auzziegirl

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    OZ..somewhere between the sunrise and sunset
  • Religion
    LDS

auzziegirl's Achievements

  1. Very interesting! I haven't heard of prolactin, but am going to research it now. With new advancements in science and our ability to see into the brain with ever increasing accuracy, there are many studies studying all different aspects of the brain, several which seem to contradict each other. As a lay person, I try and read several different studies, and realize that the information is ever changing especially when it comes to such a hot topic as our brains and sex. Although the science does seem to agree on one point, and that is that sex is good for you! I also agree that skipping around the topic is a little ridiculous, but also understand why the rules are in place. I am sure many underage users browse this forum, and also agree that this forum shouldn't be the source of in-depth knowledge on the subject! (Why do I have this irresistible urge to change the second sentence to "....there are many studly studies studying..." Sorry, some silly forum humor...I couldn't resist!)
  2. Yes! Absolutely! I have several sources. When I first heard about the role hormones play in attachment I found it fascinating and read several studies supporting the data. It was a "ahh...that now makes sense" kinda moment for me. However, Due to the adult nature of the studies I am only willing to provide the references through private message. If anyone else is interested in the references, please let me know and I will forward them to you. (Anatess, it may take me a few hours as I am about to run to a concert my boy is in, but I will get them to you today... :) )
  3. Thanks! And, it was definitely a "duh!, of course "... face palm kinda moment"!!! :)
  4. Current research with FMRI's shows that during the peak of marital relations (I am sidestepping around technical terms so as to not be banned or receive a warning!! :)) oxytocin is released. Oxytocin has been shown to be "associated with the ability to maintain healthy interpersonal relationships and healthy psychological boundaries with other people." When it is released during xxxxxx (the peek of marital relations), it begins creating an emotional bond. The more sex, the greater the bond. Vasopressin, an antidiuretic hormone, is another chemical that has been associated with the formation of long-term, monogamous relationships. Oxytocin and Vasopressin, (also considered the bonding hormone) are released at 4 times the amount in men during the peek of marital relations. The male brain is literally flooded with both hormones, creating a strong attachment, bond, and commitment between a man and his partner. At no other time is the male brain flooded with such large amounts of either hormone. Sex is literally one of the most powerful bonding agents for the male (Note: I did not say that sex was the only bonding agent, but it is the most powerful bonding agent in chemically technical terms). Interestingly enough, oxytocin and vasopressin are also released in women during sex, but at not nearly the same amount. Women release the same quantities during sex as holding a child, cuddling with their spouse, or socialization (talking with other women). Men also release small quantities of oxytocin and vasopressin when engaging in those same activities, but not nearly at the same levels as women, and not even close to the amounts released during the peek of marital relations. I think this brings up some interesting disconnects between the sexes. As women do not receive nearly the amount of 'feel good' hormones during sex as men do, its easy to classify sex with the same priority as spending time with the kids, or cuddling our spouses during a movie, or just hanging out with our friends. We literally do not understand why men cannot just easily substitute one for the other. On the flip side, it seems men have a hard time understanding how women can so easily live without sex and still feel as if all their emotional needs are being met!. I find this relevant as it helps to explain (but not excuse) why men tend to loose affection and commitment for their spouse when denied regular intimacy. It also helps explain why men feel particularly loved and bonded when regular sex is part of the equation. (Its also interesting to note that the same bonding hormones are released irregardless of the setting, thus pornography may have unintended ramifications when it comes to attachment. Pornography may cause strong attachments and commitments to inanimate objects). As discussed, there are many valid reasons why frequent intimacy may be difficult in marriage. If frequent intimacy is not an option it may be worth exploring other activities that facilitate the release oxotocin and vasopressin in men. However, sex is by far the fastest and most effective route. I think as women we forget, or perhaps do not understand the importance of sex for our husbands. Much of that may have to do with the physical, biological, and psychological make-up of men.
  5. The three a's being? Adultery, abuse (I am assuming?), and the other? I'm sure once you tell me it will be a "well, duh!...face palm" moment for me, but right now I can't figure out what the others are. :)
  6. I have extensive photoshop/aftereffects experience. I taught advanced PhotoShop at the college level. I am happy to help with anything you need!
  7. I am sorry if I come across as combative. I taught at the university level for many years and sometimes fall into the academic, stringent form of engagement required for defending arguments. :) I did read back on some of my posts earlier, and absolutely agree that I came across as more combative than what I had originally intended, and can certainly understand your hesitancy to engage. Please accept my apology. I was in no way intending to come across the way that I did, and for that I am very sorry. Australians on the whole can be a little sarcastic, and unfortunately that doesn't translate well without voice inflection and facial expressions! If I ever come across as combative it is certainly not my intent. I appreciate your willingness to point that out to me, and if I come across that way again in the future I would hope that you (or any other poster) would again let me know. I appreciate your willingness to continue to post, and again, I am sincerely sorry.
  8. I have never demanded to debate with you. If you are going to say it is a commandment to stay married, and state your opinion as fact, I would like you to quote your sources.
  9. There is no need to debate. The quotes are from a variety of different apostles and prophets. Not just one. It is entirely clear what they believe on this point. Please provide me with just one quote that suggests otherwise. I am not debating the Adam God theory, nor blacks and the priesthood. I am challenging your assumption that: I am (and I directly quote) - "presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works" My understanding is limited (and I directly quote) "Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created." That any presumption of Celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal. I again remind you that you were the one that moved the discussion to D&C 131. I again remind you that you were the one that stated that I was ignorant in my understanding on celestial sex. I again remind you that my inclusion of direct quotes from several different apostles and prophets was to defend myself from your assumptions of ignorance. Exactly who has commanded that we stay married in this life by covenant and command, regardless of sex? WOW! This statement is troubling on so many different levels. Please provide references and or quotes for this statement.
  10. Perhaps those wives need to learn more about how to please their husbands?..... What women want and expect from sex can be very different than what men want and need. I am talking about physical needs here, not emotional. I believe 1 in 5 boys have also suffered abuse, and that may also be a factor in many of these situations. We would be wrong to assume that there is a simple answer to this issue. Or does the wind only blow in one direction?
  11. I absolutely agree that there are a myriad of reasons why sex may not be happening in a marriage. I most certainly was not quick to judge, and apologize to those who thought so. I was stating my opinion on the original posters comments. My comments are based on their situation, and their situation alone. There are a lot of very sad situations which I am sure Heavenly Father is aware of. I would sincerely hope that in those situations the spouses would be understanding and thoughtful in each individual case. I was NEVER condemning a spouse and do not understand how my comments could lead you to believe such a thing! Just to be clear, there is not a person alive that should be ok with forcing a spouse to engage in sexual activities that they are not comfortable with. There was nothing in any of my comments that even comes close to suggesting that. I do not understand where you came up with that. I am still shaking my head in disbelief! Just to be clear, not only do I believe that to be extremely unkind, disrespectful, hurtful and emotionally damaging to force a spouse to engage in sexual activities they are not comfortable with, I believe it squarely falls into the category of sexual abuse. I believe that it is an entirely a different issue than not being willing to engage in any sex whatsoever. In that instance, you could argue that it's emotionally damaging to the spouse that is being denied. Should only the wishes of those that do not wish to engage in sex be the only ones that are to be respected?
  12. This debate is getting interesting! Everything I say is in the spirit of a great debate, and in no way should be taken at all personally. :) With that in mind I shall continue...... When I made my original comment I was indeed only referring to this life. I completely agree that the context of this discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. However, I did not bring up D&C 131, which does turn parts of this discussion into the realm of the spiritual and the role of procreation as Celestial beings. My limited mortal understanding of the way things work in an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, I am basing my limited, mortal understanding on the views of several prominent LDS apostles and Prophets. Of course, I am sure that many people would go so far as to say that what the Prophets and Apostles say is also conjecture and non-doctrinal, but I am not one of those. Please let me be so bold as to quote some of them, and then I will turn my attention back to the original premise of this life. These quotes do not state how spirit children are born, but they do say (and quite boldly in my opinion) that Heavenly Father has indeed engaged in sex in the mortal understanding of the term: “… I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person…. I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, volume 1, page 238) “God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh…. The fleshy body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father…. He had a lawful right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women, was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct.” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158) “Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of the flesh… Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Family Home Evening Manual, pages 125, 126, 1972) “Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 547, 1966) “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that some Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost.” (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, page 7) “[Jesus Christ] was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh.” (Messages for Exaltation, For the Sunday Schools of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gospel Doctrine Class, pages 378-379, 1967) "As God the Father begat the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, begat his spirit. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated in the capacity of a husband with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated in the same capacity with the heavenly one; earthly things being in the likeness of heavenly things; and that which is temporal being in the likeness of that which is eternal; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven" Orson Pratt (The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270) Saying Jesus was begotten in the same way mortal men are begotten is pretty clear. Unless you know of another way mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers, than they were saying it was by sex.