After highlighting a Muslim couple dealing with sexual problems, the TLC channel showed a Mormon couple with their own sexual problems. I was frankly astonished at how the couple portrayed Mormon beliefs, because it seems quite outdated. In the show (available on Netflix), Nate and Monique state that are members of the LDS Church, and that premarital sex is wrong. I can’t disagree with that, but what Nate said at the beginning of the show, I do not agree with. Nate said (talking over a shot of the Salt Lake Temple),
“In the Mormon Church, sex is for the purpose of procreation. I’ve been taught all along that sexual pleasure is of the devil.” Later on in the show, he stated, “After 15 years of marriage, I seldom gave myself to even think about what my ideal sex life would be like, because that would be wrong. In the Mormon Church that’s not something that should be done for any reason other than procreation.“
Excuse me??? Let’s see what the LDS Handbook states:
“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.“
I’ve never heard that sexual pleasure is of the devil, and I have no idea why this man (who appears to be about 40) felt that way. (Perhaps Nate is conflating premarital sex with married sex being of the devil?) Having been married for about 15 years with 3 children, the couple turned to a sex surrogate for help. It was at this point I learned that the wife had been sexually abused as a child, so it makes a bit of sense why she had issues, but it appears that her husband’s issues were much stronger.
They turned to Mare Simone, a sex surrogate to help their sex life. Unlike the Muslim couple in my previous post, Mare visited their home instead of having them come into a clinic. Mare said, “I am a certified sex surrogate and personal love coach.” TLC defined a sex surrogate as “a member of a sex therapy team who engages in intimate physical relations or sex with a patient.”
Nate stated what he first thought when Monique brought up the idea of using a sex surrogate. “When Monique first told me about wanting to meet with Mare, I was confused. Honestly my opinion would have been not that much different than a hooker.”
Mare indicated that was a common perception. “I know a lot of people feel that a sex surrogate is a prostitute, but really nothing could be further from the truth.” They worked first on Monique’s previous sexual trauma, helping her to feel that pleasure was safe. But Nate seemed to have even more difficulty. He indicated that “Sex for me is scary.” At one point in the show (there was no nudity), Monique, Mare, and Nate participated in a touching session on their bed. Nate exclaimed “I feel shame.” Mare indicated, “I thought Nate was gonna run away.”
Mare indicated that “I prepared to help them recognize the spiritual quality of sexuality. It’s not an easy process. It’s a matter of overlaying a positive thought with a negative thought.” I guess it is just surprising to me that they could have 3 children and yet have so many sexual problems after 15 years of marriage, though I am sure that every couple experiences problems at some point.
[poll id=168]
[poll id=169]
[poll id=170]
Wheat & Tares 
I have attended the LDS church my entire life and I have never heard anyone state that married sex is evil or for procreation only
I imagine it’s a belief his parents were taught, and at one point was a popular enough misconception to warrant message in the handbook, and for some reason it wasn’t clarified as a youth. Major fail, feel bad for the dude if he’s later brought to a disciplinary court for using the therapist.
Elder Holland’s gem of a talk (http://www.familylifeeducation.org/gilliland/procgroup/Souls.htm) might help Nate and any others with such misconceptions about intimacy.
Mormons are notorious for sexual misconceptions. Nate might be on one side of the spectrum, but but my ex-wife and I were taught that sex was “primarily” fir procreation. She, specifically, refused to allow herself pleasure. Featherstone wrote a book that someone gave us as a wedding gift that heavily influenced her views of sex. Most everything was viewed as “perverted”…
I don’t know the stats, but I’d guess mormons are more sexually repressed/shamed than most…
PS… Gem or not, the fact that Mormons need a talk from a church leader (male, mind you) to clear up questions of intimacy is but one of the many reasons why intimacy as a Mormon is so misunderstood. It baffles me why so many leave such things to be defined by religious leaders…
For all the talk about personal revelation and being sensitive to the spirit, people don’t trust themselves about moral, especially sexual, things. We need the ok of the bishop/branch president or need to be told we’re ok and as a clerk to a YSA branch president I can tell you they get tired of dealing with it.
Nate says sex is of the devil but yet they are using a sex surrogate!!?? He is messed up! Poor man.
I have never heard that sex is for procreation only and I was raised in the Church since birth. In YW we were taught that sex between a married man and woman is beautiful, special, natural and sacred. I concur.
My husband’s cousin married a woman who believes that sex is only for having children and she sleeps in a separate bedroom, no joke. They are active members and both raised in the Church.
I admit that when I first met my husband’s family I had some feelings that there might be some intimacy problems as well as other issues, and I was right. He had some weird ideas, and IT IS difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. I should have ended the relationship because it would have saved a lot of grief. I have stayed for the kids. So for those of you who have doubts about someone you might marry, listen and think it through. I was on the rebound; stupid. I wish the Church leadership would address sexuality and marital sex more.
My YW leaders were always very sex positive – within marriage. But it was pretty clear they weren’t just making babies. Either way, I agree that anyone who is looking to church leaders to tell them how to enjoy sex is barking up the wrong tree. Talk about a buzzkill.
#8 – (In keeping with seasonal sports themes:)…It’s in the Net!!!
Were I a bishop, I’d dread being asked advice of this nature. Obviously, “giving pointers” is out. I suppose some kindly counsel to a couple going through sexual dysfunction that they are entitled to have a happy sex life and it’s most definitely NOT limited to procreation and “Men ARE (and women too!), that they might have JOY!) (I’ll be content with a certain someone..). They should feel no shame in couples counseling and sex therapy (I dunno about the sexual surrogate thing, though). After all, the late Harold B. Lee DID say “no other success can compensate for failure in the home”. Why qualify what that success should be limited to?
What on earth did Poor Nate think was meant by “Wholesome Recreational Activity”?
I somehow grew up thinking that sex was something you only did maybe once or twice a year. I told someone this, who blabbed it ALL over…, in the mission and let me tellya people were practically grabbing me by the ears and saying no!!!! I had a WML tell me once him and his wife had sex 7 times that week. Also a funny comment was this women not much older then me say, “where did you hear that? at a youth conference or something?” I once overheard some of the ward ladies talk about their sex lives and I was, in my mind, like wha??? Sister Lewis!!! you animal!!!! very eye opening, very eye opening!!
The idea that ANY pleasure is of the Devil is certainly alive in many cultural strains of humanity and has been throughout a couple of thousand years at least.
Why, sexual desire was even considered shameful on the planet Vulcan. 😀
So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised to see it show up as shameful in any current religion.
#12 – Early on in the Star Trek Canon, we were led to believe that Vulcan couples only “coupled” as part of the Pon Farr every seven years. Methinks after some two thousands years of this crap fostered by Surak their numbers wouldn’ve dwindled to nothingness…then their Romulan “offshoots” would’ve come back from Romulus and kicked their green-tinged butts.
“Procreating” w/o enjoying the process would be akin to eating w/o tasting your food…in either case, would lead to starvation!
I find it surprising that someone as young as Nate believes that, but I heard (second-hand) of it being taught in the early ’80s. And during the early ’90s, my bishop told me that he had taught it himself until he was (very firmly) set straight by a GA. He told me that because he wanted to make sure that I didn’t believe it, so apparently it was still a problem sometimes.
So it was definitely a teaching that existed in the church, though I have no idea how widespread it was (or is, apparently).
I can recall reading an article in the Ensign quite authoritatively stating that sex was NOT just for procreation. So, unless I am mixing up which magazine I was reading, it seems that the church’s main informational source goes against what Nate is stating.
There’s this quote by J. Reuben Clark: “As to sex in marriage, the necessary treatise on that for Latter-day Saints can be written in two sentences: Remember the prime purpose of sex desire is to beget children. Sex gratification must be had at that hazard.” I could see how someone reading this could wind up with Nate’s position.
While being raised in Utah, I heard the idea that sex is only for procreation several times. When my wife and I married, she suggested we wear garments while having sex because that’s how her parents always did it. I get upset whenever someone claims they never heard this. Gaslighting anyone?
If you’re quoting J Reuben Clark, you must be 90 years old.