Coach Sam:
This post came across your Facebook feed the other day, and it intrigued me. I am reminded of an article I read a few months ago: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201404/does-sexless-relationship-justify-infidelity I brought this topic up to a conservative LDS community on the internet to discuss the relationship between sexual "needs" (if sex is a need) and sexual "obligation" (if sex can even be considered an obligation). It was interesting how many comments from conservative LDS denied that sex was any kind of need and did not want to accept that a spouse had any kind of sexual obligations (other than not committing adultery, obviously).
From your concluding statement here, and other statements you make (your sexless marriage and the sacrament post, for example), It seems that you believe that spouses have at least some level of obligation to engage and reach out to each other sexually. You tend to use these kind of "Sex is allowed in marriage" statements to support that position. My question is, -- do you really think that the LDS Church (institution) and/or our general authorities believe this? Is it really correct to [be conflating] "sex is allowed in marriage" [with] "you should have sex in marriage"? It seems to me that, as a church and community, we are rather uncomfortable with that [conflation].
This post came across your Facebook feed the other day, and it intrigued me. I am reminded of an article I read a few months ago: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201404/does-sexless-relationship-justify-infidelity I brought this topic up to a conservative LDS community on the internet to discuss the relationship between sexual "needs" (if sex is a need) and sexual "obligation" (if sex can even be considered an obligation). It was interesting how many comments from conservative LDS denied that sex was any kind of need and did not want to accept that a spouse had any kind of sexual obligations (other than not committing adultery, obviously).
From your concluding statement here, and other statements you make (your sexless marriage and the sacrament post, for example), It seems that you believe that spouses have at least some level of obligation to engage and reach out to each other sexually. You tend to use these kind of "Sex is allowed in marriage" statements to support that position. My question is, -- do you really think that the LDS Church (institution) and/or our general authorities believe this? Is it really correct to [be conflating] "sex is allowed in marriage" [with] "you should have sex in marriage"? It seems to me that, as a church and community, we are rather uncomfortable with that [conflation].
~ Mr. Shorty
Dear Mr. Shorty:
Thanks for your comment – I read the article you included,
which was, I believe, closer to the question you really wanted to ask me.
Please let me know if I’m wrong, but it seems your question
goes beyond the surface question of ‘Is sex a need or a want?’ and into the
realm of what we should be free to do, or not do, in marriage.
This is certainly a very sensitive issue, touching on
whether or not a spouse can refuse to have sex with their spouse, or even has
the right to do so. We work very hard to keep coercion and abuse out of our
relationships, yet we very seldom look at the idea that a spouse should be held
responsible for equal and opposite inaction or persistent sexual rejection.
The article discusses the ethics of whether or not we should
be allowed to refuse our spouses sexual initiation when we are
angry/tired/overwhelmed/upset, when we have married them and made a commitment
to build that relationship, yet they are not allowed to seek sexual
satiation elsewhere if we are unwilling or unable to provide it.
Would it be going too far to say that sex is any kind of an
obligation for each spouse in a marriage? What would be the purpose of getting
married, only to be abstinent and affectionless? And, from an eternal perspective, in what way would a
sexless marriage prepare a couple to live a celestial life?[i]
When I write and speak, it is not to a secular or worldly
audience. Also, it is only in the context of developing a relationship that not
only fulfills the covenants made in Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ordinances, but also building a
relationship where the couple wants to be together for eternity. So when
I look at sex and its role, I look at how it benefits the relationship as a
whole.
Let’s look at what the gospel tells us.
In the first chapter of Genesis, after Adam and Eve were
married by the Lord, the very first commandment given to them was to ‘multiply
and replenish the earth’ – the commandment to procreate.[ii]
This commandment remains in force for every couple married today. This
commandment could not be easily accomplished without sex then or now.
Beyond the requirement given to man to procreate, sex is
also a valuable tool for building a good-quality relationship – one that, in
our faith, is expected to be happy, and one where the couple wants to be
together for eternity.[iii]
But is sex a "need" in marriage?
In worldly pagan cultures, it is often spoken of or treated
as a physical need, like eating or bodily elimination, in order to emphasize
the importance of this most basic desire to their minds. In reality, this is
not true. Without either eating nutrients or eliminating bodily waste, the physical body will die. As
most people have had some kind of sexual activity in their lifetime, I have not
found a report of anyone who chooses a celibate life not being able to survive
or even thrive.
Sexual release cannot prove itself to be a physical need. As Evangelical marriage educator,
Mark Gungor, likes to say, “no one has ever died from a failure to ejaculate.”[iv]
But does that mean sex is also not a need in order to protect the life of a
relationship? Is it going too far to say that sex is required when we are
married?
That depends upon what each person in the relationship values.[v]
There is no one who believes in maintaining agency as much
as the Lord does.[vi]
If a person in a marriage chooses to neglect or even shut down the physical
aspect of the relationship, they are free to make that choice.
However, they are not free to choose the consequences of
that choice. The consequence of this
choice is often that the feelings of love and closeness in that relationship
will suffer, and if the problem is not addressed and resolved, most likely the
relationship will wither and die over time.
Is this what the Lord desires for us? I believe not.[vii]
Can a sexless marriage where a couple maintain a revulsion, disdain or even an apathy for sex last eternally? Section 130 of the
Doctrine and Covenants stirs my doubts on that.[viii]
I’d like to additionally make a distinction between the
physical act of sex (intercourse) and intimacy here. You mentioned that in your
comments on the forum, you asked if they thought sex was a need or not, and
most people answered you in the negative. If I can make a suggestion, as an
experiment, you may wish to return to that same forum and ask them if they feel
that intimacy is a need, and if they would make a distinction between
intimacy and intercourse. I think you may get
different answers.
Sexual intercourse is not a life-saving need. Humans
do not perish if they do not receive sexual release, but it is a marriage relationship maintaining tool. Intimacy is as
important to life as eating healthy food. We cannot thrive physically,
mentally, socially or spiritually without some kind of intimacy.[ix]
Without jeapordizing his relationship with God, marriage is the only place a husband can get sex, and the incentive to get it is strong.
Sex (meaning intercourse and other forms of sexually intimate physical
contact) and intimacy are not synonymous with each other. You can have
sex without being intimate. You can have intimacy without sex. Sex is a tool to
increase intimacy, and ideally this will happen in a marriage context. God
ordains sexuality to be used in marriage, so that our full potential for full marital
intimacy can be realized.
More often, in a sexless relationship, there is a lack of
intimacy as well. The withholding spouse may withhold sex for many
reasons. If there is no intimacy, the temptation to stray outside the marriage
relationship becomes much stronger.[x] The incentive to build, strengthen or maintain the relationship will also be jeopardized. I know of few men who get married to be celibate. With all the challenges that come with marriage, sexual intimacy is the balm that soothes the way. Without the strong desire for sexual intercourse, a man may feel he's better off being single and buying a dog.
In rare cases where a couple is happy without intercourse or
other forms of sexual release, they are usually happy because they have found
other ways to have intimacy.[xi]
More often though, one spouse is content, while the other is deeply
dissatisfied, and this is the relationship that suffers. A sexless marriage can also be one spouse not getting the kind of sex that satiates their desire and leaves them feeling left behind - which can develop into resentment. When it comes to marital intimacy, if both do not win, both lose.
We take the sacrament to renew our baptismal covenant. There
are many parallels to sexual intimacy being the ‘sacrament’ that renews the
covenant of marriage. We renew our baptismal covenant once a week. It’s my
recommendation (as well as the recommendations of other marriage counselors and
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland) that we regularly do the same with our marriage
covenant (see Sexless Marriage and the Sacrament article, the link is below)
Going outside the marriage to find sexual satisfaction is clearly
inappropriate, according to the Lord.[xii]
Adultery and fornication is just not an option – if you want to maintain the
Lord’s trust and be worthy of his inheritance and keep your ability to have sex in the celestial kingdom.
Forcing or guilting our spouse to have sex with us, just
because we’re married, is also inappropriate. Intimacy can only be achieved
through the Lord’s prescribed means.[xiii]
Withholding all intimacy and sex from a marriage for one
month or more is a sin of omission, and should be repented for and dealt with
if the marriage is to last into the eternities. If sins of omission and/or
commission destroy a marriage relationship, both parties will be held
responsible before the Lord in the time of judgment. Persistent withholding of
intimacy can also be a form of abuse and unrighteous dominion according to 1
Corinthians 7:4 and D&C 121.
We in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in covenants. We have many
commandments given to us in many areas of our lives, and sexuality is no
exception. Commandments are given to afflict the comfortable, and often involve
moving out of our comfort zone in some way, in order to develop our bodies,
hearts and minds in eternal and selfless directions.
Our differences as men and women are carefully designed to
force us to become selfless in order to develop our Christ like attributes[xiv],
When each spouse cooperatively sacrifices their selfish desires to arouse the
other spouse and meet their emotional needs, this can lead to the most intense
form of intimacy and the best possible sex.
If having sex with our spouse is uncomfortable or
unpleasant, I believe that’s a critical issue that should be openly explored
and resolved in appropriate ways by both spouses.
What if we are momentarily upset/tired/overwhelmed/out of
town and unable to have sex? Do we have the right to refuse our spouse?
It may be better to say we have the right to delay sexual
contact until a more convenient time. It’s entirely appropriate to say to your
spouse, “I’ll be happy to be with you in the morning/next weekend, etc…” Pin down a time that happens soon, and treat
such an agreement as an important appointment that should not be pushed back
indefinitely.
If sex cannot happen, intimacy should. Remember – intimacy
doesn’t necessarily require sexual intercourse, and there are multiple ways to
have sex that does not involve intercourse.
Spouses who neglect the gift of sex are losing a great
opportunity to renew and strengthen their relationship. Marriage, like a
testimony of the gospel, requires frequent attention and renewal if it is to
stay strong, healthy and positive. If members come to a true understanding of sex vs. intimacy within
a gospel perspective, I think you’ll find most are much more comfortable with
this concept.
I hope this helps answer your question. If not, let me know what questions you still have that you would like help getting better clarification on.
What about my readers here? What are your views on the
necessity or non-necessity of having regular intimate sex in marriage? What could
a couple do to increase intimacy if they physically can’t have sex or their
desire for sex is lower than their spouse?
[i]
“Marriage, properly contracted, is therefore holy and pure, and its relations,
unabused, are sacred and chaste. The notion that celibacy is purer than
matrimony, that either man or woman is holier in the sight of heaven because of
non-intercourse with the other sex, is a gross error, unwarranted by reason or
revelation. There is no attribute of the mind or function of the body that is
in itself, or in its legitimate exercise, impure or degrading. It is only the
wrong use of any of our powers that is sinful.” – President Charles W. Penrose,
Second Counselor to President Heber J. Grant, “Mormon” Doctrine Plain and Simple,
p. 48-49. Also quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Student Manual,
p. 78.
[ii]
Genesis 1:28
[iii]
Clayton, Whitney L., Marriage: Watch and Learn, April 2013 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/2013/04/marriage-watch-and-learn?lang=eng
[iv]
Crown Comedy (producer), January 12, 2009, Gungor, Mark. Laugh Your Way to a
Better Marriage [DVD]
[v]
Oakes, Dallin H. The Desires of Our Hearts, Ensign June 1986, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/ensign/1986/06/the-desires-of-our-hearts?lang=eng
[vi]
2 Nephi 2:27; 2 Nephi 2: 15-16
[vii]
“…This sacred temple ordinance is more, much more, than a wedding, for this
marriage is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and the scriptures promise
that the participants, if they remain worthy, ‘shall inherit thrones, kingdoms,
principalities, and powers, dominions’ (D&C 132:19). I think of the words of
the sealing ordinance, which cannot be written here. I understand, in a small
measure at least, the sacred nature of the fountain of life which is in us. And
I see the joy that awaits those who accept this supernal gift [of physical
intimacy] and use it worthily.” – Packer, Boyd K. The Fountain of Life, from
the Eternal Marriage Handbook, Intimacy in Marriage, p. 139-146; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng
[viii]
Doctrine and Covenants 130:2
[ix]
See these articles from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201203/what-s-your-intimacy-quotient
and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201210/we-all-need-some-intimacy-in-our-lives
for some insights on a key study by Erik Erikson on isolation vs. intimacy
[x]
Sexless Marriage and the Sacrament http://eternalmarriagebed.blogspot.com/2010/12/sexless-marriage-and-sacrament.html
[xi]
Goldsmith, Dr. Barton, PhD, Psychology Today, The Difference Between Sex and
Intimacy, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/emotional-fitness/201309/the-difference-between-sex-and-intimacy
[xii]
Doctrine and Covenants 42
[xiii]
The Four Marriage Killers – Selfishness http://eternalmarriagebed.blogspot.com/2011/10/four-marriage-killers-selfishness.html
[xiv]
Zwick, Elder W. Craig, What Are You Thinking, Apr,2014 Gen. Conf., https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/general-conference/2014/04/what-are-you-thinking?lang=eng
