83: Ask a Mormon Sex Therapist Part 12

And now for something completely different! In this 12th installment of the “Ask a Mormon Sex Therapist” series Brian and Laurel talk with  Dr. Jennifer Finlayson-Fife about the cultural anxiety surrounding oral sex in a married relationship, and in the second question we discuss objectification and appropriate lust. Also look forward to and make plans to contribute to our fundraiser for the Liahona Children's Foundation that will be released here on Rational Faiths and on our indiegogo campaign page. This year we have an ambitious goal to raise $10,000 for the LCF. Woot Woot!!! In order help make that a reality some wonderful LDS artists, authors, and our very own Jennifer Finlayson-Fife have offered their work(s) as prizes/perks for contributing to the LCF fundraising campaign. So head over and check out the cool stuff available for being a charitable person. In regard to the question of oral sex I suggest reading a post called "Prophetic Counsel About Sex Within Marriage: A Brief History." Here I'll offer my own summary and analysis of the 1982 question, "Is oral moral?" During the presidency of Spencer Kimball an increased concern over members sexual behavior emerged which impacted the way members and leaders thought about all sexual activities. Specific temple recommend interview guidance for priesthood leaders was issued from the First Presidency on Jan 5, 1982, which on the second page indicates oral sex as an "unnatural, impure, and unholy" act. Following the initial advice, another letter came out ten months later on Oct 15, 1982 seemingly correcting interviewers who had asked too personal of questions regarding the couple's specific sexual activities. I have looked around the web for old news articles and asked older bloggernacle folks what went down to provoke the October correction. (Unfortunately the Salt Lake Tribune's digital archives only go back to 1991 and I doubt the Deseret News covered this story so I didn't bother looking there.) I have found nothing but a rumor of a letter writing campaign of some sort but have not been able to verify such an action (you see, I was somewhere between a fetus and an infant at this time, so my memory is not so clear). One might fairly assume that many Bishop's themselves were just as uncomfortable with asking such questions as members were hearing them. Somehow from a grassroots collective action or from complaints sent through normal and 'proper' lines of authority the top leaders got the hint that they should advise Bishopric members or Stake presidency members to not enter so boldy into other people's bedrooms. Though the story is not so cut and dry. According to a Sunstone article published in 1988 there was an additional question added to the TR interview protocol, with an explanation for those who wanted or needed one, on 'impure' practices that did not leave the books until four years later in 1986. If a member would have inquired of what might constitute an 'unnatural' practice the interviewer was instructed to then read a paragraph that included oral and anal sex as 'unholy.' It seems to have taken some time to get away from such prescriptive and intrusive sexual probing in temple recommend interviews. As Jennifer points out in the podcast discussion this deviation from the previous and subsequent counsel along the lines of,