Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Amy: I believe I get what you are saying – one man/husband and many women/wives. From an equality perspective it can sure look unfair and male domination. I think JS and BY were inspired and polygamy was a short-term directive from the Lord to build up a critical mass of Saints. But many men and woman – probably more men than women – sinned in the process. I think too many men could not handle the temptation of sex with multiple women and their sexual biology was not mastered. But with that said, I believe there were good men that did and some women that felt good about their decision.
I am sensing this thread may be moving toward saturation and ending. I appreciate your thoughts. Although I do not always agree you are clearly an extremely good thinker. Plus, I have some work demands that will limit my time for further dialogue.
Amy and Roy: We have an honest difference in opinion. But I still have my own uncertainties, even of what I state below. I am posting more to figure it out. I am not arguing against you two.
I see polygamy as it was inspired for a short time, like in the Old Testament. And just like in the Old Testament it often led to negative consequences. There are many negative outcomes that still affect the Church today. However, I resist the historical view of a binary (all good or all bad) and think there are some cases of both the man and multiple wives had good relationship and felt good about their choices. There is a large, blurred continuum between these two poles.
Some members (often) think of how hard this would have been for women. It would have, and what I am about to say does not differ with the hardships of women. But it had to be hard for men to have a sexual and sociological temptation and not act with pure intent. How many men could really handle this? If you read about the Dual Control Model of Sexual Response, if men can have more sexual activity in safe and “good” ways, it is like pushing down on a gas pedal (Sexual Excitation System) and there would be less braking (Sexual Inhibition System). I wonder if too many men could not control their own desire and temptation to have unlimited sex with different women, and some got trapped by this, biological feeling they needed more and more sex with more women and rationalizing it as following God’s commandments.
But with this said, however, I wonder if this is the biological reason polygamy was used. That is, to increase the number of children born within the faith and “raise up seed unto the Lord”. This was seen as fulfilling a biblical promise for increased progeny, enabling the community to grow and have more members to receive the gospel, and ensuring that an LDS community could thrive. In one sense, one could argue it happened in Utah and is one reason (among many) there are so many members in Utah.
(As an aside and connected to comments I have made on other posts at this side, it makes me wonder, in general, of how much control men have over sexual arousal).
I do not disagree with Amy that a sociological complex was developed, where a subset of men and women because commit to polygamy so they looked righteous to their fellow man and woman. No different than today where some people view certain callings has a sign of being more righteous, trying to have more status.
Still trying to figure it out.
I believe different Christian and Christian religions have different interpretation of Genesis 38:9-10. This passage has been interpreted by some as a condemnation of contraception, as Onan’s action was seen as deliberately preventing offspring. However, others argue that the primary issue was Onan’s refusal to fulfill his familial and social obligations. Others have argued that anytime seed (semen) falls to the ground it is a sin. So those that argue Biblically that masturbation is a sin believe it is due to their seed not being in a women and instead end up on the ground.
I want to combine two thoughts, one by Roy and the other by Amy Roy’s past thought:
“I do not think that it would be wise to characterize these high libido individuals of being “abused” by their libidos. Partly because I still want to believe in free will and personal choice.” I also want to address Roy’s comments about “Sacred Loneliness.”
Amy’s past thought:
“In my mind, these higher sex drive men are the ones “getting the girl(s)”, getting the jobs, getting the power and authority in the system. And likely, getting in over their head in a lot of different scenarios because of their confidence and their previous successes and to cover insecurities.
I want to pick up where Amy states “And likely, getting in over their head in a lot of different scenarios . . .”
There were two points I was trying to make.
The first is that although there were groups of women being abused by a subset of man, I also think men with high sex drive (biologically higher testosterone) that did get over their heads. That may have been too many wives and children – not the rewards of more sex (although I am sure most of these men might see it this way) but the lack of anything more, a sex drive where they are always emotionally and existentially lonely. And Roy, although you believe in free will and personal choice I wonder if some of these men become trapped in their own sex drive. It is just a wonder, as I am unsure.
My second point in this broader conversation is that as humans we tend to want to put history into neat and simply boxes. All men were this way, or all women experienced this. I believe polygamy has a subset of many different experiences. Clearly some women were abused and some men enjoyed sex with different women through the week or month. But I believe there is another subset of men who tried to be good to many wives and some wives that enjoyed the closeness of other women. And then there is everything in between these two polarities – multiple subsets.
Besides me, does anyone believe polygamy was inspired for a 50 year duration to build up a LDS community, but in the process, and within subsets, our not so divine human nature complicated things?
Amy and Roy: Thanks for your comments. Although I do not agree with all, they are very illuminating.
AmyJ wrote:
Polygamy was about the sealing of multiple women to an individual man, period. These sealings were/are seen as a “divine” version of marriage and were set up to provide supports to a man in this life and in the next life in the guise of “coverture” aka “covering for” women.This structure hasn’t necessarily gone away. Temple language set up that the women’s focus was her husband. An ongoing debate is “preside [over]” in family structure – what that actually means in practical family-level authority and “final say”.
I wonder sometimes if the lure of polygamy is that the promises to be the means to provide the capital for being taken care of rather then paying for it. If you have enough wives, they will handle your sex drive, raise the children to handle working your fields and the like, and take care of you in your old age for whatever you put out during the course of years before you need to be tended to and and can split the load amongst them – and it might be cheaper then outsourcing all those different functions (and you having the final say because you “preside” means that you have more control over the situation).
Amy:
It sounds to me that you do not see a man with a high sex drive as being abused within his own sex drive. Rather, you see it as basically high sex driven men get it better. They can have as much sex as they want, with variety from multiple women, those women raise the children and the children and then the multiple wives take care of this man as he ages. Do I have this right?
I would agree with you related to some men. But it sounds too biological and robotic for other men. And not all men are the same.
I would guess some of the men could not sustain enough resources and money and some of the children died and dealt with poverty. For some men, those more focused on care and compassion I think the psychological effects would be very difficult.
Sort of off topic, but somewhat relevant, science today has suggested that men with lower
lower testosterones have a lower sex drive, and those men have often been rated by their wife’s as being better husbands and involved fathers. It is relevant as maybe the high sex driven men really do not have as much compassion and empathy and gain the benefits you suggested above. I see this as a tragedy for such men.
But I also thing there were some very good LDS men that were good to their many wives. I certainly do not see it as one size fits all.
I just read “Let’s Talk about Polygamy”, written by LDS historian Brittany Chapman Nash, who delves into the history of polygamy among the Latter-day Saints. Here are my takeaways.
It was a commandment for a 50-year duration so that there could be many LDS offspring. This parallels the Old Testament commandment. Nash points out the Book of Mormon underscore monogamy is the preferred commandments, and polygamy was just a short-term (50 years) commandment to raise LDS children.
To some women it was awful to other women it was joyful. Brigham Young allowed women to have easy divorces. Some men were righteous priesthood holders who did their best to be good husbands and fathers, and some were awful men preying on wanting to have sex with many women and could care less about being a good father.
But I have this wondering question. We often – including in this thread – think about women who were abused in polygamy. Some of this clearly happened and it is a good thought. This should never lose or forgotten.
I also wonder, however, if men with a high sex drive were also abused, but more unconsciously and from within themselves than another person abusing them. I wonder if some men, with high sex drive, though this is how God made me, wanted to have multiple wives and thought it was natural and then ended up in a perilous situation of having too many children and too many wives and could not take care of them properly. I cannot locate it right now but some LDS men (not all) argued for polygamy stating that is was natural due to high sex-drive and I wonder if they might have self-abused themselves.
Any thoughts?
Amy: May I ask what you mean by the polygamy dimension? I ask as some people (I believe mainly men) have made an argument that polygamy was needed (1840s and 1890) because men have a high sex drive and women did not. (I believe back them there was also an LDS belief that you could not have sex with a pregnant wife for fear of damaging the baby, so many men could not have sex for nine or so months). I am not sure how you connect polygamy to the broader theme of masturbation – but I am wondering if it had to so with what I just explained above. If not, how so? And as Roy has already posted, sometime a married women can have a higher sex drive than men.
Church leaders have stated that masturbation is an act of selfishness – and this is what I think you are also communicating. I think I understand the binary you are creating with “sinning under God’s law” and being thoughtless to a partner, but I think there is overlap here.
My mind goes different ways. One way that it goes is that if a husband and wife have sexual problems, I think they need to have open communication, with both people leaning more toward listening than speaking. Communication is the key, along with personal revelation. If they cannot align, in a win-win way, then going to a licensed counselor might be a good step. In a past post Roy suggested negotiated scheduling of sex at a frequency that both partners agree on. That is one strategy.
My mind keeps wandering how many married men, who have had regular sexual intimacy, can control their sexual arousal, if they needed to (such as if their wife had an illness or a car accident and could not be intimate for a long period of time). That is, if a couple have had win-win sex, both feel their needs are met and it is decently frequency over a longer period of time, and then a wife can no longer engage in sex for a valid reason, how many men would struggle with this. It would be years of biological conditioning. The reason I became involved in this post was due to this thought. Per past post, I have a trusted male LDS friend share they had great difficulties with this and then, as I shared, my wife had to fly to another part of the united States for a family matter and we were away over a month (first time ever in a long marriage) and I gained an experiential firsthand account of how hard this can be. I am simply wonder how other men would respond, and really a questioning of how much control do men have over their sexual arousal. I find it a little weird that we may not have as much control as we think and I further wondering if this is part of God’s design in how He made man.
Amy: I did not know how to interpret your last post. I am not sure if the shrug and comment was supportive of Minyan post regarding his surprise by the amount of attention this topic. I have rarely found most serious conversation to be aligned to instrumentally rationality where point A leads linearly to point B. I think what you summed – very well – is how real life is. Self-stimulation is often linked to fragmented conversation around pleasure, biology, gender-based performance expectations, shame/guilt, relationships, questioning if it is sin, and narrative-framing. Do you mind sharing what the non-verbal shrug meant? Are you thinking that this conversation is silly?
Others:
I think I differ with most of you, I think masturbation in most (not all) cases a sin, but one that can be repented at the bedside. Those few cases where it may not be sinful are the ones that have been outlined well in this thread, a man or woman who has high sexual tension, but his/her spouse cannot engage in sexual activity for a good and valid reason (and that spouse should not feel shame or guilt nor pressure). I believe in those cases it can save a marriage and prevent worse sin. But I think in most cases, it is not related to the rare cases stated above. And I am not suggesting this is something easy to control for some people.
I found this summary on Wikipedia to be helpful:
Roy: Thanks for sharing this. Sexual aspects moving into a dream state is very real. But there is a part of me that finds this so humanly disappointing. I think it is more common (related to men but that there are some women with a high sex drive) and certainly more common than I use to think.
To Roy and Others:
This is why my thinking has changed over the years from believing masturbation was a significant enough sin that needed to be confessed to a bishop to now a minor sin that a person can repent of by the bed side. But I do believe it is a sin, and a man needs to do everything he can to manage it. In addition, I have come to believe that in some unique situations, that I have explained in my past posts, it can even be done with good intention to save a marriage or to be thoughtful toward a partner. But I still think it is a sin. Not sure if this makes sense to others. Others are welcome to challenge it.
I know I am repeating myself, and I am doing this because I find this so very weird about men (and some women). In the first 20 or so years of my marriage I never thought about how much control I had over sexual feelings and behaviors, including how the male body responds and acts. I always thought this was a fun part of being male and I was deeply fortunate that my wife and I have had very similar sexual and biological rhythms. But in the last five or so years I have come to realize that these biological aspects of manhood may be something like 80% out of my control and I find that a little bizarre. I can think of a few times, after marriage, when I saw or heard something I should not have (by accident) that caused my body to react sexually but then never really thought about it and was able to be sexual with my wife as a way to manage it or get it out of my system. It was only when my wife had to leave for over a month, just in the last five years, where I realized that after two weeks that sexual behaviors might be very difficult to manage. And I have to confess that I have wondered if this was by design, and do not like the idea that it might be by design. I have never liked men who make arguments that “this is who I am” or “this is how God made us” related to sexual desires and management. Sadly, some men have made this argument in support of polygamy. But I have seriously wondered how I would act if my wife was out of my life for an extended part of my life (e.g. car accident and rehabilitation, had to travel for family reasons and was away for 6 months).
Like you, I think a better way to manage sexual behavior is not to replicate Gandhi’s sexual celibacy experiments. But there is something I find deeply disappointing in this reply – that a better control technique is to prevent this. There is a part of me that thinks it would it be grand if men could resist a naked woman or two right in front of them – to prove one can manage this part of their life. There is a part of me that thinks I could pass Ghandi’s tests, but then I realize that I cannot go longer than two weeks before the tension become ubiquitous, and I am grateful I have a wife with similar biological rhythms. The former fits with the general counsel in the Church to control our bodies, so lets have a test, like the test of life to prove it, but the former of staying away from temptation is extremely wise counsel that comes from scripture and mouth of church leaders. I am obviously to follow the latter and stay away from temptation.
How much control do men have over their sexual feelings? Is masturbation one way to help manage, only in unique situations? And is this how God designed men or are their sociological aspects in today’s life that makes it more difficult for men to mange this?
Moving to get us back to the subject at hand, that I realize I contributed to moving us away, here is where my mind goes to. Related to Roy’s comment that his parents sent him to a therapist because he was masturbating too much, and the therapist felt there was nothing wrong, I am sorry your parents brought you to a therapist. I think too many LDS parents think there might be a mental health problem when someone strays off the covenant path. I think this can be potentially damaging, as a younger person should not be viewed as having a mental health disorder when they simply do not live gospel principles.
I have no idea, but I would think most therapists would not view anything wrong with a person who masturbates reasonably (not like five times a day every day, this could be a sign of a health issue). I think masturbation is a way many men manage sexual desires and tension. The unique challenge in the church is men are not encouraged to use this method and in lieu is the broader concept to control over our bodies.
To this end, my mind keeps going to Gandhi’s “sexual celibacy” experiments. Repeating myself from a past post, after his wife died to prove he could control his body he slept naked with two young women (both, or course, who consented). There are conflicting reports of the end result, but Gandhi claimed he could control his body. Granted, he was also an older man at this point in time.
I go down two paths of thinking. Although I would never conduct such an experiment, there is something in me that thinks this would be the ultimate tests that men could use to prove they can master their biological sexual urges. The other pathway is the one we are counseled in the church, stay aware from temptations, which is clearly a form of self-control also.
I get stuck on this thought that Heavenly Father seemed to create men that seem to have not much control over certain body part that then increases sexual tension. Again, repeating myself from a past post, years after my wife had married, she had to travel for over a month due to a family matter and it was the first time in our marriage we had to be apart for over a week. I was shocked at the level of sexual intensity I experienced after about two weeks. After two weeks it become restless and even affected my dream state. Because she was away for over a month, it re-occurred after about two weeks, a second time and I kept thinking what is wrong with me. I shared this with my wife and then, with per approval, after she returned, I tried to see how long I could go without sex. It seems like I can only last two weeks because the feels become so strong and then affect my dreams. I feel some degree of disappointment in myself when I think I can only control this part of myself for two weeks. I also find it weird that I realized this 20 years post marriage. It has caused me to better understand why some men masturbation in and outside of marriage.
Again, repeating myself from a past post, I think if a man is not looking at pornography and is doing everything he can keep his thoughts pure, but is in a situation where a wife cannot have regular sex (for a good reasons, such as cancer, past trauma, travel etc. and that women should not feel shame nor guilt) that masturbation would be a smaller sin that can be repeated of by the bed side with that person in constant dialogue in prayer. I can see how that can help save a marriage.
A couple of thoughts since my last post. I realize this topic is moving in a very different direction and am thinking this may be my last post. When it comes to the topic at hand, sexual behavior, I do not see much of a difference between life coaches and church leaders. Both are not being regulated, and both do not have regulated training. Here is a small article form the Salt Lake City Tribune of the abuse that can happen at the hands of of life coaches:
https://www.propublica.org/article/utah-therapists-life-coaches-regulation When a couple has sexual struggles, they need to see an actual licensed professional (counselor, psychologist, social worker) who has expertise in this area. Not a life coach. The key aspect is licensure, not what their degree is in. The granting of a degree is a first step to professional regulation, but there are additional steps. Many people can earn a doctorate in psychology but not be granted status of licensure. Licensure protects clients, you can report such professionals.
Per Amy’s past comment that women can be shamed if a husband masturbate and then blames on their wife, I agree completely. But if a couple is having difficulties, regardless of the sexual issue, if they can work in partnership with a licensed therapist, I believe they have a very good change of managing this better.
It is well known in the fields of counseling that many counselors who get their license suspended or revoked, or who have gone to school for 2-3 years and cannot pass the licensure exam and professional supervision, become life coaches. I would stay away from all and any life coaches.
In no way, whatsoever, am I suggesting people have not been harmed by church leaders. But I have never experienced what some are reporting here or the stories. I have never had a Bishop, or a counselor deviate from a Temple recommend interview and ask if I masturbate. But I am not suggesting that because I have not had such experiences that other have not. And if I did, I would be informing the Stake President.
I appreciate the thoughtful and mature comments of Amy and Roy. I believe that masturbation that is focused on the creation of sexual excitement in oneself or in others is sinful and that watching pornography is always sinful. I also see it as being selfish. However, I believe masturbation to stop sexual tension when a spouse cannot be intimate (e.g. one’s partner has an illness) is a care toward other ethic and care toward self ethic. It can be thoughtful. I think if this person has tried their best to not masturbate and lower sexual tension, has prayed and still cannot lower or stop it and it gets more intense day by day, this I see as either not a sin or a low-level sin that can be repeated of by a bedside. I agree with Roy, that NOT engaging in self-stimulation could lead to intensity that could lead to sin. The Lord knows our intentions. And hopefully this prevents the shame that Amy has wisely augmented.
The part I have began to struggle with, in the last few years, is this realization that I may have less self-control over sexual arousal and the physical response (male). As I shared, three years ago my wife had to travel for over a month due to a family matter and it was the first time in our marriage we had to be apart for over a week. I was shocked at the level of sexual intensity I experienced after about two weeks, and it got more intense each day. I then tried to distract and each day it was building. I have now linked that to a friend whose wife is going through cancer treatment who feels guilt/shame that he is still feeling sexual arousal and cannot act on it and have wondered if I could exercise self-control if I were in his shoes. I would like to think I could but based on when my wife had to visit family for over I month, I could not. When I have had other experiences with needing to sustain from sexual intimacy (e.g. birth of a child) it seems like after two weeks self-control is lost as the feelings become intense, compounding daily.
My mind then goes on two different pathways, if in the future I had to sustain from sexual intimacy for over a month. One pathway goes to Gandhi’s experiment in “sexual celibacy” where he reports he could control his body as he slept naked with two young women on each side of him. I would never conduct such an experiment, but that sort of self-control moves me (although, again, there were reports of accidents, which I think he had physical arousal but nothing else). The other pathway is that masturbation self-control and management, rooted in care of self and other.
In the last few years I have thought more on how I think it is odd that God created men who seem to have not much control over sexual arousal and the physical response. Some studies I have read suggest 25% control (related to distracting, meditation, etc.). And as I have reflected on this, I have also remembered a handful of times that I saw/heard something I did not plan on (e.g. hearing a couple in the next room at a hotel) that had no effect on my wife, but it did with me. I am not suggesting that women do not have similar struggles, but it seems to me that more men might be like I am, and I find myself feeling somewhat disappointment, with some degree of guilt and shame. Not super bad guilt/shame, but clearly some in wanting to be a better person. It is exactly what Amy outlined, not living up to a certain expectation.
Roy where I agree with you (and I think with Amy) is that this is that gray space where we think about next step by relying on prayer and personal revelation. I do not think Bishops and counselors should be asking such question (e.g. do you masturbate), and can preface their understand ONLY when asked by a member (e.g. related to law of chastity question in a Temple recommend interview)
Roy I am going to disagree with you on one point, but I know you shared this in the spirit of trying to be helpful toward me. I want you to know that I see a gift you were trying to give me. However, I believe sexuality and life coach are more money-making frauds than trustworthy experts. I looked at Dr. Finlayson-Fife website and the cost she is charging for classes does not seem ethical to me. With this said, I am an advocate for licensed mental health counselors that are approved through a licensure process. Anyone can be a life coach. But other than this, I deeply appreciate your thoughts.
Amy: I do not understand how the “Care and Consent” approach is connected to the topic at hand, self-stimulation. Do you mind explaining?
I believe I am a kindred spirit recognizing there are authority imbalances related to gender. But I am also not sure how you see this as relevant to the subject matter.
If I may ask, are you extending this topic from masturbation to sexual orientation?
In no way am I arguing against you I am trying to understand you better.
I am new to this site and this is my first post. The title of this thread is the reason I joined. Similar to someone else I have always wondered about this subject but was afraid to ask. I believe, and hope, my post is appropriate, Here are a few of my random and even contradictory thoughts.
Masturbation link to porn is always sin and should not happened.
However, if someone has intense sexual arousal, and they cannot have sexual intimacy with their spouse for a good reason (e.g., spouse has cancer and radiation treatment makes him/her ill), I can see where masturbation could be helpful to manage intense sexual arousal. I am a male, have been marred for close to 30 years and the younger me would have stated masturbation is always wrong. But having a male friend who confided in me that this is how he managed sexual tension due to his wife having a significant health problem, I can see how masturbation in this situation may not be sinful or a sin that is less serious.
Where I struggle is on the concept of self-control and how we need to control our bodies. Three or so ago, my wife had to travel for over a month due to a family matter in her family or origin and it was the fist time in our marriage we had to be apart for over a week. I was shocked at the level of sexual intensity I experienced after about two weeks, and I was not looking or thinking of anything inappropriate. I think it was my normal body responding that was out of a 25-year rhythm, but I was surprised, and it helped me have empathy for the LDS friend I have written about above.
In thinking about it how we as Saints need to control our bodies, I found Gandhi’s experiment in “sexual celibacy” to be fascinating. After his wife died to prove he could control his body he slept naked with two young women (both, or course, who consented). He did this to prove he could control his body. The best I can tell is that sometimes be was able to prove to himself he could control his body, but there were reports of some “accidents” (not sure what that means). I know as Saints we would never do such a test of self-control, rather we would not put ourselves in such situations, but I have begun to wonder how much control we have over sexual tension related to how our bodies have been designed.
Looking for thoughts from others.
