So I was thinking about all the uproar over BKKKP's talk. Now I have been out of the church for quite a while now but I remember when I was active this was kind of the attitude about sex.

Recreational sex was not something that was even considered. You had sex to make babies period. Now granted, you are told to make as many babies as you can, but still that is what the purpose of sex was. So if that is the only reason for a good little morgbot to have sex in the first place, and if recreational sex, or sex to bond as a couple is not even a consideration, then it isn't so hard to understand why they say gay is bad. I had a friend back in the 80's who with his wife were put on probation for having oral sex, between a husband and wife for hell's sake!!!

The whole concept is just effed up, because sex is the only way for a couple to bond intimately. Studies have been done that show that the body excretes a hormone when the whole climax thing happens and whoever a person is with when that hormone is excreted is who you bond with. It has actually been shown scientifically that having multiple sexual partners is negative in a psychological kind of way because that base instinctual part of the brain gets all mixed up not knowing who it should bond to. The female reaction to this hormone is much stronger than the male reaction and causes more distress in that part of the brain when a woman has sex with many different partners. They think it is because men are actually made to create babies and having multiple partners for them is just homo sapien's way of keeping the breed from extinction.

Anyway, in my opinion, the attitude of the church about only having sex for making babies is one of the reasons I am no longer married to my TBM exwife. I enjoy sex and I like to participate in it as often as possible, and I don't want tons of kids running around the world so I definitely don't do it for procreation purposes only. I encourage everyone to participate in sharing that most intimate of ways to be close to another human being, and if that is two people of the same gender or of opposite genders, its all love and love makes the world go round!!!

I said something on a thread the other day about this. Boyd has I think 10 children--so he has had sex about 10 times.

They are envious of those who have sex for recreation and they don't want them having fun.

I have people call me on this one--but this is what I was taught in the 1970s--as a woman I wouldn't like sex (and if I did, there was something wrong with me). I was to service my husband because he had a high sex drive and women don't have one (just read the little factory talk). They may not have come right out and said it, but that was the message we got (I wasn't the only one who got that message).

If any of you men wonder why your TBM wives won't give you more sex, it is because of the attitude I stated above. AND if they admit to liking sex, they feel like they are "soiled."

Wow! With modern technology a guy can just mail his Celestial wife the spermatazoa - no need to touch at all.

And then there was the letter that went out from SLC to all areas and stakes informing presidents that oral sex was an abomination and must be stopped. That lasted about 6 months before they recinded it.

I can hear my ex now "Noway, I'm not listening to that." LOL

Ron

Or maybe it's to do with where I grew up in N. CA but I always was taught that sex was not just to make babies but to draw a couple closer together. And, my incredibly sassy friend asked her uptight bishop in a recommend interview what was considered OK as far as marital sex was concerned. She was 16 at the time. He calmly told her anything was OK as long as it's respectful and both the husband and wife agree. Neither of us could believe he gave such a sensible answer or that he didn't get his knickers in a twist.

Hmmm - maybe I should have married that bishop's son after all - we did date for a couple of years. Nah. One of the first things my TBM DH told me is that the church could stay the hell out of our bedroom. I asked him what he thought was OK in a marriage i.e. what did the church say. That was his response, and he NEVER swears. I can't imagine how it would be to have married an uptight Morgbot. Shudder.

I was single in the late 80s/early 90s and my TBM roommates and I would talk about our ideas of what sex between married couples should be like.

(Kind of funny, because as far as I know, we were all virgins)

ALL of us expected that it should be enjoyable, and about couple bonding, and that it was OKAY to lust after your husband. We even discussed what we thought was and wasn't "okay" in the bedroom for temple-worthy married couples.

I don't think ANY of us ever had the notion that it was just about "procreation". I never though my parents only did it for bearing children, and they were pretty old school.

After I got engaged, my mother referred to their private relationship as their "marital sacrament", as if that was really cool. It creeped me out. What a turn off to think of it that way!

how many of them said the purpose of life is to have offspring, and how matter-of-factly they said it. I don't remember that being a huge point in the church I knew in the 1970s. Sure, it was important to bring spirits into the world, but not "The purpose of life is to have offspring ... awk!" The message appears to have been modulated.

In the 1970s, my parents and others who only had one or two kids were doing something more like a sin of omission by not having more. I remember them having conversations about this stuff, and deciding they were cool. Now it's not fulfilling your whole purpose in life--as in, what are you doing here besides wasting air and space?

Sounds like they've made infertility and willing failure to reproduce, or to reproduce again, into much bigger deals than they once were.

EDIT: Not that infertility wasn't always a big deal. What I meant was they've added to the emotional problem for people who can't conceive.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2010 02:11AM by munchybotaz.

having offspring and continuing their kind IS the primary function of all living things.

Maybe you should ask them if the church is paying attention to science now.

With 6 billion plus humans, though, the pressure is off to stave off human extinction.

The church must have been different in Southern California.

I don't ever remember hearing that you could only have sex for babies as a doctrine,although there were some over-the-top idiots who did that.

Our SP's wife told my mother confidentially that's what they did. But said SP was an anal-retentive jerk.

My mom also had a friend who produced a ton of kids but such people were the exception in Californis wards.

My parents were fully active, tithe paying members but when the "no oral sex" mandate came out they thought "Up yours". My mom says they did it even more often from then on.LOL. They still do it LOL.
My dad is now 70, my mother 61

I lived in Utah--and that was the message "we" got--the girls I grew up with.

When I got married, in 1984, I was so stressed out about things like using birth control, I even asked a bishop friend of mine. I also asked about oral sex because I was marrying someone gay. The last bishop we had of the singles' ward we attended before we got married--he actually TOLD me (I didn't ask) that oral and anal would be okay because of the circumstances I was in, but that they didn't think it was okay for straight couples. I didn't buy into this--my attitude was that bending the rules wasn't going to save anybody. (They were bending all kinds of "rules" for my ex and I.)

In 1986, I had a visiting teacher who very much believed you only had sex for procreation and didn't feel you should use "regular" birth control--they used the rhythm method and they had 7 kids all under age 10. The first time I heard that you were supposed to have sex to grow closer to your spouse was in an Ensign sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s.