“Doing your Wifely Duty”

September 10, 2012 By 24 Comments

I was asked by Lisa Butterworth to give my two cents worth on a Feminist Mormon Housewives post regarding a bishop’s sexual education approach to Relief Society sisters.  Here is the response I posted.  For it to make complete sense, you may have to go and read the original post.  I did not attend the meeting in question – therefore, I am only able to comment on what was reported by the original poster.

I’ll start with giving the bishop the benefit of the doubt and point out possible positives while simultaneously sharing concerns with the  approach taken.

I want to take into account that many of our sexual views are cultural and generational.  In other words, those of us in our 20’s and 30’s have grown up with widely different sexual norms and education than those of us in our 60’s and 70’s.  An entire sexual revolution has occurred in the last 45 years alone.  It is a fairly recent phenomenon that women are being taught they have a right to not only claim their sexual selves but find sex enjoyable to boot (both within and out of Mormon culture).

However, in this day and age, I am still surprised by the amount of LDS women who come through my office saying things like: “If I don’t want to have sex in my marriage, my husband should be OK with that.  He needs to control his passions.”  “I have no need for sex – my husband just has to get over it.”  “Sex is not necessary for marital happiness.”  I see many, many marriages which would be considered sexless (having sex less than 10 times a year) and this is not an arrangement both spouses are usually satisfied with.  Stereotypically, the low-libido partner is female and driving this frequency.  (Please don’t throw me under the table yet – I will complicate this further as I go – there are many other, legitimate scenarios to consider).  So, I’m assuming this bishop has received many complaints from women who have husbands who are requesting more sex, complaints from men who are not getting enough sex, and also seeing many people with pornography viewing behavior (which is easy to incorrectly correlate to non-satisfactory marital intimacy under one overarching umbrella).  If he’s not hearing from women who are viewing pornography or women with higher libido – this can usually be attributed to the fact that women in these scenarios, especially in a culture such as ours, think of themselves as weird and alone in their problem.  Therefore, in my experience, they just don’t speak to their bishop about these issues.  Taking all this into account, I do think it is positive to normalize sexual drive, to understand how biology plays a role no one is at fault for, and to use whatever sex-positive Mormon doctrine and/or scripture we can get our hands on to give credence to the positive effects of healthy sexuality within marriage.  Where the presentation fell strikingly short is it only normalized the male drive and ignored the female drive altogether.

As far as the quotes he used from Packer – this stuff is based in evolutionary theory (ironic, no?).  And evolutionary theory is fascinating in the context of understanding primary instincts, urges and behavioral patterns of the human race as a whole.  Monogamy and marriage based on romantic love are fairly new and primarily western concepts.  At the same time, even though I may be programmed to hunker down with my babies to the point of murdering anything that risks harming them, while my husband is programmed to insert sperm in as many women as possible as well as killing children I’ve acquired from sperm other than his; both in an effort to increase our chances of promulgating our DNA – I think we would all agree most of us live in a time and culture with higher standards for accountability than our primal instincts.  Yet our instincts and physiological differences still remain.  There is research which shows men and women’s brains react differently to visual stimulation.  There is research which shows heterosexual men and women are attracted to traits within the opposite sex that are prime for making healthy babies (i.e. wide hips in females, broad shoulders in males, etc.).  There is research which shows that a woman’s psychological state plays a larger role in her ability to feel sexually aroused than a man.  There is research to support both men and women have sensual thoughts throughout any given day – men usually report more frequency of these than women.  There is research to show how different hormones such as testosterone and estrogen affect libido.  I could go on.  These can be helpful things to know – especially if they normalize our individualized experiences.  However, these research findings do not apply to all – and stating “this is the way it is” isolates those who do not fit the mold, potentially and unintentionally damaging many within the sound of such sermons.  And to challenge the bishop slightly: many of us have lustful or sensual thoughts we don’t act on, and would never dream of acting on – Mormon or not.  This is called fantasy.  Also, as Mormons, we unfortunately are not dramatically different in our statistics from the population at large when it comes to problems such as divorce, infidelity, pornography usage, etc.

There is truth in saying that when people are sexually unsatisfied within their relationship, this can cause deeper problems affecting other areas of marital intimacy.  These problems can in time, play a role in eroding the foundation of the relationship.  As part of coping with these relational issues, people turn to all types of different behaviors (some healthy – some not): overeating, exercise, infidelity, gaming, pornography use, shopping, going out with friends, reading books, etc., etc.).   However, the problem with how this was presented is that it ignored that this dynamic can go the other way too: when people are emotionally, spiritually or intellectually unsatisfied in their relationships, deep problems within the realm of  physical intimacy can occur.  You can “put out” all you want – but if you make each other miserable, the sex isn’t necessarily going to help.  It might for a while – but not long term.  Now, just because I agree that sexual dissatisfaction can lead to bad coping mechanisms, does not mean I think infidelity or other non-agreed-upon sexual behavior such as pornography use is justified or should be blamed on the spouse with the lower libido.  Last time I checked, we are not held responsible for Adam’s transgression (see article of faith #2) -  nor Bob’s, James’, Pablo’s, etc.

It is important to recognize that negative sexual behaviors are usually indicators or symptoms of deeper seeded issues.  And these can either stem from relational problems (like unsatisfactory marital intimacy) or just as likely, if not even more than likely, individual issues the person has brought with them into the marriage (i.e. shame, trauma/abuse, habits, poor sexual education, communication styles, conflict-resolution styles, etc. etc.).  I’ve come across statistics which show that as many as 90% of people who can be legitimately considered “sex addicts” (related to diagnostic criteria) have a history of sexual abuse in their background.  80% come from what are considered “rigid” family backgrounds which offer little flexibility when it comes to exploration which goes beyond the family’s “rules.”  And believe me, there are plenty of unspoken “family rules” about sexuality within family dynamics.  It doesn’t matter how much sex a spouse offers this type of person – it will not solve the problem because the problem has nothing to do with the spouse.  In fact many of these couples are having satisfying and frequent sexual encounters.  If this type of couple is not educated on what they are truly facing, they will buy into the lie that their problem is each other.  It sounds like this extremely important scenario was not even brought up as a possibility in this discussion – harmful for sure.  And if the spouse begins an inappropriate self-blaming dialogue, you can see how easily it is to develop other mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.

As far as who “wins” – the lower libido partner or the higher libido partner?  It is true that in relatively respectful relationships, the lower libido spouse often trumps – meaning they get their way.  Making the assumption in this case that the lower libido partner is the female, I find that “good” Mormon husbands have also been taught they should control their passions at some level and are therefore, willing to sell themselves short because that is the good husbandy type thing to do.  Unfortunately, resentment builds along the way consciously or not.  However, this is not necessarily true in relationships where there is a negative power differential such as domestic violence or dated patriarchal dynamics where “the husband decides.”  Rape happens within marriages.  Often a lower libido partner in this scenario will “give in” due to a sense of duty or gender role.  In my opinion, any time there is a discussion of who is “winning,” both are losing. More on managing different libidos later.

There is truth in that women’s anatomy usually takes longer to work up to sexual desire than men.  And often, if women are willing to engage in sexual play within a healthy relationship, even though they may not feel “horny” when they begin, desire builds in the process – or it can.  This, of course, can be true for men as well.  But if my numbers are right, men can become sexually excited in as little as 3 to 5 minutes while women usually take about 15-30.  If you engage in sex out of duty only – the chances of warming up at all are slim.  There needs to be some authenticity in the desire to desire.  And as a woman, if you’re not physically excited, you’re not becoming lubricated or physically prepared to enjoy sexual advance – this can lead to painful or uncomfortable intercourse, so forget orgasm at this point – and if this has been a general pattern, why would you desire to desire?

It is best when we desire each other – but being realistic, in a long-term monogamous relationship there are going to be libido ups and downs affected by all kinds of factors: age, childbirth, childcare, stress, hormones, etc.   It is best when both partners either naturally or purposefully take turns initiating.  It is important for both partners to feel desired and wanted in a sexual way.  If this isn’t happening, reasons can be explored.  Here is one example of how I try and help couples work through libido differences: a scenario I run into often is when childbirth and/or breastfeeding dramatically lower a woman’s libido.  If biology is agreed upon by the couple as the culprit, the husband can be reassured that the issue is not that he is not desired or special to his wife – her biology legitimately doesn’t feel like having sex.  They can agree that for an allotted period of time in their marriage he will be the main initiator – taking the pressure off of her to perform in a certain way and taking the pressure off of him that he no longer matters.  When he does initiate, she can decide what type of sexual play she can offer at that particular time (the range can be as far on one spectrum as encouraging him to go masturbate in the shower as he thinks of their pre-baby sex life to the other side of the spectrum where they have vaginal intercourse.  There is much in between to choose from, such as oral sex, hand jobs, rubbing up against your partner, masturbating next to each other, massage,  leaving it to another day, etc., etc.).  These are the types of options I try and help couples explore so neither one is feeling like they are holding their sexual relationship hostage.  And both can feel good that their partner’s needs are being met without having to sacrifice their own.  It’s about being authentic and caring.

I find Laura Brotherson’s book useful and a good place to start understanding one’s sexuality from a religious positive perspective – especially for those who may hold more conservative views on sexuality.  Just not sure those books needed to go home in a paper bag.  :)   It’s good for our kids to see we take this topic seriously.

Now for the full-out problem areas:

I reject the notion that the key to marital happiness is how we manage sexual drive.  Keys to marital happiness deal with communication and conflict-resolution styles.  They deal with trust, validation, compromise and good listening skills.  They deal with the ability to attach well to one another and the sense of mutual safety.  They deal with feeling like one’s spouse has your back and you’ve got theirs.  John Gottman and Sue Johnson do great research and writing on marital dynamics and success and I recommend their work.  Sex can be affected by the keys – but it’s not the key itself.

Healthy decisions as to why to have sex with your partner should not include being a gatekeeper to your partner’s propensity for sin.  Taking the needs of your partner into account is useful as touched on earlier – at the same time, if sexual decisions preside primarily on managing another’s needs, this becomes a very unauthentic way to approach your own needs and feelings, which are equally important.

The slide showing the “numbers” is problematic for me on a number of levels – gossip being primary.  I don’t think we need to make our points at other people’s expense – even sexually infamous people.  It also heightens the drama, feeding on the frenzy of the anxiety this subject produces, forming a superficial bond – us against them.  And how useful is it to have an “us” and “them” when we are all sinners in different ways to begin with?

If a spouse heads elsewhere for sexual gratification – regardless of the underlying reasons – it’s ok to take offense.  Sexual boundaries need to be agreed upon within each marriage.  They may look different for different couples – they may need to be reworked as you figure out life together and what both your needs are – but for relational health to be optimal, these should be consensual.  And if your spouse acts in nonconsensual ways, eroding the trust between you, you have a right to be angry.

If you need to start a fight to have good sex, then I highly suggest marital therapy.  :)

I saw no discussion on how mental or physical health issues can affect sexual desire for either partner.  These are legitimate problems spouses need to consider when it comes to realistic expectations and sexual health.

I saw no discussion on what it means to have a “successful” sexual encounter.  Many believe that  erection, lubrication and orgasm are the only ways to have success.  To take the detail further, many have the expectation that orgasm through vaginal intercourse (which only happens for about 35% of women) happening for both partners simultaneously in missionary position is what should happen.  I beg to differ.  Anything from massage to intercourse to holding hands and snuggling on the couch while watching TV can be considered successful sexuality if framed correctly.  And it doesn’t matter who reaches orgasm first as long as the couple has a way to continue the play for the other person if wanted.  This is where vibrators/dildos can be highly useful.

Bottom line:

It is both the husband and the wife’s responsibility to authentically communicate their needs (sexual or otherwise), to recognize their spouse will not be able to meet all their needs, to be willing to compromise, to have empathy for the other’s position and libido, and to have marriage-friendly ways of getting their needs met.  Pitting one gender against the other is just not useful.

I know I have not been able to touch on every single scenario which would apply to every marriage.  I hope my examples do not offend – they are not meant to pigeonhole people into different labels or situations.  Sexuality is complex and highly individualized to each person’s situation.  I see a need for more sexual education and believe it can be done in a helpful way.  It saddens me that this bishop’s good intentions translated into some deep discomfort and damage for the original poster and others present.  It is difficult to address this topic without having personal biases and experiences as well as cultural framework not play huge roles in its communication.  Please feel free to disagree with me or share your own experiences which were not addressed.  Open dialogue can be so healthy when it comes to respectfully challenging preconceived sexual notions.  Have at it….  :)

Filed Under: Sexuality 24 Comments
  • anonymous

    Thank you so much for your insight and candor on all the subjects about which you post. I am hoping for some direction or help that I can use to teach my two daughters how to healthfully deal with my ex( their father) and his very passive aggressive behavior. I got out of my very emotionally and sexually abusive relationship with him, but my girls are stuck with his behavior to limited degrees (we don’t live in the same state as he). I know they can see without my bias that he treats people poorly, but I would like to be able to give them some tools to deal with it without risking any alienation of affection.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  • Male 1

    I probably drafted 10 comments and then deleted them over at fMh. Just about anything coming from a male is soundly blasted unless he follows the LDS feminist line. I love your advice, expecially your Bottom Line. However, I think Cate wrongfully and resentfully reported on the Bishop’s presentation with extreme bias. Every point he makes there’s a snarky comment, and then she adds her own two cents of disrespectful commentary to everything he says. I have the feeling the presentation didn’t go over nearly as bad as she made it sound, and there is a boat load of truth in the things he was saying. Notice that at Point 6 doesn’t say “Do you duty to keep your husband from sinning.” Cate injects and infers that. Now, I’ll be the first to admit he could have said things a little differently. He could have written up something like your post and saved himself a lot of grief. However, I can almost guaranteee you that anything coming from a male would not have been well received by some of those sisters. But for something to rise to the level for the Bishop to have to meet with the sisters and give this presentation, my guess is that there are a lot of sisters in his ward who have the attitude noted at the beginning of your post: “Sex is his problem., not mine.” I think the discussion would have been much better on a fifth Sunday with both husbands and wives present, and he could have had someone from the RS present female perspectives, also. My guess is that if his RS came to him and said they wanted to present some information to the PH, that offer would not be rejected. But it would be difficult to tackle the thorny subject of marital intimacy in one hour. As I read through the comments to Cate’s post as well as another post by Sara at fMh, it became clear that there are tons of women who reflect the attitude that sex is unimportant, and as the lower libido partner, they don’t seem too concerned with compromising anything. Since you pointed out that empathy is imortant, I think the Bishop was doing his best to educate the sisters about men’s sexual libido so their spouses could feel that empathy and want to compromise. We all know there are tons of things to do short of penis in vagina sex. However, at some point, somebody has to give. If a man wants to have sex once a week and the wife wants to have sex once every three months, three months of snuggling and hand jobs and and other things won’t meet the husband’s emotional needs. Those other things are nice and offer a temporary fix, but there is nothing like the real thing of making love with someone. And if your wife isn’t willing to compromise beyond handing you a bar a soap, that’s a problem. Like I said, I know he could have done better, but I think his intentions were good. I don’t think he was out to put the sisters on a guilt trip or to have them “do their duty.”

  • MJ

    Male1, I appreciate your post. I think he may have been putting it on the sisters to “do their wifely duty”. I don’t think that he meant it as an insult, but people within the church have a badly distorted view of sex. Yes, there are tons of ways shortof penis in vagina sex, but they’re generally seen as wrong. I’ve got guy friends who believe that masturbation is WRONG, married or not, and feel tremendous guilt about it. I have girl friends who think that if their husbands masturbate, they are sinning, and don’t even think of doing anything besides the missionary position, let alone introduce oral sex or toys into the equation. Sex should be between husband and wife ONLY, and there will be no imagination involved.

    There have been bishops and stake presidents who have imposed their own ideas about sex onto their congregations, as this bishop has done. I think this little meeting was inappropriate if only because the church is SUPPOSED to stay out of the marital bedroom.

  • Mart

    MJ, I agree completely that the church should stay out of the marital bedroom.
    One comment though, at Priesthood meetings the brethren are regularly taught and instructed about avoiding pornography, how to treat their wives, how to meet their needs etc. I do know, from discussions with a couple of sisters, that the subject of how to treat their husbands and meet their husbands needs is rarely, if ever, a topic of discussion in RS meetings. Of course, that’s just my experience and it could be different elsewhere?

    • http://gleaningthefields.com Ruth

      That’s my experience too, and it is ansolutely not ok! And I agree there is entirely too much male bashing culturally, in RS and particularly in Priensthood conferences and meetings. Men aren’t generally as verbal as women, and tend to isolate themselves emotionally, so thewove really won’t bring attention to how much they are hurting. No one is standing up for them. And it is a problem that needs priority. If the presentation was given as reported it was hurtful for everyone involved, including the men, who want intimacy with their loved ones, not “duty sex”.

  • Rob

    When I read this story and then the comments on FMH, I was disgusted – with the comments! That bishop was called everything from a pervert to someone who advocated marital rape. Given the amount of snark that’s injected after every statement in the account, I don’t feel confident at all that we got a fair picture of what was presented.

    I think there’s no chance that the bishop said that it’s the woman’s fault if the man has an affair. He did say that she can help safeguard the marriage with regular intimacy, but that’s not the same thing as giving her accountability for his sins. If I fail to lock my car doors, the sin of stealing the car still remains with the thief. The section on the low vs high desire partner was great – it was even stated in gender neutral terms and at least discussed the situation where the wife has the higher drive. I do think he oversold the idea that men are just on the verge of control and I can see that doing some damage – that was the one area that I had a problem with.

    Overall, I salute this bishop. You simply can’t address this topic and not offend anyone or speak to all of the possible caveats and situations. Can’t be done. But not speaking to it communicates the message that it’s not important, which is a lesson some spouses are all too ready to assume. I just think the interpretation of “wives, do your sexual duty!” was the wrong takeaway, taken (I feel) deliberately to find fault with the whole thing. The message of “this is a very important aspect of marriage that is far too often neglected and it deserves your attention – work on making it work” is what should be understood. Perhaps the bishop could have made that explicitly clear for some of the touchier sisters in the room.

    • http://gleaningthefields.com Ruth

      I disagree, that the author was trying to find fault with the whole thing. Yes, there was snark, she was venting and needed support for the yucky feeling she came out with. That was real. I didn’t feel she was out to get the bishop or she would behave named him. I can easily see though how men would be hesitant to raise a discordant voice in the discussion. The few that did were pretty angry and defensive themselves, and didn’t really articulate well what their objections were. In reading here, I can more easily see what happened and how the discussion could have been hurtful. I’m sorry for any part I may have played in that. I was expressing my feelings, which I think is an important component and feedback to how such presentations are seen by many women. Men’s needs, or the high libido partner’s needs are important. But no partner’s needs are more important than the others! THAT is what needs discussion, a solution to the problem. Which Natasha is addressing well. Thanks Natasha, and thanks guys for having the nerve to speak up respectfully. I feel I understand better, where you are coming from.

  • Alliegator

    It’s true that we may not have a totally unbiased report of the presentation, however, we have a report from a person who was actually hurt by it. That should tell us something. Instead of listening to where his presentation may have hurt one of his congregation, he made her feel like she was lacking instead.

    It’s a touchy subject for sure, and it wouldn’t be fair for the low-libido spouse to just cut off all sexual activity in a marriage. Why couldn’t the presentation have been about how to work together as a couple to figure out where the low libido is coming from and fixing that instead of just telling the women in this ward that the spouse with the need trumps the one without. Women who have been in abusive situations are likely to feel like that’s advocating marital rape. Just because it’s not true for all, doesn’t mean it’s not true ever.

    I’d like to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt as well, and I think he probably meant well, but bishops just aren’t trained for things like this. Either hire a professional, or leave it alone.

  • Vinniecat

    Since we weren’t there for the presentation, we can only base our opinions on what was presented for us. I agree that we may be gleefully wronging a bishop who was genuinely trying to help with a problem. I do worry for the church members who do not fit the box drawn for them that will try to make the box work for them if it comes from someone in a position of authority such as the Bishop. We have had some good discussions at the blog that I think are useful and I have learned a few things.
    Something I think what is fueling a fire under much of the debate is that a Bishop has authority given him to counsel his flock. The bishop is always a man and there is no counterpart for him from the female ranks of the church. Some bishops will take into serious consideration the opinions of women in their stewardship, some will not. The all-male-hierarchical setup within our organization, in my experience, naturally lead to misunderstandings between men and women and often a marginalization of women’s experiences and needs. I think the big issue for many women is that this is a man of authority explaining it as he sees it and as a man of authority his voice trumps.

  • LisaM

    Exactly, Vinnicat & Alliegator.

    I believe that every Mormon around the world has every right to weigh in on this discussion, in spite of the fact that we weren’t there for this particular dear Bishop’s counsel, because we ALL have experience with sexual counsel within and specifically by Priesthood in the Church!

    Everyone will interpret the Bishop’s counsel differently, depending on many things, one of which is their testimony and ability to accept all PH counsel no matter what. So. . . does it come as a shock that someone who identifies as a feminist, and therefore posts her feminist response on a feminist website, would interpret the dear Bishop’s counsel differently, negatively, or a little snarkily

  • LisaM

    (Con’t….stinkin thumb-typing on iPhones! Har.)

    Of course Cate’s (and other Mormon feminist opinions) shouldn’t come as a surprise on this topic, and how it relates specifically to them as Mormon women.

    Most, if not all, of the posts on fMh are aimed at progressing Mormon thought. A progressive, more thoughtful, more inclusive approach about sex is sorely needed in Mormonism. We all have our stories. We all know in which ways damaging sexual messages, as it pertained to our LDS upbringing, had to be worked through for each of us.

    As a Mormon feminist, I also believe, and am in fact repelled by, the constant damage being done to our men about p0rn and ma$turbation, for example. The Brethren have not and do not now handle those two subjects in psychologically healthy ways.

    We have a long way to go to healthily address sexuality within Mormon marriages. The fact that the majority of the women probably internalized the Bishop’s message and didn’t speak up, is evidence of our religious culture to accept priesthood counsel, not to question or disagree, and go home and get a testimony that matches the counsel given, is concerning. That is a problem that fMh tries to counteract by expressing forward, progressive, and individual thought for those who come on to read the blog.

  • http://overflowingopinions.blogspot.com LovelyLauren

    I’m a regular reader and occasional commenter at FMH and I was also shocked by the assumptions and accusations thrown at the Bishop, particularly after they applauded Natasha for saying almost the same thing in a much more gentle tone. When I commented, I even pointed out that I am the lower-libido partner in my relationship and I almost always say yes when my husband is in the mood, even if I’m not or am a little tired or busy (because I want to meet his needs and intimacy is what keeps us close) and I pointed out that a giving attitude is likely what the Bishop had in mind.

    Everyone who responded to my comment claimed that the Bishop wasn’t advocating this, he was advocating coercion (i.e. marital rape, yes, they used those words) and saying that one partner’s needs trumped the other, which seems like a huge leap considering that none of us actually heard the presentation.

  • Chet

    Great post Lauren. I think that sometimes the Feminist attitude can go overboard and will look too hard to find something that proves their point (agenda), at the expense of the overall message. In this case, the Bishop is trying to help bridge the gap that many couples have – differing desires, whether the lesser desire spouse is male or female. The fact that most of the time the lessor desire spouse is the wife should not be grounds to label the Bishop as advocating coercion.

  • Rob

    The book Intimacy & Desire by David Snarch had a great discussion about high desire and low desire spouses. Marriages have a high desire/low desire dynamic for just about everything – conversation, travel, dancing, etc, etc. By default, the low desire spouse becomes the gatekeeper for that activity, even though they don’t really want that job. So the idea is to shift the dynamic to provide the higher desire spouse with what he or she needs and work at evening out the desire level to a degree. Somehow, when we ask husbands to be more communicative because their wives need that connection, we manage to not take huge offensive to the idea and assume it’s a violation of the man’s integrity.

    But, again, this isn’t really a gender issue. There are plenty of miserable women over this same issue – often more miserable because their situation runs counter to all of our expectations. If you want some depressing reading sometime read this thread: http://marriage.about.com/b/2008/01/07/is-your-husband-not-interested-in-sex.htm . There’s immense pain there. The answer is the same – the loving low desire spouse will look at that pain and find answers. The truth is that both spouses will have work to do (Lord knows I’m still figuring this out myself) but the first step is understanding that the high desire spouse’s needs aren’t just some type of carnal selfishness. That was a key message of this bishop’s presentation, and I applaud him for it.

  • Chet

    What many, or most, women fail to realize is that sex isn’t just about “getting off” for the husband, it is a bonding/renewing experience. It is a emotional experience just as much as it is a physical/sexual experience. For me, a willing wife is one thing, but a willing and engaged wife is what really validates my emotional need of being accepted, being wanted and being loved by my wife. It tells me that “hey, she still wants me”!
    During our period of low desire/high desire struggles, my wife was always willing, but I could tell that mostly (except for maybe once a month) what was really happening was she was just allowing me to use her body to “take care of my needs”. I felt that this was not much different then me masturbating. The only difference was that I was using her to do it. She wasn’t really getting much out of it, from what I could tell, no matter what she said.

    I would suggest the lower desire spouses need to realize that it is more than just sex that your partner is seeking, they are wanting to bond emotionally and to feel like they are still “the one”.

  • CM

    I found this article a while back and bookmarked it because I really liked it. It seems to say some of the same things the Bishop was trying to say in his presentation, only it is written my a professional who is a woman. I am curious what others think about it. I posted it in a comment on FMH also and the only comment on it so far was to dismiss it because it is connected with Focus on the Family website.

    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/sex_and_intimacy/understanding-your-husbands-sexual-needs.aspx?p=1&series=1

    I do not call myself a feminist, however there are many discussions on FMH that I agree with and probably just as many that I disagree with. However, I almost always learn something from them. While I personally was not offended by the Bishops presentation

  • CM

    Sorry – hit post to soon.. to continue –
    I could see Cate’s and others point of view. However, I have been married long enough and observed other marriages, and also studied this particular issue quite a bit and know that most marriages, if not all marriages, at some point have to deal with HD/LD issues. And it can be a huge problem in the marriage. So it is a worthwhile topic to discuss – even if it is a clumsy attempt. Perhaps, that clumsy attempt should be looked at as a springboard to further more discussion and evaluation of the issues at hand- instead of an evaluation and discussion about the clumsy attempt.

  • Wonderment

    I’d like to explain what caused Cate to be anguished and what caused some people at FMH to write comments that might have been seen as sarcastic. It wasn’t that the bishop wanted to talk about the importance of sex and all the low libido women were dismissive of the topic, thus confirming some people’s view of feminists as unaffectionate and cold.

    In Cate’s view, the bishop had a structured, planned slide show set up in which he talked AT the women, not with them. There was no question-and-answer time afterwards, no chance for them to make comments or suggestions. They were expected to listen silently and obediently, then to leave. It was billed as “women’s conference”, but there was no time allowed for women to comment. The bishop never asked the women, “What did you think of this presentation and how to you feel about it, since you are considered an equal partner in marriage’? He simply reminded the women that he had prayed about the topic, and the slide show was a result of his prayers and promptings. He made it clear that he was speaking under color of his priesthood authority, which made many women feel as if they were being lectured or admonished by an authority figure for their wrongdoings.

    The bishop put up a slide which showed a row of trained German Shepherd police dogs looking intently at a little cat who was walking by. In his analogy, the husbands were all the German Shepherds who might be trained to restrain themselves but still would always be tempted to chase the little cat. He explained that males could suppress their natural desires for awhile, but if their wives were non-compliant in meetng their sexual needs correctly, then the temptation to look elsewhere might be too much for them to hold back on having an adulterous affair. The implication to women ( who have been shamed since girlhood with storiesabout licked cupcakes, chewed gum, and nails in boards), is that they better be really, really good at giving lots and lots of sex. Otherwise, he would leave and they would be to blame.

    The bishop did NOT say what it would have helped the women to hear : “Marriage is a 50-50 proposition, ad sexual happiness is very important for both the husband and the wife. Talk to each other, communicate with each other, tell each other and show each other what techniques may you happy and make you feel sexually responsive. Show each other mutual love and mutual physical affection. Don’t expect one partner to always initiate love-making — be open to different approaches and techniques which demonstrate that you are interested in pleasuirng your mate.”

    The bishop didn’t say any of that. Natasha did say something like that, which is why her remarks were very well received. Could it be that the low libido wife is considerd disinterested because the husband’s view of sex is “two minutes of the missionay position”, then roll over and go to sleep? Could the husband feel lonely and rejected because the wife just lies there like a rag doll and has no response at all? NONE of this was discussed.

    All the women heard was, “Go home and submit to your husband, because his needs trump your needs.” What caused the sarcasm was that this message is constantly pounded into LDS women – be obedient and subservient, because that is what he wants. Hearken to his priesthood authority. As a woman your desires have no value, and if you “do it wrong”, you deserve to be criticized for your lack of skills and he will then look elsewhere.

    If the discussion had included a trained therapist who talked about the joys of both patners learnng to give sexual affection and receive pleasure from each other, then I think the women would have been enthusiastic.
    But instead, what they heard was, ” This is one more chore that you must do, one more thing to put on your list. ” In my opinion, if the responses seemed sarcastic, it was because it seemed like more of the “same old, same old” directed towards women. The FMH is a blog where people like to talk about progressive ideas, about improving the lives of both women and men, about changes in church culture which allow women more equal participation — about new stuff, not the same old, same old. — Wonderment

  • Chet

    Wonderment,
    “What caused the sarcasm was that this message is constantly pounded into LDS women – be obedient and subservient, because that is what he wants. Hearken to his priesthood authority. As a woman your desires have no value, and if you “do it wrong”, you deserve to be criticized for your lack of skills and he will then look elsewhere. ”

    What Church do you go to?

    It would be interesting to survey a large group of LDS women to see if they feel the same way. From my perspective, all be it a male perspective, I have never heard any such teachings, let alone being pounded into the women of the Church. I have always been taught that my marriage is a partnership, that excercising my priesthood with unrighteous dominion can be grounds for a disciplinary council, etc…

    • The Wife

      I think most women at fMh would wonder what church you were in. I certainly would.

      I was in the opposite dynamic in my first marriage. Twice a year was more than enough, and he got a kick out of making me beg, and then saying “No,” anyway. When discussing the issues with the bishop, a home teacher who had previously been a bishop and in the stake presidency, I was told that it was my job as a wife, not to demand more than he could give. At one point we were told that me even asking for sex was being distespectful to him, and that I should not even be “bugging” him about my sexual needs. (After the bishop said it, I heard it repeated at least twice a week, if not multiple times a day, until I moved out, three years later.) There was no discussion about high and low sex drive partners, just my covenant to “hearken” unto my husband, and somehow make him sexually interested in me again. When I told my bishop about the extensive marriage counseling (the last two marriage counselors told me I wasn’t ever going to get him to acknowledge my needs, never mind fulfilling them, and not just sexually) and the continued increase in emotional abuse, his suggestion was essentially to stop blaming my husband for my own shortcomings.

      Because our bishop had already decided that the sexual issues were all “my fault,” when I left the marriage, I was asked to turn in my temple recommend and was put on formal “probation” for being a selfish person. Even six years later, he still sees my unwillingness to live without sex as the “problem,” and is confident in that enough in that interpretation that he shared my story in a fireside. He left out my name, but at least ten people who were there emailed me because they were so upset about what was said. (Thankfully I was not living in the ward anymore.) The moral of the story, as told at the fireside was that women “demanding” sex from their husbands was just as damaging to a marriage as a woman withholding sex. He left out the details about the sexual humiliation I had been subjected to by my husband, and since I considered his advice then and his sharing the story at the fireside years later, to also be sexual humiliation, there is not a lot of love or respect that could be lost at this point.

      (My ex still lives in that ward, although they have a different bishop now. When I go to activities with my kids there, the tension around the divorce is still oddly intense. I left, didn’t ask for spousal support and have remarried. He is semi-active, hasn’t dated, (and if you believe him, and I do, he never intends to date or have a woman in his life again) and yet there are still people who will openly tell me that I ruined his life, including him on occasion. As far as I can tell he is much happier not having to deal with a wife whose needs were different than his, and he doesn’t seem to have a desire for a wife or partner. If someone doesn’t want to be married, actively dislikes their spouse, and gets to leave the marriage without having to be the “bad guy” or losing money to spousal support, I just don’t understand why they would be mad. But then again, there are lots of things I don’t understand.)

      There are lots of other women who get similar messages when they are the spouse with the higher sex drive. In my experience counsel oftentimes has more to do with gender than with who has the higher or lower sex drive, and I suspect that many of the fMh commenters have had experiences where they felt counsel was being given based on being women, rather than being based in the realities of their individual circumstances. I am not interested in stringing this bishop up by his toes, but I do think he missed several chances to make the second presentation better than the first. The fact that Cate sent him specific feedback and source information, and he chose not to use it, is what I found most troubling. The first time he may not have known that there were people who were uncomfortable or that other information and resources existed. The second time he did, and I think that is the basis for the frustration/snarkiness at fMh.

  • Norm

    I would like to take mild exception with your statement that: “Anything from massage to intercourse to holding hands and snuggling on the couch while watching TV can be considered successful sexuality if framed correctly. ” My wife is fine with getting and giving back rubs, holding hands, snuggling on the couch watching TV, and a quick peck on the lips now and then. What she’s NOT fine with is passionate kissing, having her breasts touched, sexual intercourse, or oral sex. So for HER, the things you mentioned are “successful sexuality”. The problem is that for ME they’re not. But her answer is always, “I am who I am and I feel the way that I feel and there’s nothing I can do about that.”

  • beadyeyes

    Norm, I just read all this article and all these comments and thought “who could ever understand my pain, my situation. How could I ever explain in writing, how I feel about this topic, and how much I feel left out of what my mother told me would be a wonderful part of my marriage when I grew up. so then . . . . I get to your comment at the bottom of the computer page and you perfectly summed up my life in 9 lines. I’ve been married 36 years and have 10 kids. I’m 58. The marriage counselor I went to 14 years ago (alone, on the advice of my bishop) (you see she’s never had a problem, it’s my problem) told me that sex might be important to me until I was 85. When I was 40, my wife said we didn’t need to do it anymore. She told me about 5 years later that she hated sex and always had. Where’s the justice, or fairness, or give and take, or give and give, in an absolutely one sided situation where the lower libidoed spouse is the only one who gets any say in intimacy, and they can say no (with actions, not words) to a passionate kiss for a year and a half, and never have sex in our own bedroom since buying that new king sized bed 14 months ago. If we went out of town for a couple days or a week in a time share, (we do this 4 and 5 times a year) it used to be during the last 18 years, that sometimes she would remember how to be a companion and helpmeet. But this past year, she has seemed to have decided that these out of town trips are to be a platontic as our bedroom.

    • Norm

      Amen, beadyeyes. From reading comments on a lot of different blogs in this vein, it seems to be almost universal that LDS wives tend to hide the fact that they have little or no use for sex until there are a few children to keep the dutiful husband and father in the relationship. In my case the ax did not fall until we’d been married over 20 years and had 4 kids. Then it was no more initiating by my wife, no more oral anything, no more passionate kissing, no more touching her breasts, no more sex with the lights on, no more vacation sex, etc, etc. If that had happened 3 years into the marriage, before we had any kids, I would have been out of there despite my temple covenants (I don’t believe that the Law of Chastity should be the Law of Celibacy). Now, after 40 years of marriage, I’ve just given up on sexuality.
      If this offends any of the (alleged) highly-sexual LDS wives, I apologize. But think how you would feel if your husband told you after 20 years of marriage that he no longer had any desire to have sex with you and preferred not to be touched or kissed in an intimate manner. I think you’d be crushed and depressed.
      Wish I could be more positive, beadyeyes, but my experience is that once you get to the point that you have reached, it’s done.

  • Male 1

    I waited a long time to revisit this article. As predicted the LDS feminists made excuses for Cate’s portrayal of the Bishop’s presentation. At my last count, her OP at fMh had generated 700 comments. Many of them accused the Bishop of everything under the sun, and I saw the poor treatment of LovelyLauren and several others who tried to explain what the Bishop was trying to convey. And, of course, individuals launched off into their own unique situations and how they were the exception to the typical stereotypes. The bottom line is that I still believe most LDS women have no empathy when it comes to the male sex drive, and therefore, will not strive to compromise. 2010 Church Handbook of Instructions, Handbook 2
    “Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.” 21.4.4
    But wait, you say. “That was surely written by a priesthood leader who is obviously male and therefore, his inpiration on the subject of sex can’t be trusted! Church leaders are just trying to coerce wives into having sex with their husbands!” So, it is a vicious cycle. The more women (who, as pointed out by Natasha, are the low drive spouse and who therefore control the sexual relationship) who buy into the notion that sex is unnecessary, the more husbands will distance themselves from their wives emotionally, which in turn will cause their wives to distance themselves sexually, and on and on it goes. Until females in general, and LDS female leaders in particular, stand up and encourage sisters to examine their sexual health, this sexless marriage problem will just continue to get worse.