Expert Q and A: How singles can embrace both chastity and sexuality (+video)

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kahakura New Zealand, 00
    March 29, 2016 6:47 p.m.

    I knew sex was worth waiting for. I waited till I was 27. She was well worth the wait. And now it's been over 30 years with both of us faithful. I don't understand why some people feel judged when I affirm that this has been great for me. I am not even thinking about others, just that it has not only been possible for me, but really great. I like being a straight guy. And I like being faithful to my girl. All I know is that chastity before marriage and total fidelity after marriage has been most possible and great for me and her. I have heaps of friends who also have lived lives like this. If you are not, don't feel judged. Just saying, I did it. It works. I'm still real happy. And its the sexuality reserved for her that is the glue that really binds us in love far beyond my dreams of how strong love can be. I have no regrets. Don't tell an old Grandad like me that what Finlayson-Fife says doesn't work. I've lived my life like this.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Jan. 5, 2016 1:58 p.m.

    To "waikiki_dave" in other words, you got nothing.

    Right now most states already have laws stating that it is illegal to sell a gun to a person that cannot legally own a gun. What that means is that legally you currently are obligated to have some sort of knowledge about the person you are selling to. The "gun show loophole" is just a talking point used by liberals to scare people. In fact, the NRA has a history of supporting better background checks, they just don't support forbidding people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights without due process like what Obama wants to do.

    SO, now that I just showed you that your argument is invalid, tell us, how limiting marriage to a man and woman is discrimination. I have yet to see somebody explain that without opening up marriage to ANYTHING that you want it to be with as many people as you want it to be.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 4, 2016 5:17 p.m.

    To Redshirt: I am not going to debate with you my friend; it would be like trying to convince the NRA that having background checks at gun shows is not discriminating against peoples 2nd amendment rights.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 4, 2016 2:21 p.m.

    To "waikiki_dave" then explain how limiting marriage to a man and woman is discrimination. I have yet to see somebody explain that without opening up marriage to ANYTHING that you want it to be with as many people as you want it to be.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 4, 2016 12:30 p.m.

    @Redshirt "Limiting marriage to man and woman is not discrimination".

    Lol.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 4, 2016 8:14 a.m.

    To "waikiki_dave" the Proclamation on the Family also states that people do not choose to be gay. It also states that gender is a God given trait, and that it is crucial for our eternal lives to learn what your gender is supposed to do. No where does it say that you should discriminate, and FYI, limiting marriage to man and woman is not discrimination.

  • Sore loser tampa, fl
    Jan. 2, 2016 11:37 p.m.

    The main purpose for having a family is to raise children according to David O McKay. That should be the main focus of marriage. If it is, everything else will fall into place for well adjusted people. Behaviorally, relationships can be improved by understanding and living gospel principles. Most married people have their challenges so singles should not get too worried about their own issues. Sexuality shouldn't be a major emphasis for anybody. It happens but it should be a source of loyalty among spouses and that's it.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 31, 2015 8:50 a.m.

    @waikiki_dave --

    "Why does the Church differentiate against gay people by prohibiting them to marry?"

    Now, now. Of course they're allowed to marry -- someone of the opposite sex. The church doesn't seem to care that most of those fake marriages will be unhappy and extremely likely to end in divorce, thus damaging the lives of husband, wife, AND children.

    "What are they suppose to do? Be celibate and single for their entire lives?"

    Yup. Again, the church doesn't seem to care much about their happiness -- only about their obedience.

    And the LDS church doesn't even have an institution like the Catholic priesthood that might make their voluntary celibacy mean something. There's a reason why so many Catholic priests are gay.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Dec. 30, 2015 4:16 p.m.

    @Windsor said all unmarried LDS and SSA are required to be morally chaste. Too bad you didn't answer my question Windsor: Why does the Church differentiate against gay people by prohibiting them to marry? What are they suppose to do? Be celibate and single for their entire lives?

    @RedShirtHarvard suggests I read "A Proclamation to the World" to get an answer as to why the Church discriminates against gay people concerning marriage equality. I read it and I still don't get it. Gay people don't 'choose to be gay'.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Dec. 30, 2015 2:46 p.m.

    waikiki_dave said "Explain to me why gay people are any different."

    OK Dave, I'll explain.

    Gay people aren't different at all.

    They all--unmarried LDS and SSA--are required to be morally chaste.
    Period.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 30, 2015 2:39 p.m.

    Marxist said "Marriage doesn't happen without it."

    ah hahaha!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 1:03 p.m.

    Or, they can embrace sexuality and be sexually active. It's up to them.

  • McCarthyist Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 30, 2015 12:25 p.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard

    The terms "looks" and "attractive" aren't synonymous. There are guys who are physically ugly but are still attractive because they are either jocks or have that "bad boy" edge. Lots of women, even LDS ones, have indeed married unemployed deadbeats as you say, because they weren't the "nice guys" who finish last.

    @Vermonter

    Be careful to note that when they talk about big gender imbalances, often times they are talking about "eligible" men, meaning: men those women are *attracted* to. I believe you when you say that you can't see how at least a couple of women wouldn't be interested in a guy who fits your list, because that's your list, not theirs. Men who do manage to get married on conventional qualifications alone usually do so because they come from a well-connected family, and the marriage is more or less arranged.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Dec. 30, 2015 11:41 a.m.

    @McCarthyist.
    I can agree that we are just disagreeing on semantics. Many words exist to describe having the desire to marry and being unable to. Bottom line, it’s not easy.
    As for the single LDS man in Utah, we are talking about areas where single women outnumber single men by 150 to 100. While I don’t think any woman should “settle” for any man, if a single LDS man in Utah has a good job, is active in the church, has learned to how to socialize well with women, has good hygiene, is well-groomed and has at least some sense of style, I can’t see how there would not be at least one or two single LDS women interested in finding out if they might be compatible enough to build a life together. By the same token, some single LDS men and women in Utah are looking for “perfection” to such a degree that they are going to be disappointed for a long time if they keep their expectations that high.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 30, 2015 11:36 a.m.

    To "waikiki_dave" go and read the LDS document called the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" on the LDS web site.

    It explains the view of gender and gender roles within the LDS church. A gay couple is contrary to the gender roles that the Prophets have declared to us.

    To "McCarthyist" the problem isn't looks. I know some men that I would say are not very handsome get married to attractive women. The problem is the "failure to launch" that so many young men bring on themselves. What woman would marry a guy who spends hours a day playing video games and working at a dead end job (assuming they are even working)?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 11:09 a.m.

    Some people have sex, and that's OK. Some people choose not to have sex, and that is also OK. What is not OK is putting ketchup on your mac and cheese. That is just wrong.

  • McCarthyist Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 30, 2015 10:35 a.m.

    @Vermonter

    I think the term "curse" is probably better fitting than "punishment" as well, but you get the idea.

    As for your last paragraph, it makes me glad that I'm not LDS and don't live under an impossible marriage mandate. Those who comfortably sit back and throw rocks at Utah's single LDS men do not understand what many of those men are faced with. First of all, finding a marriage partner - especially in early life - has little to nothing to do with having one's life in order; it has to do with being attractive. Yes, believe it or not, a man's marriageability hinges more on attractiveness than utility, at least in younger life. Too many of those from older generations - the ones for whom the average age of marriage was 22 or younger - don't seem to understand how *women* have changed (yes, feminism seeped into Mormon culture), and how rampant and imbalanced divorce has become since their day. You can't look at the situation through the lens of the 1960s anymore. Getting married isn't as easy as registering a car down at the DMV like it may have been in the past.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 10:04 a.m.

    @waikiki_dave - this article seemed concerned with LDS sexuality and attitudes where the leadership handbook for the Church is specific on homosexual relationships. This article thus is not addressing those views/practices and instead focuses on traditional LDS relationships.

    More teaching from parents is needed to help children and unmarried young adults understand what sexuality is and how to manage these feelings. Arousal is not a bad thing and we need to teach it as such. I agree with @vermonter that violation of the Lord's boundaries is the key here. I'm blessed to have a wonderfully open wife and have smiled as I've listened to her conversations with our 10 year old son. It really rings true to hear her ask him if he ever is aroused and to hear explanation that it's a good thing and that to touch for continued arousal would violate those boundaries. Teaching that arousal is a good thing and teaching how to deal with those feelings is a better course of action. Teaching that those feelings are bad only leads to trouble, either before or after marriage.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Dec. 30, 2015 9:47 a.m.

    @McCarthyist.
    I agree with your sentiment. Just not the terminology. Being a faithful Mormon and not being able to marry until later in life (or at all for that matter) can feel like a punishment. But, I believe the church terminology would be something like…”a trial to be endured.” Increasingly, in our sex-charged society, it is not an easy trial. But, going through trials can make us much better, and even happier people than we would have been if we had not had to endure the trial.

    That said, most LDS men, especially in Utah, have little excuse for not getting their lives in order and finding a good marriage partner relatively early in life

  • McCarthyist Sacramento, CA
    Dec. 30, 2015 8:45 a.m.

    Although these people deserve credit for pointing out some of the obvious double-standards, like how married people have "needs" that singles somehow magically don't, it fails to spell out anything practical. Usually those who are supposed to be chaste are told to channel that energy towards doing good. So, I guess that means you're supposed to take your urge to copulate with someone attractive and apply it to working in a soup kitchen, right? Doesn't seem like it can be reapplied in that way.

    Let's be honest about it: simply having physical drives toward that which is forbidden isn't a crime itself, but it is a punishment. All you can do with it is endure it. You shouldn't have to pretend that it has any use but to punish you until someone deems you "worthy" not to suffer anymore.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 8:43 a.m.

    Sexual compatibility is essential to a healthy marriage. A person who isn't comfortable with their own sexuality, or their partner's, won't last long in a marriage. Telling people to not learn about their spouse's or their own sexuality and explore whether or not they're sexually compatible until after they're married is a recipe for either divorce or a lifetime of living with anguish.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Dec. 30, 2015 6:56 a.m.

    This article begs the question concerning its affect on gay people. The Church has come down with its handbook policy that gays couples are apostates and their children are excluded from baptism. The article limits its focus on how only hetrosexual young adults will benefit from preserving their chastity until marriage. Explain to me why gay people are any different and try not to use the words 'perverts' or 'sodomites' or say gay people are free to marry as long as it is someone of the opposite sex.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Dec. 30, 2015 4:27 a.m.

    @marxist.
    You may have a point about people in the church not getting married because they don’t understand what it really involves. But, both inside and outside the church, I believe the main problem with most young people not getting married is that they are scared that their marriage will end up like their parents who are divorced, or had or have a dysfunctional marriage.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Dec. 30, 2015 4:21 a.m.

    Ok. It is not taught explicitly. But, many church members and leaders have the idea that any arousal at all before marriage is sinful. This could and probably should be clarified specifically by church leaders that is not a sin merely to be aroused. Church leaders should also emphasize that there are specific boundaries set both before and after marriage by a loving Heavenly Father to help us have a healthy married and family life. Each person should be taught to avoid anything that would lead them to violate those boundaries. These things to avoid are somewhat different for each person. Intimacy up to a certain point, before marriage, has to happen to confirm desires and a high probability for a healthy marriage. I had a church member friend who got engaged before he had ever kissed the girl. He was appropriately told to make sure his fiancé was a good kisser before they were actually married.

  • Danny Chipman Lehi, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 12:48 a.m.

    Glad that I was raised by parents who were not only open about these matters but who treated them with humor (without being disrespectful about it). I married a man whose family was rather buttoned-up on the topic of intimacy. We both read "Between Husband and Wife", and while I thought it was meh, not a lot to add to my well of knowledge, it freaked him out to the point he was afraid I'd want to leave him after we were married.

    There definitely needs to be more balance in the way this topic is handled, in both church and school. Something between "abstinence only!!" and "anything goes, so do what feels good!" Maybe then we'd see a lot less dysfunction in young marriages.

  • nananana batman saint george, UT
    Dec. 30, 2015 12:04 a.m.

    I think there's negative stigmatism to those that choose to be sexual active before marriage, where it really shouldn't be anyone's business but their own.

  • Llew40 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 29, 2015 11:27 p.m.

    But what about the hook-up culture in the LDS church?
    It must be happening somewhere, because more LDS millennial young men are getting in touch with their sexuality leaving hundreds of single LDS women complaining about the lack of marriage partners in the form of worthy priesthood holders. Either you move in together or suffer the consequences of LDS purgatory, aka, a mid-singles ward. What's an LDS woman with high standards to do? This article never came close to answering those questions.

  • rlsintx Saratoga Springs, UT
    Dec. 29, 2015 3:59 p.m.

    Easy; don't be sexually active.
    It's that simple.
    It's a decision and choice you make.
    Everything is a choice, just like choosing to be happy is a choice.
    It's not what happens to you, it's how you choose to respond.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2015 3:35 p.m.

    This is a lot of nonsense. People will simply not get married, accepting its many responsibilities, without a high degree of sexual intimacy. It's sort of like two molecules coming together. In chemistry we know that a chemical reaction will not occur unless the molecules come together - hard.

    But we are taught (at least I was in church and in seminary) that any degree of intimacy was inappropriate before marriage, that those dating shouldn't kiss or hug, just hold hands until they made a commitment to marry. For this reason a lot of people are not marrying, because they have not been told what is really involved.

    By coming together hard I am not talking about intercourse, but I am talking about getting pretty darned physical. Marriage doesn't happen without it.