Sexless marriage vs adultery vs fidelity

[MrShorty]

Note to moderators: In reading the rules for sexual discussions, I hope this will be allowed as a discussion topic here on lds.net. If not, I understand.

I came across this blog post today from a secular philosopher (I guess is what you would call him). http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201404/does-sexless-marriage-justify-adultery-part-1 It got me thinking, and I thought I would post it here to get some reactions from conservative LDS (and the other conservative Christians that frequent this group) on the things he discusses.

By way of \"disclaimer\" I guess, I would start by saying that I have no idea where he is going to go in part 2 when he expects to discuss whether chronic sexual refusal justifies adultery. I\'m not sure I care what his conclusion is in that regard. As I interpret the marriage, baptismal, and other covenants we make with God, sex outside of marriage is a violation of those covenants. With those covenants in mind, I cannot see sexual refusal as a justification for adultery.

The part that really got me thinking was the interplay of the three \"contradicting\" statements he makes towards the end:

1. People in relationships have sexual needs.

2. They are restricted from satisfying those needs outside of their relationship.

3. Their partners have no obligation to satisfy these needs for them within the relationship.

I suppose we could discuss/debate statement 1 -- Is sex a \"need\" in marriage, or is it more of a \"want\"/nicety?

It seems that the bulk of Dr. White\'s discussion focuses on #3 -- Is sex \"obligatory\" in marriage?

In the spirit of trying, not only to understand the psychology behind sex in marriage, but also to understand and discern the truths of our theology around sex, I would love to discuss reactions to this article.

[Bini]

I dunno, this is a very sensitive and intimate topic, might be closed. I'll just say, there is NEVER a valid reason to engage in infidelity, period. Don't care if you're married or otherwise in a long term committed relationship, it is WRONG.

[Lakumi]

Yeah it brings dishonour to one to abuse trust, no matter what you believe.

What is a person without honour?

[MrShorty]

Bini: I agree with you that there is no valid reason for going outside of the marriage for sexual \"needs\" -- that there is a clear boundary there that cannot be justified away. What do you think this means for the interplay between \"legitimate sexual needs\" (if they exist) and a spouse\'s \"obligation\" (if any) to meet those need?

Lakumi: I\'m not sure what you mean in terms of honour? Are you trying to say, like Bini, that there is no justification for adultery -- that we should make keeping that part of the covenant absolute?

[Lakumi]

Its less about a covenant because even athiests have a concept of loyalty. I haven't made any covenants and yet I wouldn't dream of cheating on anyone.

You bring shame upon yourself when you lie, for really any reason-no matter what you believe

what good is there in deception?

[MrShorty]

It seems that we frequently talk about that kind of loyalty in terms of "thou shalt not commit adultery" or anything like unto it. Does that same loyalty come into play when we talk about "leave father and mother and become one flesh"? When Paul talks about "the wife's/husband's body is not her/his own" in 1 Cor 7, is he suggesting that the same loyalty that prevents us from going outside the marriage obligate us to seek/provide sexual fulfillment in marriage?

 

I have seen some who have suggested that, along with the promise not to go outside the marriage is also a promise to be sexually available to each other. Do you see both promises as a valid part of the marriage covenant (though the latter tends to be more implied)?

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeah... #1 is a falsehood. It is not a need. That would be entirely contradictory to the theology of chastity.

 

The rest of it gets complicated I guess. But ideally, sex in marriage, just as anything in marriage, would be entirely selfless. If both parties in a marriage were entirely sexually selfless, the rest of it works itself out pretty nicely.

[estradling75]

Just to let everyone know.. given the new rules this thread is already very iffy.  We are letting it slide for now, but if it turns to the graphic or if we simply change our minds. This thread will go away without further notice or warning.

[mdfxdb]

Short answer is yes.  There is an obligation unless both parties have circumstances which have been communicated prior to marriage, or if circumstances change during the marriage rendering one or the other incapable.  Otherwise, yes there is an obligation.

[MrShorty]

estradling75: I figured it was borderline from the get-go. Considering the "generic" nature of the questions, I'm hoping there is no need to go into any details that would necessitate shutting this down. I, for one, appreciate the admins' tolerance in letting the discussion continue.

 

Folk Prophet: Why do you think that "People in relationships have sexual needs" is entirely contradictory to the law of chastity? One of the first books I read on the subject was Mom's Needs Dad's Needs by Dr. Willard Harley. He places sexual fulfillment as one of the most important "needs" in marriage.

[The Folk Prophet]

estradling75: I figured it was borderline from the get-go. Considering the "generic" nature of the questions, I'm hoping there is no need to go into any details that would necessitate shutting this down. I, for one, appreciate the admins' tolerance in letting the discussion continue.

 

Folk Prophet: Why do you think that "People in relationships have sexual needs" is entirely contradictory to the law of chastity? One of the first books I read on the subject was Mom's Needs Dad's Needs by Dr. Willard Harley. He places sexual fulfillment as one of the most important "needs" in marriage.

 

The word that doesn't work is "needs". Very strong desires? Very, very strong desires? Very, very, very strong desires? Sure. But not needs. If it were a need, no one unmarried would be able to keep the law of chastity.

 

Compare to real needs. Eating. Breathing, Sleeping. Shelter. Etc.  No eating unless you are legally and lawfully married. See how that doesn't work? Even within marriage. If your wife doesn't feed you then going out and getting food from somewhere else is adultery. That cannot work. It clearly can work with sex however. The law of chastity only works if sex is not a need.

[MrShorty]

So you are seeing "needs" as referring to the things needed to keep a person alive. As you say, clearly sex is not needed in terms of someone surviving from day to day. Pres. Kimball is often quoted as saying that the most common cause of the divorces he was seeing was disagreements over sex -- "not getting along in the bedroom." Therapists say that by far the most common "sexual dysfunction" they see is differences in libido. An individual husband or wife can certainly continue living without sex, but if their marriage is dying because of a lack of sex, does that make sex a "need" for the marriage? (Because singles/unmarrieds are not in such a covenant relationship, this need would still not apply to them.) Analogous to the "real needs" you describe (a person needs to eat to stay alive and healthy), many claim that marriage "needs" sexual fulfillment for the marriage to stay alive and healthy.

[The Folk Prophet]

Pres. Kimball is often quoted as saying that the most common cause of the divorces he was seeing was disagreements over sex -- "not getting along in the bedroom." 

 

Which is equivalent to saying the most common cause of divorce is selfishness, or, in other words, considering sex a need instead of a privilege.

 

Analogous to the "real needs" you describe (a person needs to eat to stay alive and healthy), many claim that marriage "needs" sexual fulfillment for the marriage to stay alive and healthy.

 

I am, in short, saying that I disagree with this entirely. What a marriage needs to stay alive is selflessness, and selfishness will destroy any marriage.

[Guest]

The problem here is the understanding that sex is in-and-of-itself THE need.  That is not so.  Sex is not the need.  It is SIMPLY an expression of the marital relationship.

 

Sex may or may not happen depending on the health of the relationship.  It is a natural progression of intimacy.  And the physical manifestation of intimacy is NOT intimacy.  The spirit communicating with the other spirit is intimacy.  And, once you achieve this level of intimacy, sex would be just one of the many ways it is manifested and can be done away with... so that, even when one person has sexual dysfunctions or is handicapped or is too old, the couple will not miss the sex.

 

And that, is in and of itself, the paradox... the more intimate you become, the less you need sex for yourself.  Because, that is really what sex is - it is not intended to go inward... it is, in it's purest form, completely going outward... a giving, not a taking... giving of pleasure, giving of life.  One's satisfaction comes from the giving, not the taking.  So that getting divorced or cheating because one is not "getting sex" is idiocy.

 

 

 

 

 

Pam:  When I edited this post, I can't do it in regular Edit... I had to go to full Editor mode.

[Quin]

I don't think this discussion is simple enough as to have an answer.

Adultery is a simple discussion... As it involves the choices of one person. Specifically, the choice not to divorce one's spouse, not to be honest or come to an understanding with one's spouse (open marriage), & to break one's vows. These are all fairly simple things, simple choices. The person is choosing adultery, and it in no way reflects on anyone but themselves, as they could have chosen divorce, honesty, or fidelity and are choosing not to do any of the honorable things available to them.

Fidelity is a simple discussion... As again, it involves the choice of a single person. To be or not to be.

Marriage, though? THATS a complex discussion.

Interpersonal cognitive, emotional, & physical interactions, reactions, desires, needs, priorities, cause & effect, history, et cetera?

Wicked complex.

There are quite literally HUNDREDS of variables in play, and possibly thousands as one opens up the sphere across millions of different couples from hundreds of different backgrounds & histories.

It's like parenting.

There are THOUSANDS of "right" ways to parent, and only 3 wrong ways (abuse, neglect, absence).

It's easy to talk about the wrong ways.

Just like its easy to say "rape is bad" or "adultery/ infidelity is bad".

But classifying the cognitive, emotional, physical, & spiritual well-being in a marriage as defined ONLY by washing dishes, or laughter, or sex, or ANY SINGLE VARIABLE is an impossible discussion. There is no simple answer, and no single variable can provide an answer.

Q

[Guest]

I don't think this discussion is simple enough as to have an answer.

But classifying the cognitive, emotional, physical, & spiritual well-being in a marriage as defined ONLY by washing dishes, or laughter, or sex, or ANY SINGLE VARIABLE is an impossible discussion. There is no simple answer, and no single variable can provide an answer.

Q

 

 

It is a simple answer.  And it is covered in Chapter 16 of Lorenzo Snow's Teaching of the President of the Church.

 

Marriage is our practice ground for becoming gods.  That singularity of will that God is.  The goal is simple - That We May Become One.

 

The couple knowing and agreeing on what the goal is - is more than half the battle.  The rest is just persevering to the end.  We have that strait and narrow path that we are to follow - that yardstick that is CHRIST.

 

Now, how to get there?  If both of you recognize each other's struggle to get to that yardstick, you can fall and fail and make a royal mess of things, and the other will be able to recognize that spirit within you trying to get to that yardstick and try to help you up to get you there... and vice versa.  And that is all that a marriage is about.

 

I don't believe in divorce.  My husband could turn out to the be #1 serial killer in the planet and it wouldn't change my outlook.  My goal is to bring him to Christ.  That is my covenant as his wife.  I can do it while living in the same house or I can do it while half-way around the planet while protecting myself or my children or I can do it on the other side of metal bars.  It doesn't matter.  As long as that is my goal and my intent for life eternal.  I just got lucky to have a husband that holds the exact same view of our marital covenant.  So, the marriage works out even when I'm going hormonally psychotic...

[MrShorty]

Which is equivalent to saying the most common cause of divorce is selfishness, or, in other words, considering sex a need instead of a privilege.

 

 

I am, in short, saying that I disagree with this entirely. What a marriage needs to stay alive is selflessness, and selfishness will destroy any marriage.

I find the topic of selfishness/selflessness very interesting -- especially in the context of these kinds of discussions. I am reminded of a discussion I started a couple of years ago about "how a little selfishness can help your marriage" based on something I read by Dr. Gottman (http://lds.net/forums/topic/40772-how-a-little-selfishness-can-help-your-marriage/). Without repeating the whole discussion, Dr. Gottman explains how it can be important for a spouse to have enough "selfishness" to speak up for things that he/she "needs" in the relationship. Sometimes, failure to express these needs/desires (perhaps for self-sacrficial reasons) leads to frustrations and resentments that erode the marriage.

 

So, as it applies to this topic: do you think that only the spouse expressing a "need" for sex is being selfish? Is there any selfishness in the "I have no sexual obligation to you"? Is their any importance in how a couple negotiates the sexual relationship, or is the sexual relationship in marriage truly at the whims of the "lower libido" spouse?

[MrShorty]

The problem here is the understanding that sex is in-and-of-itself THE need.  That is not so.  Sex is not the need.  It is SIMPLY an expression of the marital relationship.

 

Sex may or may not happen depending on the health of the relationship.  It is a natural progression of intimacy.  And the physical manifestation of intimacy is NOT intimacy.  The spirit communicating with the other spirit is intimacy.  And, once you achieve this level of intimacy, sex would be just one of the many ways it is manifested and can be done away with... so that, even when one person has sexual dysfunctions or is handicapped or is too old, the couple will not miss the sex.

 

And that, is in and of itself, the paradox... the more intimate you become, the less you need sex for yourself.  Because, that is really what sex is - it is not intended to go inward... it is, in it's purest form, completely going outward... a giving, not a taking... giving of pleasure, giving of life.  One's satisfaction comes from the giving, not the taking.  So that getting divorced or cheating because one is not "getting sex" is idiocy.

 

So, sex becomes a "disposable" aspect of intimacy? As Miley Cyrus explained last fall, she wants to "live it up" while she can because sex ends before 40"? Is there a "rush" to get to the point where sexual intimacy is no longer important? How does a couple know when they are beyond having sex?

 

When we talk about needing to cease sexual activity due to age/health, I am reminded of an article by Dr. Harley. In one article discussing sex and disability, he explains that much of our frustration with unmet needs is when we perceive that our spouse is unwilling to meet our needs rather than unable. There is less frustration/resentment when a spouse "would if he/she could but cannot" than when "he/she cannot and would not even if they could." He suggests that much of our perception of "willingness" will come from the spouse's behaviors/attitudes before the illness/injury/aging took place. Recognizing that the sexual relationship tends to decline with age, is there importance in prioritizing the sexual relationship while we can? Or are we supposed to anticipate and even "hasten" the day when we can cast off the sexual relationship?

[MrShorty]

I don't think this discussion is simple enough as to have an answer.

Adultery is a simple discussion... As it involves the choices of one person. Specifically, the choice not to divorce one's spouse, not to be honest or come to an understanding with one's spouse (open marriage), & to break one's vows. These are all fairly simple things, simple choices. The person is choosing adultery, and it in no way reflects on anyone but themselves, as they could have chosen divorce, honesty, or fidelity and are choosing not to do any of the honorable things available to them.

Fidelity is a simple discussion... As again, it involves the choice of a single person. To be or not to be.

Marriage, though? THATS a complex discussion.

In many ways, I will agree with you. The entirety of the marriage relationship is very complex and next to impossible to reduce to a single aspect. Sex is not the end all be all of marriage, just as parenting is not the whole thing, just like buying flowers is not the whole thing. Building a strong marriage involves the cumulative effect of many big and little things.

 

However, specific to the questions I'm asking to explore here, I think it can still be fairly simple. As you say, adultery/infidelity is the result of one spouse's choice to engage with someone sexually outside of the marriage. On the other hand, sexless marriages are about one spouse's choices to disengage sexually. He stays up late playing a video game in hopes that she will go to bed and be asleep before he comes to bed. She chooses to "have a headache" to rebuff his advances. Just as adultery is often the cumulative effect of small decisions about the relationship with a "friend", sexless marriages are the cumulative effect of multiple small refusals. In terms of pursuing, nurturing, and growing the sexual relationship, is there an obligation for both spouses to be actively work on the sexual relationship, or should there be no obligation at all?

[Quin]

It is a simple answer.  And it is covered in Chapter 16 of Lorenzo Snow\\\'s Teaching of the President of the Church.

 

Marriage is our practice ground for becoming gods.  That singularity of will that God is.  The goal is simple - That We May Become One.

 

The couple knowing and agreeing on what the goal is - is more than half the battle.  The rest is just persevering to the end.  We have that strait and narrow path that we are to follow - that yardstick that is CHRIST.

 

Now, how to get there?  If both of you recognize each other\\\'s struggle to get to that yardstick, you can fall and fail and make a royal mess of things, and the other will be able to recognize that spirit within you trying to get to that yardstick and try to help you up to get you there... and vice versa.  And that is all that a marriage is about.

 

I don\\\'t believe in divorce.  My husband could turn out to the be #1 serial killer in the planet and it wouldn\\\'t change my outlook.  My goal is to bring him to Christ.  That is my covenant as his wife.  I can do it while living in the same house or I can do it while half-way around the planet while protecting myself or my children or I can do it on the other side of metal bars.  It doesn\\\'t matter.  As long as that is my goal and my intent for life eternal.  I just got lucky to have a husband that holds the exact same view of our marital covenant.  So, the marriage works out even when I\\\'m going hormonally psychotic...

Divorce totally off the table/not even part of the discussion... I believe it\\\'s still impossible to classify the cognitive, emotional, physical, & spiritual well being of a marriage based on a single activity within the marriage that is a joint endeavor between the spouses.

Replace \\\"sex\\\" with laughing, going to church, cleaning, raising children, talking... Literally \\\"whatever\\\"... And you\\\'re going to find hundreds, if no thousands of different answers.

When only one person is making a choice, it\\\'s a simple thing.

When 2 people are making a choice together? Then it becomes complex.

Let\\\'s take \\\"cleaning\\\" to be the activity.

Because cleaning is a fairly mundane & simple thing, right?

But...

- Some people will be pathological about it (addiction, OCD, ADHD, GAD, Hoarding)

- Others prioritize that EXTREMELY high (medical needs...like blindness, immunodeficiency, wheelchair access, and umpteen others)

- Others prioritize that very high (necessary to their gainful employment, necessary for their cog/emo health, necessary for...)

- Others prioritize that high (not necessary for their needs... But necessary for their wants)

- Others prioritize it med (they enjoy either cleaning OR a clean house, but it\\\'s not necessary for their needs or wants)

- Others prioritize it low (they don\\\'t care, but could care less)

- Others prioritize it very low (they couldn\\\'t care less)

- Others prioritize it extremely low (completely oblivious... For a whole variety of reasons).

You take 2 people married and they\\\'re going to be in two different places on that spectrum above.

And that spectrum is ONLY about the priority of cleaning in their lives!

Those 2 different places on the spectrum will cause either friction or ease or both.

Those 2 different places on the spectrum can move around (like if one partner becomes blind, or if there\\\'s an earthquake, or death in the fam, or, or, or, or).

How those 2 people relate to each other, and their positions on the spectrum can change a great deal.

And all of he above is something like 2% of the factors involved!

Be it sex or cleaning... One can\\\'t simply say \\\"If you respect your partner you will do XYZ.\\\"

You can say what you WONT do very simply.

But saying what one SHOULD do is an almost impossible proposition.

There are too many variables in play.

Coercive Sex = Bad

That\\\'s easy.

But the reverse logic doesn\\\'t work.

[Quin]

Duplicate Post! Sorry!

[Quin]

In many ways, I will agree with you. The entirety of the marriage relationship is very complex and next to impossible to reduce to a single aspect. Sex is not the end all be all of marriage, just as parenting is not the whole thing, just like buying flowers is not the whole thing. Building a strong marriage involves the cumulative effect of many big and little things.

However, specific to the questions I\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'m asking to explore here, I think it can still be fairly simple. As you say, adultery/infidelity is the result of one spouse\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s choice to engage with someone sexually outside of the marriage. On the other hand, sexless marriages are about one spouse\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s choices to disengage sexually. He stays up late playing a video game in hopes that she will go to bed and be asleep before he comes to bed. She chooses to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"have a headache\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" to rebuff his advances. Just as adultery is often the cumulative effect of small decisions about the relationship with a \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"friend\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\", sexless marriages are the cumulative effect of multiple small refusals. In terms of pursuing, nurturing, and growing the sexual relationship, is there an obligation for both spouses to be actively work on the sexual relationship, or should there be no obligation at all?

See... This is where we go super complex.

In ONE example of a sexless marriage:

WHY is PartnerA choosing to disengage?

There are hundreds of possibilities.

1-100 can be things that their spouse has done which are creating a cause & effect relationship

100-200 can be PartnerA physical problems

200-300 can be PartnerB physical problems

300-400 can be PartnerA mental, or emotional, or spiritual, or logistic problems

Et cetera.

And that\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s STILL only one example.

Because the prerequisite is PartnerA CHOOSING to disengage.

There are a gazillion other examples where PartnerA isn\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t choosing to disengage, but instead is _______

(a ton of other possibilities... From loss of libido to decreased situational awareness to time management to prioritizing to, to to, to... But just to pick one of dozens of causes...the most common causes of loss of libido are

- sleep dep

- depression

- medication

- stress / illness)

So if partner A is undergoing chemo, and as such has suffered a loss of libido are they obligated to fulfill their spouses sexual needs?

If partnerB has been deployed,

If partnerA has been raped

If partnerB hasn\'t slept in 3 days

If partnerA is suicidal

If partnerB is working 4 jobs

If partnerA is suffering for dental pain

Gazillions of Long term issues just like the group where they\'re choosing to disengage

But there are even more groups than choosing to disengage vs suffered a loss of libido or logistical improbability.

____________________

I

terms of pursuing, nurturing, and growing the sexual relationship, is there an obligation for both spouses to be actively work on the sexual relationship, or should there be no obligation at all?

Yes. No. Maybe.

Depends ENTIRELY on the individual couple in question, and the individuals within the couple.

I really don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t think that there is a blanket answer that should even generally apply.

If you were asking about LITERALLY one couple,mans their specific circumstance, then yah sure. We can come up with a very good answer for THEM.

But that answer doesn\\\'t translate to every (or even most) other couples and their marriages.

Because there are too many variables at play that change the \\\"right & best\\\" answer. Yes, no, yes, maybe, in time perhaps, never, absolutely... It really all depends on the couple in question and their exact circumstance.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

I find the topic of selfishness/selflessness very interesting -- especially in the context of these kinds of discussions. I am reminded of a discussion I started a couple of years ago about "how a little selfishness can help your marriage" based on something I read by Dr. Gottman (http://lds.net/forums/topic/40772-how-a-little-selfishness-can-help-your-marriage/). Without repeating the whole discussion, Dr. Gottman explains how it can be important for a spouse to have enough "selfishness" to speak up for things that he/she "needs" in the relationship. Sometimes, failure to express these needs/desires (perhaps for self-sacrficial reasons) leads to frustrations and resentments that erode the marriage.

 

So, as it applies to this topic: do you think that only the spouse expressing a "need" for sex is being selfish? Is there any selfishness in the "I have no sexual obligation to you"? Is their any importance in how a couple negotiates the sexual relationship, or is the sexual relationship in marriage truly at the whims of the "lower libido" spouse?

 

Speaking openly of one's desires is not selfishness. Asking for someone to do something for you is not selfish. Going to one's bishop for financial help, for example, when one loses a job is not selfishness. Asking the Lord to bless us is not selfishness.

 

Expressing a strong desire (or "need") for something is not selfish. If I tell my wife, for example, that I want a new truck it is not selfish for me to tell her that. If she disagrees, we work it out together and come to a decision that we can both be comfortable with. But the desire, even very strong desire, to buy a truck is not selfish in and of itself.

[SpiritDragon]

Barring limiting factors such as physical inability or trauma from past experiences I firmly believe that sex in marriage is a great bench-mark for the health of the relationship. Assuming two people are capable and enjoy the activity there is no reason for it not to be taking place within the relationship, and if it isn't it is a good indicator that something isn't right with the relationship.

 

The thing is that the frequency and enjoyment of sex is a symptom of a good or bad relationship, not the other way around. If the relationship is working well both partners will want to express love in this way. But simply agreeing to have sex more often will not fix the underlying conditions that made it lose spontaneity in the first place.

 

These issues must be addressed and fixed for proper intimacy to occur, which as Anatess said is not sex, but can involve it.

[SpiritDragon]

As for sex being a "need" I agree it is not a basic need in the sense of food, shelter, clothing etc.

 

However, I do believe it is a conditional need for a fully functioning marital relationship at some point. It isn't that it is needed on the wedding night, or anniversary, or valentines day, or any other given night because one partner wants it, but if it NEVER happens there is a problem that will assuredly weaken the relationship unless both parties agreed to a sexless relationship from the outset. Which brings up the fact that communication about sexual expectations should be done before marriage.

 

Wedding vows of chastity and fidelity are just that, vows to only share the most intimate emotional and physical experiences with the one you're marrying. Wedding vows are not an oath to celibacy.