BeenThereDoneThat

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    LDS

BeenThereDoneThat's Achievements

  1. In a perfect society, we'd all live this higher law, as Talmage points out in "Jesus the Christ." Unfortunately, like the ancient Israelites, who could put aside their wives simply by giving them a writ of divorcement, we seem to be living the lower law. Otherwise second marriages couldn't be performed in temples. I highly doubt the church would condone a relationship that resulted in the couple committing adultery. Everyone feel free to jump in and clarify the issue if you think I've misinterpreted it. I find it rather confusing myself, despite Talmage's explanation.
  2. You certainly have the right to consider this a black and white issue in your own life, but you're most likely not in a marriage with very little physical affection. If you are, and you're sticking by your covenants anyway, more power to you. If you aren't however, saying that everyone else should do what you'd hypothetically do isn't reasonable. After all, the decision of one spouse to withhold affection from the other is also a selfish choice, even with extenuating circumstances. (Please note that I highly encourage counseling and therapy when those are needed.) Although you can continue to cleave to your covenants as a personal choice, and I know good people in bad marriages who have, God doesn't demand that you do. Life is messy, and is mostly shades of grey. There aren't as many absolutes as some of us might prefer, and the challenge and purpose of mortal life is learning to properly excercise our free agency. In regards to marriage, there's rarely a completely right and a completely wrong side in human relationships. Yet those covenants we made when we were married in the temple are a two-way street. If one spouse isn't living up to them, in some circumstances dissolving the relationship and ending the covenants made with that person is the proper thing to do. No one would argue that a spouse is bound by covenant to stay in a physically abusive marriage, for example. That may be the most extreme example I could give, but there are other types of abusive behavior that would also warrant ending a temple marriage. Withholding physical affection from your spouse batters their sense of self worth, their identity as a desirable, lovable person, and their view of how well they're fulfilling their expected role in society. Being rejected by the person you thought you would spend eternity with is heart-breaking, but if that rejection can't be fixed, no loving God would ever force anyone to remain married to someone who doesn't love them or treats them badly for eternity. That's a good definition of HELL. It's extremely difficult to determine when you've put in enough effort to save a troubled marriage. It's a messy, shades of grey decision that requires prayer, consultation with your bishop, and acceptance of the consequences if you do choose to end it. If your spouse makes that decision for you and files for divorce, it's often more devastating, since divorce is the ultimate declaration of rejection. There are times when it's the proper thing to do, or the church wouldn't allow it, and certainly wouldn't annul sealings and permit second marriages in the temple.
  3. It's rather refreshing to see the needs of husbands mentioned in this thread rather than the constant drumbeat of their shortcomings. It certainly is a two way street, and lack of communication is frequently a problem. He has said that he does the romance thing, spends time with her, cuddles, etc., but there's crickets chirping in the bedroom. He asks, and she always says "not now." How much constant rejection from the person who is supposed to be his soulmate for eternity is he expected to endure? This isn't just about physical relations, every "not now" is a rejection of him as a person, a husband, a partner, and a man. There have been quite a lot of comments that paint him as the villain for asking a perfectly valid question. At this point, she married him under false pretenses, since reasonably frequent intimacy is implied as part of marriage. Nor is marriage merely for procreation, it's a gift we've been given to bring us closer together as a couple. Pres. Holland went so far as to call it a "sacrament." I'll leave the implications of that and any comparison to taking the sacrament weekly to the reader, but obviously the church leadership believes that regular intimacy is important in creating and maintaing a healthy marriage. If one spouse isn't interested, then the opportunity to strengthen their marriage through physical intimacy is lost, and if the other spouse is interrested, what should be a bonding opportunity and a sacrament that is available only in marriage degenerates into a source of contention.
  4. Would you please cite the source for your assertion that 1 of 3 women have experienced some sort of sexual abuse? Exactly how that study defined "sexual abuse" is also important. If they count getting whistled at as a woman walks down the street, that's a bit different from instances that included a medical checkup and a police report. I've had hundreds of school girls jumping up and down and screaming at my companion and me as we walked past their school, and I didn't feel the least bit violated - but I think it was a running joke with all the girls in that school whenever the Mormon missionaries walked by, since it had been going on for years. Note that I am not trying to belittle the victims of actual sexual abuse. If one's spouse has that in her (or his) past, it can easily make even the thought a marital relations a nightmare, and some serious therapy is needed. I'm not saying that your statistics are wrong, but throwing numbers out with no reference to where those numbers came from and how the study defined "sexual abuse" doesn't help us evaluate the validity of your argument. I get the impression from how the relationship that started this thread was described that the problem was disinterest, not of the the wife having a history of abuse. I'll go out on a limb and guess that there's a distinct possibility that she only showed interest when she knew she was fertile, as evidenced by the fact that she got pregnant with only three opportunities to do so in an entire year. Women may look at sex very differently than men, but it is a bonding act for both of them. This marriage is lacking in that act of bonding, which is very damaging. The husband had every right to expect regular marital relations when he offered to marry her and give her a comfortable lifestyle. They also should have discussed what they expected from their relationship, including sex. Talking about how many kids you want isn't quite the same thing, since sex isn't merely for procreation, and the church supports that outlook. "In my work as a marriage counselor, I have found that there are some couples who feel that sexuality should be restricted to one dimension—reproduction. Yet President Kimball has said: “We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experiences between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children.” (Ensign, Oct. 1975, p. 4.) While creating children is an integral and beautiful aspect of marital intimacy, to use it only for that purpose is to deny its great potential as an expression of love, commitment, and unity." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/09/they-twain-shall-be-one-thoughts-on-intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng Quoting from the same Ensign article: "Still others use sexuality as a weapon or a bargaining tool. This is not only a misuse of a God-given privilege, it shows great selfishness on the part of one or both partners and makes sexuality a destructive rather than a unifying element in marriage." Whether this is the case in this marriage isn't clear, but the fact that she turns him down almost all the time hints that it might be. His frustration is perfectly understandable, as what should be a unifying act is becoming very destructive in their marriage.
  5. I completely agree, and before "no fault" divorce came along, "withholding affection" was one of the valid grounds for getting a divorce. Note that's civil law, not the position of the LDS church. It does, however, demonstrate that even outside of the church, regular intimacy in marriage is expected, and withholding it is considered aberrant to the point that it is legal grounds for divorce in states where "no fault" divorce doesn't exist, and has been for generations in the USA. As a general authority said when he was touring my brother's mission, "One of my major reason for getting married was to have intimate relations with an attractive member of the opposite sex." If one partner in marriage doesn't believe that aspect of marriage is important and the other partner does, the marriage will always be in serious trouble. That said, you need to get to the root of your wife's disinterest. Some women simply don't have much of a libido, and some men don't either. That's often related to hormone levels, so it might be worth it to have your wife checked out medically. Others in this thread have outlined possible reasons for her disinterest, which you should explore and see if any of them apply. I've found therapy to be hit or miss - it depends on your therapist, and quite often on the qualifications of your therapist. You may get better results from a clinical psysciatrist than you would from a therapist at LDS Social Services, for example. You need to seek help from someone who is both qualified and experienced in diagnosing the cause of your wife's indifference, and that has nothing to do with being LDS. From your point of view it's necessary to save your marriage, since having intimate relations on a regular basis was one of your basic assumptions when you offered marriage and a comfortable lifestyle to your wife. All too often women busy themselves with their children and forget about their husbands. I've heard warnings of this time and again from the pulpit in General Conference. Keeping marriage alive and vibrant as a couple is a challenge when there are little people running around your feet and demanding your time, but in the hereafter, we are not going to live with our children! "Families are forever" means that the spousal relationship is forever. It's you and her forever, and your kids will be with their spouses forever, or at least that's the goal. I seldom if ever hear that from the pulpit, although it should be quite obvious from church doctrine. So your relationship with your wife - and hers with you, is the most important relationship in your lives - period. As you've noted, the effects of divorce on children are incalculable. Financially it's a disaster, although the earlier you get out, the less it will cost you in the long run, since states take the length of the marriage into account when awarding alimony or spousal support, plus you'll have less of an estate that most states split 50/50. If you don't get custody of your children, divorce largely strips you of your role as a father and denies you any authority over your children's behavior when they aren't with you. If you and your ex can't agree on a common set of rules for your kids, they'll be raised by her set of rules, not yours. So for a multitude of reasons, if you can work things out, remaining married is vastly preferable to divorce. Men seemed to be designed to have a higher libido than women, and more than one of my female friends have explained that women can simply turn that desire off. I'm not sure how truthful that statement is - it might be more a result of being in a dysfunctional marriage that makes the thought of being intimate with your spouse repugnant rather than losing interest. That doesn't appear to be the case in the way you've described your marriage, but the important question is "How does your wife perceive being intimate with you?" If she finds it repugnant, you have a serious problem. If it's just disinterest, getting to the cause of that disinterest is the key to changing it. If she's deliberately withholding it to control you, then you need serious marriage counseling. Speaking from the male perspective and not as a stalwart priesthood holder, shaking up her comfortable world might not be a bad thing. She's comfortable with things the way they are, and she won't change unless she understands that things won't remain the way they are if she doesn't change her behavior. That doesn't mean you give her an ultimatum to provide what you had a reasonable expectation of receiving when you offered to marry her, but she does need to understand how deeply unhappy and disappointed her behavior is making you feel, and that if it continues, you may eventually explore your options. Intimate relations under duress aren't the answer either, since she needs to enjoy them as much as you do and not feel pressured by any ultimatums. If explaining those feelings with her doesn't change anything, bringing them up in a joint therapy session with an expert in dealing with your problem might be more fruitful. Clearly I don't have the answer, but I hope I've given you some food for thought. I wish you the best...