LDS Freedom Forum

thestock wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 11:50 am I have resisted clicking on this topic until now because.....really? Is this a legitimate question someone has? I figured it was a troll thread but its at 3 pages already. I dont mean to come off as rude or condescending.....it just seems this question is silly. If someone really feels any guilt or shame whatsoever over lusting after their wife then God help you.....you need it.

I AM wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:16 am

thestock wrote: ↑April 22nd, 2019, 11:50 am I have resisted clicking on this topic until now because.....really? Is this a legitimate question someone has? I figured it was a troll thread but its at 3 pages already. I dont mean to come off as rude or condescending.....it just seems this question is silly. If someone really feels any guilt or shame whatsoever over lusting after their wife then God help you.....you need it.

--------------
more like, "God help you.....(because you're the one who really) needs it !"

it's not up to me.
No matter how you want to "look at IT" , (as a thing) and how much you want to twist it and justify it to fit what you want it to be, Lust has already been defined very clearly in our scriptures - read ALL the scriptures to do with lust in my comments,
and you just might get the real picture of what lust really is.

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:50 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

Wait, why was it the woman's fault that she had never seen her husband naked? Was he incapable of taking his garments off the entire time they were married? Why is the blame put on the wife? If this story is true, it's very sad indeed - but nowhere in the telling is it construed that it was the wife's fault that her husband refused to take his garments off while having sex. In fact, going by the info here, the couple was young many, many decades ago, which would also imply a generation where the husband ruled the house and dictated what happened during sex - so if anything, I'm inclined to believe it was the husband's bizarre idea to leave their garments on during sex.

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:20 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:50 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

Wait, why was it the woman's fault that she had never seen her husband naked? Was he incapable of taking his garments off the entire time they were married? Why is the blame put on the wife? If this story is true, it's very sad indeed - but nowhere in the telling is it construed that it was the wife's fault that her husband refused to take his garments off while having sex. In fact, going by the info here, the couple was young many, many decades ago, which would also imply a generation where the husband ruled the house and dictated what happened during sex - so if anything, I'm inclined to believe it was the husband's bizarre idea to leave their garments on during sex.

I agree, its most likely his design to have it that way.

Its considered the womans fault because women are the sexually repressed ones and men always have a healthy robust sex drive and can always do it whenever. If hes not having sex 3-5x a week, its always her fault.
Its the societal norm to shame women if they hint at being sexual and if they arent sexual enough.
Its the most dysfunction pile of falsehoods and impossible to navigate - like walking on eggshells.
People/cultures have subdued women sexually and shamed them openly if they express any sexual desires as a means to keep them inline and under control to stay “pure”. At the same time, men have received a pat in the back and a “way to go” if hes sexual or desires a mate.
And of course, “boys” will always blame the women...men don’t.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:21 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

What HE was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior....does that sit well?

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband.

Benaishtart wrote: ↑April 24th, 2019, 3:40 pm Call me a blasphemer but Christ was married. He enjoyed marital relations. I have no doubt that included a strong desiring look towards Mary Magdalene. Gods look at their eternal partners in a sexual way. And guess what prudes! It’s not a sin! However, I believe there is a difference between appropriate God given desires and lust. Lust makes us unconscious and completely susceptible to our base desires. This isn’t an issue for mature souls and resurrected beings. Kinks are lust, homosexual relationships are lust based, pedophilia is lust based, any perversion is lust, but if it’s right that dirty feeling will and should not be there and I believe it should just be called ‘desire’. I guess now I’ve offended everyone!
[/]

Haven't offended me!

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:15 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:20 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:50 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

Wait, why was it the woman's fault that she had never seen her husband naked? Was he incapable of taking his garments off the entire time they were married? Why is the blame put on the wife? If this story is true, it's very sad indeed - but nowhere in the telling is it construed that it was the wife's fault that her husband refused to take his garments off while having sex. In fact, going by the info here, the couple was young many, many decades ago, which would also imply a generation where the husband ruled the house and dictated what happened during sex - so if anything, I'm inclined to believe it was the husband's bizarre idea to leave their garments on during sex.

I agree, its most likely his design to have it that way.

Its considered the womans fault because women are the sexually repressed ones and men always have a healthy robust sex drive and can always do it whenever. If hes not having sex 3-5x a week, its always her fault.
Its the societal norm to shame women if they hint at being sexual and if they arent sexual enough.
Its the most dysfunction pile of falsehoods and impossible to navigate - like walking on eggshells.
People/cultures have subdued women sexually and shamed them openly if they express any sexual desires as a means to keep them inline and under control to stay “pure”. At the same time, men have received a pat in the back and a “way to go” if hes sexual or desires a mate.
And of course, “boys” will always blame the women...men don’t.

Let me see if I understand correctly...
SHE decides sex should never involve nakedness.
SHE decides that sex should never be performed for the husband's pleasure or her pleasure.
SHE decides that her husband should never benefit from the emotional and relationship benefits of healthy intimacy.
And after all of this it's not her fault?

Let me guess: you know that women can do no wrong and any time a sin is committed it's a man's fault.

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:20 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:21 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

What HE was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior....does that sit well?

If he did something abusive then it would sit well. I've known women whose husbands committed marital rape. That selfishness crossed the line of abusive behavior. I've known women whose husbands committed sundry other acts that crossed the line of abusive behavior.

I'm sorry that I didn't know that you were so fragile as a woman that you couldn't handle one man saying that one woman in one isolated instance was abusive to her husband without burying it in the middle of a list of 1,000 or more men who committed abuse. And I am really sorry that you will have to somehow endure a law enforcement change away from the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, which states that DV is ALWAYS an act of a man against a woman, to a fair and rational real-world acknowledgment that when women assault husbands it really is domestic violence. But there's only five and a half months to the next General Women's Session of General Conference when you can be told that women are absolutely perfect and never do anything wrong. You're more than halfway there!

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband. I also feel sad for some of the posters on this thread. If I interpret their words correctly (and I admit I may not have), they live a very prudish, sexually repressed life, and I hope their spouse is on the same page or there could be marital trouble down the road.

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 5:17 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:20 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:21 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 1:28 pm

What she was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior.

What HE was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior....does that sit well?

If he did something abusive then it would sit well. I've known women whose husbands committed marital rape. That selfishness crossed the line of abusive behavior. I've known women whose husbands committed sundry other acts that crossed the line of abusive behavior.

I'm sorry that I didn't know that you were so fragile as a woman that you couldn't handle one man saying that one woman in one isolated instance was abusive to her husband without burying it in the middle of a list of 1,000 or more men who committed abuse. And I am really sorry that you will have to somehow endure a law enforcement change away from the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, which states that DV is ALWAYS an act of a man against a woman, to a fair and rational real-world acknowledgment that when women assault husbands it really is domestic violence. But there's only five and a half months to the next General Women's Session of General Conference when you can be told that women are absolutely perfect and never do anything wrong. You're more than halfway there!

Lol, I am not fragile. And that attack doesn’t hurt me, it makes me chuckle because you do not know me. Ask my husband if Im fragile, lol.

My statement was to put into words the opposite and equally possible situation to your assumption because the story didnt say the wife was the reason.

People keep saying that everyone thinks women do no wrong and church teaches women cannot sin...where in the world is this coming from? I have never heard these words uttered from leadership, only from disgruntled men. And repeating it over and over is what is perpetuating this perceived belief.

Davka wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 7:32 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 5:17 pm

brianj wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:20 pm

MMbelieve wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 2:21 pm

What HE was doing goes beyond selfish to cross the line of abusive behavior....does that sit well?

If he did something abusive then it would sit well. I've known women whose husbands committed marital rape. That selfishness crossed the line of abusive behavior. I've known women whose husbands committed sundry other acts that crossed the line of abusive behavior.

I'm sorry that I didn't know that you were so fragile as a woman that you couldn't handle one man saying that one woman in one isolated instance was abusive to her husband without burying it in the middle of a list of 1,000 or more men who committed abuse. And I am really sorry that you will have to somehow endure a law enforcement change away from the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence, which states that DV is ALWAYS an act of a man against a woman, to a fair and rational real-world acknowledgment that when women assault husbands it really is domestic violence. But there's only five and a half months to the next General Women's Session of General Conference when you can be told that women are absolutely perfect and never do anything wrong. You're more than halfway there!

Lol, I am not fragile. And that attack doesn’t hurt me, it makes me chuckle because you do not know me. Ask my husband if Im fragile, lol.

My statement was to put into words the opposite and equally possible situation to your assumption because the story didnt say the wife was the reason.

People keep saying that everyone thinks women do no wrong and church teaches women cannot sin...where in the world is this coming from? I have never heard these words uttered from leadership, only from disgruntled men. And repeating it over and over is what is perpetuating this perceived belief.

Lol. Fragile women don't live where you live.

I’d be inclined to agree... with one exception. It might be that her husband had wanted it the same way, and agreed with her completely. In which case I suppose it’s not abuse. Who am I to judge? If they both wanted it that way, we should respect them for the decision....

ori wrote: ↑April 24th, 2019, 11:21 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 24th, 2019, 11:00 pm

To look and lust after the flesh - to lust after ANYONE'S BODY (including your wife's or even yourself) is wrong.

Please define what is and is not lust in your mind.

Yeah this thread is getting pretty repetitive and kind of ridiculous. With no one coming to an understanding. It kind of seems like person-with-blasphemous-name-who-quotes-scriptures-repeatedly hasn’t specified a very good definition of what actually is appropriate sexual behavior in a marriage, so if we all lived by what we perceive this person’s rules are, there would be few babies made.

The simple answer (simple in theory, at least) is to follow the Spirit, and if not that, then the Light of Christ. Be mindful and in tune with the Holy Ghost, and you’ll know what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior in your marriage. — This is what I am attempting to do.

I AM wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 7:11 am

ori wrote: ↑April 24th, 2019, 11:21 pm

Fiannan wrote: ↑April 24th, 2019, 11:00 pm

To look and lust after the flesh - to lust after ANYONE'S BODY (including your wife's or even yourself) is wrong.

Please define what is and is not lust in your mind.

Yeah this thread is getting pretty repetitive and kind of ridiculous. With no one coming to an understanding. It kind of seems like person-with-blasphemous-name-who-quotes-scriptures-repeatedly hasn’t specified a very good definition of what actually is appropriate sexual behavior in a marriage, so if we all lived by what we perceive this person’s rules are, there would be few babies made.

The simple answer (simple in theory, at least) is to follow the Spirit, and if not that, then the Light of Christ. Be mindful and in tune with the Holy Ghost, and you’ll know what is and is not acceptable sexual behavior in your marriage. — This is what I am attempting to do.

------------
I DON'T NEED TO "specify a very good definition of what actually is appropriate sexual behavior in a marriage"
because the scriptures, and even church leaders have already done that,
but you, like many here,
don't really care that much about the scriptures and what they say, and don't want to hear it.

"What "MY rules are" ? ? ?
and " thestock " says I'm "against the Church"

hum interesting.
In this thread alone I've repeatedly quoted how many scriptures ?,
and how many prophets ?, and lds.org, how many times !,
and yet, you call them MY rules;
and " thestock " says I'm "against the Church".
incredible;
just how little faith members put in our scriptures,
and even in their own church leaders, and what they have to say.

and the ONLY REASON I use the username " I AM ",
is because the phrase in the scriptures " I AM THAT I AM" , is one of the understandings my wife had from scriptures that helped her to believe and faith in GOD !

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:43 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband.

Hi RocknRoll. In the telling of this story to your mother, did the woman say it was HER idea to never take their garments off during sex? Or was it her husband's idea? Or did they both agree on it together? In the generation the woman and her husband got married in (many, many decades ago), it would be highly unusual for the woman to dictate what they did in any aspect of their married lives, let alone their sex life. So please clarify - was it the wife who insisted they never take off their garments during sex (meaning her husband was such a spineless wimp, I'm surprised he could even perform the act)? Or was it the husband who insisted they never take off their garments during sex (in which case, the wife would have just been following along with/obeying her priesthood leader/husband's wishes)?

You say you "pitied" the woman, and felt "sad" for her husband - which is a somewhat veiled attempt to blame this bizarre situation on the wife - yet there is exactly zero indication in the rest of your story that it was the wife's decision to never take their garments off, yet she is now being blamed for exactly that - so do the HONEST thing, and please clarify. And if you don't know the answer, then maybe the story was better left untold, as now erroneous conclusions are being made by some, bringing even more contention into this ridiculous thread. Thank you.

I DON'T NEED TO "specify a very good definition of what actually is appropriate sexual behavior in a marriage"
because the scriptures, and even church leaders have already done that,
but you, like many here,
don't really care that much about the scriptures and what they say, and don't want to hear it.

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 9:41 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 3:43 pm

RocknRoll wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 9:28 am I knew of an older LDS lady who confided in my mother, after her husband had passed away, that in over 50 years of marriage, she had never seen her husband naked until he was too sick to take care of himself and she had to bathe him. My mother was surprised since they had 4 grown children. She inquired a little further and the lady explained that “relations” were always conducted in the dark with garments only “pushed aside” for a few moments. Sex was only initiated when a child was wanted. She let my mom know, in no uncertain terms, that “this is how a good and decent Mormon couple conducted themselves” and anything beyond this was a sin.

I pitied this woman and felt sad for her husband.

Hi RocknRoll. In the telling of this story to your mother, did the woman say it was HER idea to never take their garments off during sex? Or was it her husband's idea? Or did they both agree on it together? In the generation the woman and her husband got married in (many, many decades ago), it would be highly unusual for the woman to dictate what they did in any aspect of their married lives, let alone their sex life. So please clarify - was it the wife who insisted they never take off their garments during sex (meaning her husband was such a spineless wimp, I'm surprised he could even perform the act)? Or was it the husband who insisted they never take off their garments during sex (in which case, the wife would have just been following along with/obeying her priesthood leader/husband's wishes)?

You say you "pitied" the woman, and felt "sad" for her husband - which is a somewhat veiled attempt to blame this bizarre situation on the wife - yet there is exactly zero indication in the rest of your story that it was the wife's decision to never take their garments off, yet she is now being blamed for exactly that - so do the HONEST thing, and please clarify. And if you don't know the answer, then maybe the story was better left untold, as now erroneous conclusions are being made by some, bringing even more contention into this ridiculous thread. Thank you.

I gave all the details I was given in the story. I did get the impression that both partners in the marriage agreed that this was how it should be. Of course, the husband had passed away, so there was no way to get “his side”. And yes, the people involved were from another generation. In fact, I heard this in 1983. Do the math and this couple was probably married around 1930.