It probably IS WAY MORE complicated. But I have to start somewhere. I'm curious. I personally think that polygamy influenced those three men {JFS, HBL, SWK} and the rhetoric they spouted off that was sexually repressive. I don't know if polygamy did or didn't influence them,....but I know for sure they wove sexual repression into their theology.

Alas,...can you suggest another Thesis idea? I'm totally open on this topic. I'm chasing this out of curiosity. I'm also pissed inside, because some of that sexually repressive rhetoric hurt me, from a man's prespective, and it also REALLY messed up my marriage, contributing to years of pain. I suppose some of that pain fuels this current rend of curiosity, but there it is.

Keep the email coming. Don't hold back!...and I mean that. I can TOTALLY handle opposing positions. To me, I don't call it arguing,...I personally call it learning. (Can't change my position unless I can hear AND UNDERSTAND a different position to start with.)

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:07 am

Arcturus wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:31 pm
alas wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:09 am
Actually the larger culture taught that sex was only for making babies (especially for women) and if you did it just because you enjoyed it, you were committing sin. Look at the Catholics. This idea is where the whole notion of birth control being sinful came from. Birth control was enabling people to enjoy sex without the resulting pregnancy. And so, explain why, if the sexual repression came from polygamy, that Catholics are still worse than Mormons on the sexual repression business and birth control.
Great point here alas. But I think there could be some validity in your hypothesis R4H. Decades of polygamy certainly brought about a damaging cultural paradigm within Mormon marriages, which by itself my be distinct from the same sexual repression issues that humans have propagated throughout society in general. I think it's an interesting question if the general subconscious disgust for polygamy catalyzed Mormonism's hard core position on "chastity."
Arcturus,...you used the words "hard core position".

Alas did bring up sexual repression about Catholics. And I know that SWK, JFS and HBL had to have been influenced by the "free love" movements happening through the 60s. Can you speak more to what you refer to here?

I wish I knew more about this whole period of time.

I've read things about the lives of some of these men where, quite frankly, I don't think they were having much sex at home, despite NOT currently living in a polygamous marriage. I mean Mark E. Peterson is on record as saying he never saw his wife's naked body!

User avatar
alas
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:38 am

Rob, I started my post kind of taking an opposing position to yours, then I kind of circled around to partially agreeing with you.

But, now I am thinking that as far as men go, you are right. You are seeing it from the male perspective, which I never experienced. So, yes, I am also learning from your experience.

So, my thoughts currently is that the sexual repression of women is pretty much like the larger culture and really predates polygamy. Polygamy may have worsened it somewhat because women were seen as property, even more under polygamy than the rest of the culture.

But I agree with you that there was sort of a backlash against the sexual excesses of Brigham Young and some of his cohorts. This I think I agree with you caused Mormons to be more sexually repressive of men than the larger American culture. This is one real difference between Mormons and the larger culture is that Mormons are currently strict n male sexual expression. Mormons have less of a double standard sexually. We don’t expect our girls to be pure and then wink and say boys will be boys. We ARE more sexually repressive of men than the larger culture. And we use double helpings of shame for even having sexual thoughts.

And you are right. There was something WRONG with SWK. More so that DOM or JFS. DOM was almost ahead of his time in saying that a woman is queen of her own body and the husband has no right to demand sex. So, I think he was relatively normal on the “sexual health” scale. JFS was a product of his time and saw sex as a necessary evil for making babies. But SWK was very into purity. He saw a woman who was raped as having lost her virtue, because virtue was a thing that could be taken from her by force, not what she is. He was very repressed and saw sex as a necessary evil. So, I really think he fits this psychological profile of raised by a mother who hates men/herself and dotes on her son, and thinks sex is dirty. And has no concept of romantic love. A mother cannot hate males because they are dirty carnal lustful and polygamy, and love her son. She can dote on him, confide in him, treat him as companion and confidant, but not love him. The treating him as companion and confidant is a form of emotional incest. She has a non sexual but spouse like relationship with the child because her husband is so distant, not there, not loving, off with the other wives. This emotional incest with a love/hate relationship is emotionally damaging. And polygamy really set this dynamic up.

I may have to do more research into those guys, I know DOM was raised by his widowed mother, but I haven’t seen signs in him of weird sexual attitudes. But then I was a kid when he was prophet. The others I just know from history.

But back to the idea that the causes of sexual repression are complicated, polygamy sure as hell didn’t help Mormons get rid of sexual repression or any of the larger cultural ideas that sex was dirty and only for babies. And I do think some backlash from polygamy added to the sexual repression of men.

User avatar
alas
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by alas » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:48 am

Oh, and Mark E Peterson never having seen his wife’s naked body, doesn’t at all reflect how often they had sex. They just did sex through the garment and never took for garments all the way off. And dressed in the locked bathroom. My grandmother was this way. Plenty of sex, 12 kids, so plenty of sex, but she bragged about how her husband had never seen her naked and she took a bath with one foot out of the tub with her garments still on. When one foot was clean, she put the clean garments on and finished her bath with that foot out of the tub.

I think the garments and this way of wearing them ALSO caused some sexual problems. Sex had to be mess through layers of clothing, so no wonder women thought sex was dirty. It was .....especially in frontier type of situations.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:48 am

alas wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:38 am
So, my thoughts currently is that the sexual repression of women is pretty much like the larger culture and really predates polygamy. Polygamy may have worsened it somewhat because women were seen as property, even more under polygamy than the rest of the culture.
Let me comment on this specifically. But also from some current anecdotal data I have.

A close friend of mine attends the temple regularly (or at least did). She had several friends with her at the time, and while finishing a session, they were out in the parking lot. She mentioned that it was her birthday--and after the congratulations, one of her friends said: "Well, at least you finally have one day where you don't have to put out in bed!".

My friend was shocked. In her mind, she was VERY MUCH WANTING her birthday present to include some right down get it ON heavy sex! She responded to her friend: "Oh, I LOVE SEX! I hope very much it happens!!!" Her friends looked at her like she was crazy.

This discussion expanded over time, and as time passed, my friend discovered something shocking; the messages of "no no no" were so strong, so clear, and so linking sexual purity with abstinence, that it destroyed some of the intrinsic ability to "let go and enjoy". Of her friends, she found out about 80% of them, all married more than 15 years, had never experienced orgasm.

Oh yeh Alas,...this repressive sexual culture, and the escalation of repression into massive amounts of shame dished out by the LDS church, has done a number on women. Its messed up marriages, its messed up something that could and should be wonderful, and its who knows how far the ripples with travel before the damage finally ends....

User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Dravin » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:51 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:48 am
Oh yeh Alas,...this repressive sexual culture, and the escalation of repression into massive amounts of shame dished out by the LDS church, has done a number on women. Its messed up marriages, its messed up something that could and should be wonderful, and its who knows how far the ripples with travel before the damage finally ends....
'Sex is dirty, vile, and degrading; save it for the one you love!' It's almost like the message was designed to create sexual dysfunction.
Last edited by Dravin on Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:53 am

alas wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:48 am
Oh, and Mark E Peterson never having seen his wife’s naked body, doesn’t at all reflect how often they had sex. They just did sex through the garment and never took for garments all the way off. And dressed in the locked bathroom. My grandmother was this way. Plenty of sex, 12 kids, so plenty of sex, but she bragged about how her husband had never seen her naked and she took a bath with one foot out of the tub with her garments still on. When one foot was clean, she put the clean garments on and finished her bath with that foot out of the tub.

I think the garments and this way of wearing them ALSO caused some sexual problems. Sex had to be mess through layers of clothing, so no wonder women thought sex was dirty. It was .....especially in frontier type of situations.
I've heard stories about this as well. And this is sooooooo totally crazy!

It involves body shaming. Totally!

User avatar
MerrieMiss
Posts: 478
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by MerrieMiss » Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:44 pm

I may be wrong and don't have time to check, but wasn't David O. Mckay the first president of the church without ties to polygamy, meaning, his parents were not polygamists?
The true opposite of order is not disorder but freedom. Most profoundly, the true opposite of control is not chaos but self-control. -Jay Griffiths

User avatar
slavereeno
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:30 am
Location: QC, AZ

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by slavereeno » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:29 pm

Red Ryder wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 11:09 am
...It's tough being a well endowed pioneer woman fancied by the Prophet of God. Sexual repression is just one of those challenges The Lord has blessed us with to endure to the end until indoor plumbing, hot water heaters, and axe body spray become mainstream morsels of everyday LDS Living!
RR, your whole post reads just like the church's new "Saints" honest history book. I wouldn't be surprised if you were secretly one of the authors.
Last edited by slavereeno on Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Thu Nov 29, 2018 1:39 pm

Red....your post turned my stomach.

And it was probably more accurate than just about anything else!

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 1599
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by wtfluff » Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:03 pm

Another idea (which I stole from someone on this board): Maybe S.W. Kimball was asexual, and he just thought everyone else should think, act, walk, talk and (NOT!) have sex just like him.


How did a frontier polygamist sex cult turn into the mormonism of today??? :?

(Oh yeah, that's what this thread is trying to figure out...)
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

Who taught you how to hate?

User avatar
Dravin
Posts: 338
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 11:04 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Dravin » Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:18 pm

wtfluff wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:03 pm
Another idea (which I stole from someone on this board): Maybe S.W. Kimball was asexual, and he just thought everyone else should think, act, walk, talk and (NOT!) have sex just like him.
There is similar thinking out there concerning certain GAs comments about homosexuality being a choice. That they are bisexual or homosexual and choose to be in relationships with women and so assume it is a conscious choice for everyone not realizing that for straight men there is no internal struggle over being attracted to the cute guy at work.
Hindsight is all well and good... until you trip.

Arcturus
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:10 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Arcturus » Thu Nov 29, 2018 3:28 pm

Rob4Hope wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:07 am
Arcturus,...you used the words "hard core position".
I speak from experience and attest to the fact that Mormonism's stance on purity and sexuality is extreme and can cause serious issues for individuals.

Sorry for the details but I'll elaborate a little. I was raised in a hard core orthodox home and was personally orthodox myself, abstaining from everything sexual, and I mean everything except kissing a few girls in my teen years. Marital intimacy was a difficult thing for me in the beginning and I almost went to see a counselor because I had a hard time being intimate with my DW. I thought I was messed up. But time fixed it and things are fine now (I think), although I would consider myself to still be very different from the average male who is a 0 on the Kinsey scale. I attribute it to my Mormon upbringing.
Last edited by Arcturus on Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
“How valuable is a faith that is dependent on the maintenance of ignorance? If faith can only thrive in the absence of the knowledge of its origins, history, and competing theological concepts, then what is it we really have to hold on to?”
D Brisbin

User avatar
Angel
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 8:26 am

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Angel » Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:08 pm

Dravin wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:21 am
Angel wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:32 am
that is how that goes down ladies.... two can play this game.
Good Lord. Red Ryder's I skipped over as soon as I realized it was some weird historical horror bodice-ripper post and I moved on. Yours... got into my head like some sort brain parasite and I'm still trying to shake it. It made me run home as soon as I got off work and spend the evening snuggled up next to my wife watching movies and TV and being so very happy that neither I nor she engage in campaigns that boil down to pernicious manipulative attacks on the psyche of the other.

Edit: Normally I'd just shrug and move on, I'm hoping this post in some weird way helps me dig it out of my head.
Polygamy vs. a healthy marriage. If you are loyal, faithful, honest - you get a real marriage, a real relationship. If you are a slut, disloyal, dishonest, a cheat, sleeping around with multiple people? Sounds like you prefer the monogamous, honest, real, marriage - sounds wonderful. The story was just a warning to anyone who thought sleeping around and being adulterous could be religiously justified - I don't think many here hold that view.
When it is dark enough, you can see the stars. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

User avatar
DPRoberts
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:48 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by DPRoberts » Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:05 am

This is a document I remember from my earlier days in internet COJCOLDSism. It takes a Jungian psychology approach to a thesis similar to RfH's. I quote the opening paragraphs.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-c ... MF0070.doc
Carl Jung once said: "I would rather be whole than good". Perhaps this is not at all different from Jesus' invitation to be perfect, or complete. I present in the following ideas the thesis that within the collective shadow of Mormonism lies a tremendous reservoir of shame surrounding sexuality. I believe this institutional shame is in part a product of the church's inability to honestly face its own history of sexual eccentricity that was a consequent and perhaps integral component of plural marriage. The progeny of this collective shame and the unwillingness to honestly face it, is that it continues to adversely influence church ideology, theology, policy, and subsequent behaviors in the area of sexuality. Facing that shame, by facing the truth, may be foundational to the ability to move past it to a place of greater "wholeness".
Former church president Spencer W. Kimball once conceded that sexual issues were the number one etiological factor he found in divorcing couples:
If you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorney, but that is the reason...[1]
Absent in his concession is any ownership or responsibility of the church institution for the sexual problems its members might experience.
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest. -anon
The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world. -Max Born

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:15 am

DPRoberts wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:05 am
This is a document I remember from my earlier days in internet COJCOLDSism. It takes a Jungian psychology approach to a thesis similar to RfH's. I quote the opening paragraphs.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-c ... MF0070.doc
Carl Jung once said: "I would rather be whole than good". Perhaps this is not at all different from Jesus' invitation to be perfect, or complete. I present in the following ideas the thesis that within the collective shadow of Mormonism lies a tremendous reservoir of shame surrounding sexuality. I believe this institutional shame is in part a product of the church's inability to honestly face its own history of sexual eccentricity that was a consequent and perhaps integral component of plural marriage. The progeny of this collective shame and the unwillingness to honestly face it, is that it continues to adversely influence church ideology, theology, policy, and subsequent behaviors in the area of sexuality. Facing that shame, by facing the truth, may be foundational to the ability to move past it to a place of greater "wholeness".
Former church president Spencer W. Kimball once conceded that sexual issues were the number one etiological factor he found in divorcing couples:
If you study the divorces, as we have had to do in these past years, you will find there are one, two, three, four reasons. Generally sex is the first. They did not get along sexually. They may not say that in court. They may not even tell that to their attorney, but that is the reason...[1]
Absent in his concession is any ownership or responsibility of the church institution for the sexual problems its members might experience.
I've read those quotes from SWK about divorce and sex. Its heart-breaking, but I have reason to believe, from my own studies and conversations with therapists up and down the Wasatch Front, that sex is still the #1 cause of problems. Oh, they say it differently now--its "porn addiction" they blame it on and everything else, but its sexual hurt at the foundation.

I wonder if LDS leadership ever considered that just maybe, possibly, on the outside chance[?] ..... maybe a healthy marriage with some good yummy sex between 2 people who love each other MIGHT be a possible protection against some of this acting out stuff?

I concede there are excesses out there with some plain mean nasty people who cheat--ON BOTH SIDES--but there is a big group of people, both men and women, who wished there was a little less emphasis placed on force-reading scriptures, praying, paying tithing, doing callings, etc,...and a little more emphasis placed on marital sexual harmony.

It wasn't until I was outside of the church that I learned, mostly through networking with others outside the church, that there is a large group of women who were themselves dissatisfied with their sexual relationships inside their LDS heterosexual marriages. WHAT A SHOCK! It was at that point I began to really digest how much damage was done to me! I was taught my whole life, both explicitly and implicitly that sex and virtue (in women) were in opposition. That if you wanted to have a "righteous woman" as a wife, you had to forgo her having any real sexual passion. You see, even I as a man heard those messages being taught to women about them being the gate-keeps of male sexuality.

This shaming crap has done massive damage...MASSIVE. It affected me, my then wife, and a whole lot of people around me. It is base misogynistic, but it also shames men, emasculating them to force deferral to authority in all cases.

A total cult mentality.

User avatar
DPRoberts
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 6:48 pm

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by DPRoberts » Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:46 am

Angel wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 10:08 pm
Dravin wrote:
Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:21 am
Angel wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:32 am
that is how that goes down ladies.... two can play this game.
Good Lord. Red Ryder's I skipped over as soon as I realized it was some weird historical horror bodice-ripper post and I moved on. Yours... got into my head like some sort brain parasite and I'm still trying to shake it. It made me run home as soon as I got off work and spend the evening snuggled up next to my wife watching movies and TV and being so very happy that neither I nor she engage in campaigns that boil down to pernicious manipulative attacks on the psyche of the other.

Edit: Normally I'd just shrug and move on, I'm hoping this post in some weird way helps me dig it out of my head.
Polygamy vs. a healthy marriage. If you are loyal, faithful, honest - you get a real marriage, a real relationship. If you are a slut, disloyal, dishonest, a cheat, sleeping around with multiple people? Sounds like you prefer the monogamous, honest, real, marriage - sounds wonderful. The story was just a warning to anyone who thought sleeping around and being adulterous could be religiously justified - I don't think many here hold that view.
I had a similar reaction to the Angel post mentioned. Hell hath no fury.... and all that. I also made a point of snuggling up with my DW for a bit. But I want to thank Angel for posting that because the point she is trying to make is both informative and a warning to those of us still happily married.

For most of my adult life, being a male, I was okay with polygamy. It was only when I got the female perspective by reading Wife Number 19, reading posts by the women of NOM, and subsequent reading of Tell it All (another 19th century polygamy expose by woman who lived in and among it), that my male delusions about polygamy being acceptable were shattered. So I am grateful whenever I encounter information from the women's point of view. It's something I don't come by naturally :?
When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest. -anon
The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world. -Max Born

User avatar
wtfluff
Posts: 1599
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:20 pm
Location: Worshiping Gravity / Pulling Taffy

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by wtfluff » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am

Rob4Hope wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:15 am
I've read those quotes from SWK about divorce and sex.
So, "the powers that be" can admit that issues with sex can cause problems in a marriage. What's their solution? Just stop having sex at all. That will fix the problem!

What divine inspiration!!! These ideas seem to have completely fixed the issue, no? ( <- That last couple of sentences are slightly sarcastic if you can't tell...)
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. -Frater Ravus

Keep the company of those who seek the truth - run from those who have found it -Václav Havel

Who taught you how to hate?

User avatar
Rob4Hope
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 1:43 pm
Location: Salt Lake City -- the Motherland!!

Re: Polygamy and later sexual repression

Post by Rob4Hope » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:05 am

wtfluff wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am
Rob4Hope wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:15 am
I've read those quotes from SWK about divorce and sex.
So, "the powers that be" can admit that issues with sex can cause problems in a marriage. What's their solution? Just stop having sex at all. That will fix the problem!

What divine inspiration!!! These ideas seem to have completely fixed the issue, no? ( <- That last couple of sentences are slightly sarcastic if you can't tell...)
Yes. Their answer is "stop having sex". I am NOT making that up! It comes across in the culture, the whole 12 step adoption by LDS Family Services, etc. And---<<drum roll here>>---there are actual statements from people condoning sexless marriage!

Brings me back to the 3 I am looking to understand better: SWK, HBL, and JFS. Of those three, JFS and HBL seem to be the biggest offenders.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests