"Weird" fiancé? #61158

[Queen Alice]

Link

This is one of those topics that drives me absolutely insane because I think it is treated the wrong way in the Church.

RP blasted this girl because she's concerned about her sister's fiancé, who is far more than just shy, reserved, or opposed to PDA. He has taken the Law of Chastity to the extreme. It's sad (and not healthy) that he doesn't look forward to having sex with his fiancée. Look, it's of course admirable to believe in self-control; this girl isn't saying all self-control is bad. He has taken it way too far to a place where it's unnatural and unhealthy. Of course she wouldn't rather have him unable to keep his hands off of her sister or pressuring her sister to give in to his desires; that goes without saying, and that's not a fair persuasive tactic. This guy needs to find a middle ground between where he is and what RP described. We always talk about avoiding temptation, but we rarely talk about the opposite extreme, where people are going overboard with avoiding temptation. Yes, it's possible to go overboard with avoiding temptation.

I would be concerned for my sister too. And it's not unreasonable to wonder if he's gay--there are many gay members of the Church (and when I say "gay" I mean "attracted to the same gender," not "actively having sex with/dating members of the same gender") who are told that if they get married in the temple and keep their covenants, that the Lord will take away this temptation. It's not fair to either the sister or this guy to commit to a loveless marriage. It's a perversion of sex to use it just for physical gratification, but it's (debatably just as) perverse to turn sex into this ugly thing that isn't necessary and which the righteous shun in favor of "love." Love and sex should go together in a marriage.

Basically, what I'm saying is the reader is describing an extreme. The answer given is very very black and white because it shows no middle ground between the extreme this guy's at and the kind of behavior that's always warned about in Law of Chastity talks. It's far more common for people to have trouble with going "too far," but it's of equal importance for people to realize there's a problem with not going "far enough." It's unreasonable and absolutely ridiculous to not discuss intimacy until you're married. RIDICULOUS. It's preposterous to think that the Spirit won't be there otherwise. The Spirit isn't an idiot, and he doesn't want you to be married before you talk about sex; all that's going to lead to is some extreme awkwardness, hurt feelings, embarrassment, and sadness. You can, as two unmarried people, talk about sex in a respectful way. Pretending it doesn't exist or isn't needed won't make the problem go away.

This girl is concerned for her sister, because this guy is not approaching marriage the right way. The way he views sex and marriage is not healthy and will not make a good relationship.

[Marduk]

There's a lot wrong with both the asker and the answer, and I'll say more about this, but there is a HUGE problem in mormon culture and white culture, and even worse when both are combined, with equating all physical intimacy/affection with sexual attention. I kiss all the female members of my extended family. Does this mean I'm expressing uncontrollable urges toward them? Absolutely not, and if this man is saying that he's trained himself to avoid kissing and hugging because "it might lead to temptation" is messed up on a number of levels. I think it would be entirely appropriate for a concerned sister to have a private talk with her sister before she gets married to this man.

Again, I'll get back and make other comments about this, but folks, please, PHYSICAL AFFECTION != ROMANTIC INTENTIONS.

[Emiliana]

I agree with you, Marduk, that avoiding kissing and hugging one's fiance is probably too extreme to be healthy. And also that both the questioner and the answerer were out of line. But I think you're wrong to say that white culture* is to blame for that. Different cultures, different families, and even different people, have different perceptions of what behaviors are and aren't considered sexual. I've said before in another thread -- I don't kiss relatives other than babies. I just don't. It's not part of my culture, and it's not what I'm comfortable with. Do I think it's wrong that you kiss your relatives? Absolutely not. I think that's a great way to show affection. I simply choose to show affection in different ways -- hugging, for instance. It's not that I consider *all* physical affection to be romantic. But for all of us, there are certain behaviors that are restricted to certain relationships.

But all of that seems like a side issue to Longwinded's question: What should she do? First off, get a new attitude. Longwinded's question seems to show a very judgmental attitude towards the fiance. Asking, "What's wrong with this guy??" shows she has already made up her mind about him. Her sister will never respond to that.

But even with a much better attitude than the one she showed in that question, I think it would probably do more harm than good for Longwinded to keep bringing it up. It seems like Longwinded has already expressed her opinions to her sister. Speaking as a younger sister, expressing a concern once is caring, expressing it repeatedly is nagging. Nagging harms relationships. Longwinded's needs to know that she will support her regardless of what happens, or if something does go sour in the relationship, the sister will probably not go to Longwinded for help.



*This isn't an area where I feel like I can speculate profitably about Mormon culture, so I won't bother.

[Tao]

mmmmm. Interesting that we all seem to have read the question in a very different light. Each seems to have projected our own expectations upon our rather lengthy querent. Let us remember that we're getting all our knowledge of this individual second hand; filtered through a seemingly ... excitable ... source. Many of the key statements about the gentleman are very likely to be pure speculation on her part.

"...he isn't excited to have sex with her..." How does she know this? Did he tell her? Did this uber-shy guy make his three words to his in-laws "No like sex"? It is possible, but we have no way of knowing.

"...he doesn't like kissing his fiance..." iiin front of you. Which changes the game a bit now, doesn't it?

I don't know about you but I think it is impossible for a guy to train himself to not be physical. Maybe for a missionary but not a RM or any other guy for that matter. Because as we all know, missionaries are magically transformed in the MTC to be eunuchs. But watch out! after those two years are up, they're back to being guys again! Perhaps she read The Giver too literally and thought the little round pill was distributed along with the ties and tags... Newsflash: libidos aren't one-size fits all. (Nor is self-control, though that little-heard of condition can't be around anymore, can it?) Personally, I didn't kiss anyone till years after my mission. Not out of some overblown sense of morality, but simply because kissing doesn't mean that much to me. Mwah? Meh.

Quite honestly, I feel like I can relate with the guy. Wedding-talk does not make me glow. If it were all the same to my wife, our wedding would be announced an hour before it happened, and we'd send announcements out sometime after the honeymoon. And while I am neither shy nor all that quiet, being around excitable people can make me appear so. (Especially if my respect for them is less than desirable.)

"I think he is either a closet homosexual, possible controlling or abusive husband, or he has some other problem that he is not telling her that I can't think of right now." What is she saying here? The man engaged to my sister must be gay. He doesn't kiss her in front of me! Or he's controlling and/or abusive. Because he's quiet. Well, quiet is what happens when a non-belligerent person is faced with a wall of pre-conceived notions. But we don't have any evidence that he's up against that.....

"She says it's because..." mult. times. I think Emiliana hit the nail on the head: she's already brought her concerns to her sister, and had them addressed. Not satisfied, she seems to be turning to the Board for validation of her grievances and excuse to justify continuing her crusade regardless of her sister's explanations. RP was quite right, in my opinion, to not only withhold just such enabling, but to remind her that in the end, she's done what she could/should, and any more is none of her business.

We always talk about avoiding temptation, but we rarely talk about the opposite extreme, where people are going overboard with avoiding temptation. Yes, it's possible to go overboard with avoiding temptation.

I'm all about balance, and a big believer in the idea that anything, even a virtue, taken to an extreme can be a vice. Yet I am reminded of a 'weird' kid in my MTC district. Backwoods and backwards, this Elder was handed a hard plate. The only social interaction that I recall him mentioning was a (as in one) multi-stake activity. Being homeschooled didn't help the situation much. This particular Elder was about as sheltered as can be. When things deviated at all from the by-the-book MTC experience he expected, he had one refuge: he'd pray. Middle of class, walking down the hall, didn't matter, he'd duck his head and say a quick prayer. Now, I am not a by-the-book kind of guy. Far from it. So this mentality strained our relationship to say the least. Yet really, who are we to say he's wrong? As long as he's not putting anyone else down for not following his example, I can find no fault with him, for all the awkward moments. I see a similar situation here; who are we to say "No! You are staying too far from sin! Get closer so I can feel more comfortable!" Look at First Timothy, or Romans 14. Big issue there was eating meat, and some decided to abstain completely. This bugged those who didn't feel it necessary to go so far, and they complained. The response they got? Don't judge. Now, if others come to you and forbid you from taking your course, they're wrong to do so. (As in Marduk's case, if someone were to castigate him for his shows of affection, they'd be out of line. That doesn't mean I'm not out of line for not having similar traditions.) Would not the same apply here? Replace eating meat with PDAs and you've got a mirror of our situation here. Where would you have the line drawn? They're not VL, so shall we place a quota on minimum number of kisses publicly recorded per week in order to not be staying 'too far away from temptation'?

[Imogen]

i agree with queen alice. i think if you're not looking forward to getting fully intimate with a partner you love enough to marry, that is taking it too far. and if those feelings have been expressed outright, i'd be concerned as well.

my experience with sex is different from y'all's, in that, i've had it before getting married and consider it a very important part of any relationship i'll be involved in. but when i was still a very naive and virginal 16, i dated a guy who wouldn't hold my hand in public. he'd barely talk to me in public even though we were dating. in private he was very sweet and attentive, but even at that young age i knew no relationship of mine was going to work out if there wasn't some sort of physical affection displayed. i wasn't expecting to make out, but i didn't think holding hands was out of line. but he was too shy and reserved for that, so i broke up with him. physical affection is very important to me. i hug all of my friends, we hold hands, we cuddle. and it's a totally platonic thing, but a very important aspect of our relationships.

ultimately, it's all about the comfort of the people actually in the relationship. if they're ok with how they express affection and it's not abusive, then ok. but can one take the idea of being "pure" too far? of course. there's nothing wrong with being excited for sex and expressing that excitement. where that excitement is expressed is personal, but i don't think it's out of line for the sister to be concerned that he won't even say "i love you" in public. THAT was the big red flag to me. even the shyest people i know will SAY "i love you" in a public setting to the people they love.

[C is for]

I thought Rating Pending's answer was sufficient, though I am glad that we are getting lots of good discussion on it here! Because I think that the things we're bringing up can be useful.

Like Tao mentioned, it sounded like the girl has already brought up her concerns to her sister (and where she found out they only kiss a few times a week and won't talk about sex before marriage), and it didn't do any good. So recommending private talks with the sister ... think that's already been done.

It doesn't seem like a very healthy approach to sexual intimacy/romantic affection (as probably the most Molly Mormon girl I know, even I know the difference). But if the fiancee thinks they will be able to work through it and still have a healthy marriage relationship, then they should be allowed to. I think that healthy marriage relationships have been born out of that fear of intimacy and "temptation" though I think most people try to avoid starting that way these days. (And I think that while it's possible he's gay, he just might not be. I'm really hoping that's something they would've talked about already.)

And even if it might be something to worry about (and you guys bring up good points about why there are red flags), it's none of this sister's business. She can't do any more than she's already done. There are always the misfit in-laws (can I say that?) who don't really participate in family parties and don't really talk to anyone, but they can still be good marriages.

Oh, and she can always pray for them.

[Marduk]

Tao, I certainly think that different people view some commandments differently. I know individuals who choose to be vegetarian as a result of their interpretation of the Word of Wisdom. And that's fine. But there certainly is a point where we can take natural, God-given things and treat them as though they were dirty or evil. And that's not ok. If, for example, I were to castrate myself and refuse to get married because I thought sex was evil, I'd be going contrary to God's plan. Sex isn't like alcohol or tobacco or pornography. You can't have a complete avoidance plan and call it a good idea. No, we must learn to see these concepts as God does, and that walks a very fine line of healthy and appropriate expression, with excessive lust on the one side and fear and loathing on the other side.

[TheAnswerIs42]

Yeah, I don't think that the answer would have been the best thing to tell everyone - there are cases where her fears would be fully justified. But I think this girl needed to be put in her place a bit, as she was acting WAY too judgemental. I'm with Tao and Emiliana. If she has already talked to her sister about this, as it sounds like she has, and the sister thinks things are fine, then her job is done. Step back and let your sister be happy, and stop judging the poor guy. "I'm not making this up!" makes her come across as a gossiping teenager.

Warning: blunt discussion ahead.

As a side note, we can't really judge other's sexual tendancies, as others have mentioned. I know I had a frank (and rather funny) discussion with a brother in law one day that taught me a lot. He is totally, 100% straight, and has five kids. He just started a job where he is working with younger, pretty women all day, and so we were joking about how many people thought that would be hard for him, temptation wise. But he told me straight out that he honestly didn't have that much sex drive. He taught himself to shut it down a bit when he was divorced, but even before that it didn't interest him more than once every couple of weeks. He said it doesn't bother him when he and his wife go a couple of months inbetween. He talked about how that doesn't mean he doesn't love his wife (he went off on how much he loves her and why) and doesn't mean he leans the other way or thinks about other women. Since my husband and I both don't like to go more than a few days inbetween, it took some time for me to digest that he wasn't kidding, lying, or really hiding something else. But you know what, not everybody thinks the same way, and that doesn't mean he is doing someting deviant.

So, my summary: is it possible that there is something to worry about that is going on here? Maybe. Maybe everything is just fine. But is this girl being WAY too judgemental of someone and of a situation that isn't any of her business? Heck yes.

Now, if the sister wrote in and was concerned about her fiance, I think we would have some grounds to talk about this guy.

[thebigcheese]

I can understand this girl's feelings, up to a certain point. A few years ago, I had a roommate who was completely and totally non-affectionate with her fiance, and I thought it was the weirdest thing in the world. They NEVER kissed, cuddled, held hands, anything...at least not in front of me. I think I saw them kiss exactly one time during the four months we lived together. I remember wondering if they really even liked each other. They seemed to get along really well, so that was some consolation to me. At any rate, they got married and are still together! So who knows, maybe this kid is a total weirdo, maybe he just isn't comfortable with affection in public.

i don't think it's out of line for the sister to be concerned that he won't even say "i love you" in public. THAT was the big red flag to me. even the shyest people i know will SAY "i love you" in a public setting to the people they love.

My family is one of those families where no one says I love you, like ever. When I got to college and my roommates would say it to me, I would usually feel sort of uncomfortable and not know how to respond. I still feel kind of weird saying it to my husband because it's just such a foreign concept to me.

[Gimgimno]

RP blasted

Just to be clear, RP and I talked a lot about this response before he finished it, and I think that his final answer isn't "blasting" the asker at all. He tried, using diplomatic means without ever really demeaning the asker, to help her understand the scope of the situation and the irrationality of some of her arguments.

I don't want to get into this discussion for fear of blasting people myself, so I'll just step out now. But for the record, I don't think that RP was in any way insensitive through his entire answer, and if anyone thinks that he was, I think they're prats.

[NerdGirl]

I pretty much agreed with Rating Pending's answer. I think the key thing here is that all of this information that the sister has is not necessarily the whole story and may have been obtained in very awkward conversations about private things where the engaged sister may not have wanted to tell the whole story. Maybe one or both of them has had trouble keeping the law of chastity in a past relationship, and they are taking what they have determined to be appropriate precautions to prevent that from happening in their relationship. Maybe one or both of them was the victim of sexual abuse as a child, and the idea of sex in marriage is difficult and frightening for them, and so they have decided not to force or rush things so that no one gets uncomfortable. Maybe the guy has a medical condition that causes him pain when he gets excited, and he tries to avoid getting excited when there's nothing he can do about, so he needs to limit physical affection. Or maybe, like 42 said, one or both of them just has a low sex drive. Honestly, no offense to the asker, but she sounded a bit pushy as she asked the question. If she comes across like that in person, maybe the already shy guy is just not comfortable around her and that's why she never hears him say that he loves her sister.

I think that even though they seem to not be as interested in sex as the sister is or as many other people might be, they are doing what works for them and they are not outside the realm of normal and healthy behavior. Some people can't even have sex because of accidents or medical conditions, and they can still be happily married. I think as long as there is no evidence of abuse (and there doesn't seem to be), their sex life is none of anyone's business.

And as for him being a "closeted homosexual" - I get so sick of people in the church who assume that because someone (especially a male someone) isn't constantly horny, they must be gay. I have a good friend, a really decent single guy in his early 30s who is also a strong member of the church and wants nothing more than to get married and be a father, but he hasn't had that opportunity yet. People find out he's still single, and they actually come out and ask him, "Oh! Are you gay, then?" I mean, yeah, some people are gay, and that's fine, but gay people are attracted to members of the same sex. That's different than not being very interested in sex, or than being a single heterosexual who has had bad luck on the dating scene. I know that there are gay people who choose to live as celibate Mormons, but that doesn't mean that every celibate Mormon is gay. I have two other friends who are LDS and dated for 10 years and are now getting married, and for years people whispered about how they were sure they guy in question is gay and that's why he wouldn't marry her. It just seems like it's the go-to explanation when things in the Mormon dating world fall outside the realm of what is common and usual. And I can't imagine that the real gay people are too impressed when someone sees someone doing something a little different or weird and assumes that it's just those sneaky gays being sneaky again and trying to marry our straight brothers and sisters.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

When parents amplify the Church's messages about chastity to their children, rather than putting them into a balanced context that acknowledges sexuality as a good and normal thing with certain bounds, young people can have a very distorted unhealthy view of the subject. Many young LDS married couples struggle with sex because it seems dirty and makes them feel guilty, because of deep, psychological conditioning that happened during youth.

Assuming the sister has any idea what is going on in the couple's relationship (which is not a given), I would definitely ascribe it more to Mormon repression than homosexuality, asexuality, or abusiveness. In my opinion, every LDS couple should have multiple frank, respectful talks about sex before being married, and read And they Were Not Ashamed together, a great book that directly addresses issues of shame and sexual repression from a gospel perspective.

[thebigcheese]

In my opinion, every LDS couple should have multiple frank, respectful talks about sex before being married, and read And they Were Not Ashamed together, a great book that directly addresses issues of shame and sexual repression from a gospel perspective.

Totally agree with this. I didn't think I had a particularly sheltered upbringing, but I found out that there were some things I didn't know about boys until I got engaged and we started talking about sex. There were some things he didn't know about girls. And there were a few things we didn't even know about ourselves until we read that book. The human sexual response is not really something you just figure out on your own (especially on the woman's side), at least not quickly, because boys and girls just work differently. I can totally understand how lots of couples could get really frustrated because they just don't understand each other/themselves. I felt like we had a pretty good transition because we were well informed. It still takes practice, but you figure it out a lot faster with a little guidance.

Advice for all you singles out there: PLEASE read that book before you get married. PLEASE talk about your expectations (frequency, what you consider appropriate/inappropriate, fears, etc). You're just asking for a lot of unnecessary frustration if you don't.

[Queen Alice]

RP blasted

Just to be clear, RP and I talked a lot about this response before he finished it, and I think that his final answer isn't "blasting" the asker at all. He tried, using diplomatic means without ever really demeaning the asker, to help her understand the scope of the situation and the irrationality of some of her arguments.

I don't want to get into this discussion for fear of blasting people myself, so I'll just step out now. But for the record, I don't think that RP was in any way insensitive through his entire answer, and if anyone thinks that he was, I think they're prats.

Perhaps "blasted" was too strong of a word.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:
In my opinion, every LDS couple should have multiple frank, respectful talks about sex before being married, and read And they Were Not Ashamed together, a great book that directly addresses issues of shame and sexual repression from a gospel perspective.


Totally agree with this. I didn't think I had a particularly sheltered upbringing, but I found out that there were some things I didn't know about boys until I got engaged and we started talking about sex. There were some things he didn't know about girls. And there were a few things we didn't even know about ourselves until we read that book. The human sexual response is not really something you just figure out on your own (especially on the woman's side), at least not quickly, because boys and girls just work differently. I can totally understand how lots of couples could get really frustrated because they just don't understand each other/themselves. I felt like we had a pretty good transition because we were well informed. It still takes practice, but you figure it out a lot faster with a little guidance.

Advice for all you singles out there: PLEASE read that book before you get married. PLEASE talk about your expectations (frequency, what you consider appropriate/inappropriate, fears, etc). You're just asking for a lot of unnecessary frustration if you don't.

Amen.

When parents amplify the Church's messages about chastity to their children, rather than putting them into a balanced context that acknowledges sexuality as a good and normal thing with certain bounds, young people can have a very distorted unhealthy view of the subject. Many young LDS married couples struggle with sex because it seems dirty and makes them feel guilty, because of deep, psychological conditioning that happened during youth.

Assuming the sister has any idea what is going on in the couple's relationship (which is not a given), I would definitely ascribe it more to Mormon repression than homosexuality, asexuality, or abusiveness

Amen and amen.

[Emiliana]

The discussion here seems to have branched two different directions: 1) What might or might not actually be wrong with the fiance, and 2) What the questioner should do. Number 1 seems to have dominated the conversation, but I'd like to make a comment on the second issue.

My sister pointed out the other day a very valid concern about my, um, gentleman friend. It's an issue that I'm aware of and have analyzed and assessed from more angles than Sister could possibly have considered from outside the relationship, and have decided not to worry about for the time being. Of course I didn't like hearing her criticize him. And of course my first instinct was to be upset and a bit defensive. But she said something that makes a lot of sense: If you have a concern about someone's significant other, you should bring it up sooner rather than later. It's one thing to criticize someone's boyfriend, but something completely different to criticize someone's fiance or husband.

So my point is, the appropriate time for the Questioner to criticize the fiance would have been before he was a fiance. I guess there's a chance that she didn't know him before they were engaged ... Not really sure what to say in that situation.

[Dragon Lady]

One of my really good friends in high school was scared to death of sex. To her, kissing was gross; holding hands just got awkward, so just the thought of sex made her shudder. She very fervently insisted that she would spend her honeymoon night in footie pajamas playing Monopoly.

She got engaged to another guy from our school. I think I saw them "cuddle" once. As in, they were sitting next to each other at a restaurant and she leaned up against him briefly. They very rarely held hands. They very rarely hugged. No one was surprised by this at all. No one thought she (or he) must be gay. We just knew that the concept of intimacy in any form scared her to death. It was through that engagement that she slowly came to terms with the idea of intimacy, but she had to do it in her terms. It was very rarely public. And what was private was probably limited to holding hands and hugs. Her first kiss ever was across the altar in the temple. She never kissed anyone as a single woman. She was married when she had her first kiss.

They now have 3.5 kids and are ridiculously happy together.

I'm the exact opposite. I love physical affection. I saw nothing wrong with kissing, holding hands, cuddling, etc. Her take on the subject always baffled me. But I never judged her for it. I just accepted it as part of her. I see no reason why the fiance in the question couldn't be thinking along the same lines (or some other similar reason) nor do I think it's unreasonable to think that they will have a perfectly normal or happy relationship.

I think the questioner simply has a problem accepting views that don't mesh with hers. It's, sadly, a very common malady.

[Marduk]

So is there a problem with someone being "scared to death of sex?"

I'm not asking if she shouldn't get married, or if she wouldn't be happy, or if there was something wrong with her. I'm asking if there was something wrong with her point of view.

[Dragon Lady]

I'm scared to death of missionary work. Does that mean something is wrong with my point of view? I don't believe it's a bad thing; in fact I believe it's a wonderful thing. I also know it's something I should do. But that doesn't change the fact that it scares me to death. I also know that when God needs me to do it, He'll give me the strength to do so. It's something I pray for help with.

So why would there be something wrong with her point of view? She didn't believe it was bad; in fact, she knew that it was a wonderful part of marriage. She knew it was essential to the Plan of Salvation. She didn't let it stand in the way of getting married, even though she easily could have. Instead, she put her trust in God, learned along the way, and was able to overcome her fear when the time came.

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with having fears, so long as you are still willing to submit your will to God and accept that He can help you overcome your fears when the time is right. Not when the world says the time is right. Not even when the Mormon world says the time is right. But when it is right for that individual.

[Marduk]

But God hath not given us the spirit of fear.

It is very human to be afraid. It is commendable when someone does what they know to be right, in spite of their fears. I applaud that. We should all have that much courage. Overcoming those fears is certainly part of what this earthly experience is about. But that means that there is something to overcome. That fear comes from our human weakness, not from a correct understanding of divine principles. Knowledge, correctly applied, casts out fear. So yes, being afraid of something divinely appointed shows that our understanding of it is less than it should be. This is nothing to be afraid of (pun intended) but merely something that we need to work on and overcome.

Fear is just another form of weakness. Perhaps changing the words from the scripture just a bit might illustrate my point. "And if men come unto me I will show unto them their (fears.) I give unto men (fear) that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make (fearful) things become strong unto them."

So I don't think anyone should be ashamed of their fears. But to say that it isn't preferable to be unafraid and have a correct understanding and faith in the Lord instead of being afraid really is missing the point.

[Tao]

Sex isn't like alcohol or tobacco or pornography. You can't have a complete avoidance plan and call it a good idea.

Mmmm, I'd say outside of marriage, (which is the condition of the couple in question) complete avoidance is the plan; and I'd willingly call it a good idea. (Not as on-topic, but there are some who may have this as their life-long plan, not out of fear or loathing or repression of any sort. Matt 19:12, anyone?)

While I agree that the ideal situation is frank communication with your significant other, unless that communication is stunted somehow I rarely could see the need for intervention from anyone else, be it concerned sister or best-selling author. Honestly, I'd be surprised to hear such a suggestion from my significant other, and would probably spend some time mentally reviewing what in our relationship had gone wrong to warrant such a request.

I am a little surprised at the seeming trend to assume that if one's reported attitude towards sex is less public than the currently accepted norm then you must be suffering from some form of repression. Choosing to not make out in front of your future sister in law may not be indicative of any heinous problem with you nor the style of parenting you received. It may simply be a matter of choice.

Again, my bias is towards the guy in question. I may well have instigated similar thoughts in the minds of the more nosy roommates of some of my female friends. I am neither gay nor abusive, nor do I believe I suffer from any form of cultural sexual repression. I disagree that self mastery is a virtue that can be taken too far. I am not easily excited, and if I were engaged to a girl whose sister would prefer that we do more than hold hands in front of her, I may well be the type to refrain from doing so out of pure mindyourownbusiness, and would likely mentally cheer on anyone else who would remind her that it really isn't her place to cast stones, thankyouforyourconcern.