The Need For Sex Is Real, But Should Not Define Or Drive A Relationship…

But we are not expected to never eat. In fact, our physical body would die. And the hungrier we are, the more natural it is to think of food. It is similar with our sexual selves as well.

Whoa, there. If sex is equal to the need for food, then what of those who aren’t married? What of married relationships where that is not possible or where there is sin or abuse or addiction? I just cannot agree with what you have said, and I think that presenting sex as a necessary-for survival-drive will only feed problems in those relationships where sex is seen as an entitlement, and the spouse an object to fulfill such a need. The need is real, but it should not define or drive a relationship. We truly need food to live. We can live w/o sex. We hope not to, esp when married, but we must believe that with heaven’s help it is possible. How else can we expect chastity from those who are not married (including homosexuals, single heterosexuals, divorced and widowed, etc.)? How else can there be hope about the possibility of living a full and rich life even w/o sexual needs being met?

Ugh.

In the end, I don’t think there is support in our doctrine for this viewpoint. I imagine you are talking about healthy balance and loving in marriage, but there are SO MANY MARRIAGES suffering because of this view of entitlement and I’m really concerned about it.

I’m not saying that withholding sex is a good thing either, but it seems to me that the notion of sex being a need like food denies the doctrine of being able to control one’s appetites. It’s in bridling passion that we are filled with love, not in simply having release for our drives.

For all that love can and should be expressed, and we should care for one another in a marriage, that MUST be the whole picture, not just isolating out the sex part of a relationship. If there isn’t a healthy relationship or a healthy view of the place of sex, there will always be problems with the sexual relationship. I can’t believe otherwise.

First of all, I want to thank you for your comments. You are touching on an issue that has many valid issues and discussion points on both sides of the table. And yes, it can be an incredibly complex and hurtful problem for many members of our church. This is very sad and unfortunate for all involved.

I want to clarify that I did not say that the needs for food and the needs for sex were equal – I said they were similar. I only used it as a metaphor, similar to how the scriptures do when they use the word “appetite” to draw parallels to our wants, urges and/or desires.
The post you are referring to was answering a question that had to do specifically with married people. And I also listed several reasons, in line with yours, as to why some marital couples may have to abstain from sex at least temporarily. There is a difference between living a chaste life as a single adult who realizes the situation they find themselves in at the time being is that of abstaining from sexual relations, and a married adult who reasonably expected sexuality to be part of the married lifestyle and for whatever reason is unable to attain that.
I agree with you that no matter what situation we find ourselves we should always strive for living a “full and rich life.” And we know that although we may face trials and tribulations we can also achieve levels of happiness and contentment. So by no means am I saying that sex is all there is to a relationship, the main part of a relationship or by any means the only thing we should be focusing on in a relationship.
However, there is nothing wrong with both men and women to expect a certain amount of physical intimacy once married. In fact, this IS doctrinally based. There is a difference between controlling our appetites and being expected to never have sex within the bounds of marriage. Of course, this does not mean that people should feel “entitlement” or EVER force a spouse to be sexual. But when sexual problems arise between a couple (for whatever reasons), it is imperative that both be willing to communicate, both be willing to be honest, both be willing to be givers, and both be willing to see sexuality as a positive and healthy part of themselves. And of course, this is where love and understanding come into the picture. Sex without love is nothing of worth. In fact sex should be the outward, physical manifestation of the love and endearment a couple has for one another.
Going back to the food metaphor, although we would die without food in a matter of weeks (if not less), our species would eventually die without sex. Sex is part of the plan. It is part of what Heavenly Father created our bodies for. Hopefully couples can see the need to participate in this part of the plan in a way that is loving, respectful and mutually satisfying.

I believe we are more in agreement than not.

The need for sex is real, but should not define or drive a relationship…