QUOTE (JB@Trinidad @ 23-May 04, 6:41 AM) |
Thanks for the reference, now I wonder what made them decide to change their minds. Now, if it be true that members began to kick up a storm about it, yet it be unholy, then why rescind it? |
I also think it is possible that the First Presidency realized that their statement about oral sex being wrong came more from their personal feelings and upbringing/experiences than it did from the Lord. If it is wrong, then I don't believe we wouldn't continue to receive counsel about it. Yes, it is a personal issue and probably shouldn't be discussed in a Temple Recommend interview, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be taught not to do it if the Lord really doesn't want us to do it. How is a member who joins the Church today when it is never mentioned or discussed supposed to know it is wrong. I am not sure it is considered wrong by the Church or the Lord. I think that sex is for more than just procreation. It is for the pleasure of the husband and wife. What about when a husband has been paralyzed for example? I believe oral sex is a big part of such a person's intimacy with their wife.
Now, to answer the question is there anything that shouldn't be done in bed. In a word. Yes. I believe sexual intimacy should always be something that draws the couple closer together (hence the word intimacy). So, if there is something that one wants to do and the other is uncomfortable with it, it shouldn't be done. Period. No coaxing, no begging, no "please lets just try it, maybe you will like it."
If anyone has reservations about a particular act, it shouldn't be done. Period.
If I ever get remarried, my spouse and I will discuss this issue. Probably before we get married. I think communication is important between a couple when it comes to sex. I also don't believe there is any one sexual act that must be performed in order for the relationship to be successful. So, if there is something I enjoy, but he doesn't or isn't comfortable with, then we don't do it. If there is something he enjoys that I don't, same thing. There is enough variety and choice available that I am confident we can find stuff we are both comfortable with that will meet our needs and desires. I think a willingness to experiment and try new things in the bedroom is a good thing, but never when it puts one of the people in a situation where they aren 't comfortable. "If it isn't good for you, it isn't good for me," should be the attitude, in my opinion.
Okay, I believe we have reached a consensus on this subject - we have to do what is best for the couple and after prayerful consideration - so I want to take it further if I may. What about the use of sexual toys, aides and other products sold on the market - should they be used in marriage? Is the purchasing of such products contributing to an industry that also finances porn related enticements?
QUOTE |
What about the use of sexual toys, aides and other products sold on the market - should they be used in marriage? Is the purchasing of such products contributing to an industry that also finances porn related enticements? |
I am not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I say what harm does it do? If you and your spouse want to "play" a bit, and you both agree, and it isn't degrading, and it involves some kind of sexual aid, where is the harm?
On the other hand is JB's question about it contributing to the porn industry. Off the top of my head I say it isn't the same or related. If you use something in the bedroom to spice things up and you are married that shouldn't be viewed as wrong because an unmarried person might use it for some other purpose. For example, if I have surgery I will be given pain killers. Yet, pain killers can be abused by someone who hasn't had surgery and just wants to get high. Should I, then, not use pain killers because someone else might abuse them?
I understand that in the 18-1900s missionaries (from what denomination I do not know) would actually proselyte with one of their teachings being 'correct sexual positions', hence such terms as 'missionary position', etc. arose. One of their firm beliefs is that there was only one sexual way to be intimate as sanctioned by God. I am interested how they got that information - must be a new Bible? Could it be that this was also adopted by members of the Church at the time hence all the questions in the former interview.