|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 5, 2017 4:16:21 GMT -5
I sat at work yesterday wondering which is actually worse. Living with an extremely low amount of sex due to my wife's libido or is it the feeling of rejection and undesirability which trumps it. Yes of course the combination of both are what really what cause people to implode to a point where they (myself included) begin justifying cheating but if I had to pick one I think the rejection wins the day.
It's not that she can't, it's that she won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jan 5, 2017 5:27:24 GMT -5
Again, another viewpoint for you to consider.
"Which is actually worse. Living with incessant requests for sex due to my husbands high libido, or the feeling of coercion of and being just a sex object which trumps it. It is not that he can't control his libido, it's that he won't".
What I am trying to get at in these examples of her point of view is, that there is not much to be gained in taking an adversarial position in these matters. There is no point in apportioning blame or fault. I haven't seen that tactic work in any sustainable sense even once in here.
You may be as right as right can be, but it doesn't matter jack shit if you are. It ain't going to change a thing.
It just becomes a game of "he said - she said".
Is this situation, in your judgement, serious enough to call a halt to the marriage ?
If it is, then you are a huge chance of bringing the issue to resolvement - one way or another.
If it ain't, then not so much.
|
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 5, 2017 5:55:47 GMT -5
Again, another viewpoint for you to consider. "Which is actually worse. Living with incessant requests for sex due to my husbands high libido, or the feeling of coercion of and being just a sex object which trumps it. It is not that he can't control his libido, it's that he won't".What I am trying to get at in these examples of her point of view is, that there is not much to be gained in taking an adversarial position in these matters. There is no point in apportioning blame or fault. I haven't seen that tactic work in any sustainable sense even once in here. You may be as right as right can be, but it doesn't matter jack shit if you are. It ain't going to change a thing. It just becomes a game of "he said - she said". Is this situation, in your judgement, serious enough to call a halt to the marriage ? If it is, then you are a huge chance of bringing the issue to resolvement - one way or another. If it ain't, then not so much. Another good post that brings the alternative argument to the table. One trait I have seen though is an unwillingness to compromise from those who don't see sex as an important part of marriage. Is it really so difficult to go a week or 2 without sex... no is of course the answer. Is it really so difficult to have sex once in a 7 day period....no again is the answer. So if you have one person who will be pleased as punch with 3 times a week married to someone who is pleased as punch with once every month or so, why is it that the second person always always wins the day? |
|
|
|
Post by solodriver on Jan 5, 2017 6:01:16 GMT -5
Again, another viewpoint for you to consider. "Which is actually worse. Living with incessant requests for sex due to my husbands high libido, or the feeling of coercion of and being just a sex object which trumps it. It is not that he can't control his libido, it's that he won't".What I am trying to get at in these examples of her point of view is, that there is not much to be gained in taking an adversarial position in these matters. There is no point in apportioning blame or fault. I haven't seen that tactic work in any sustainable sense even once in here. You may be as right as right can be, but it doesn't matter jack shit if you are. It ain't going to change a thing. It just becomes a game of "he said - she said". Is this situation, in your judgement, serious enough to call a halt to the marriage ? If it is, then you are a huge chance of bringing the issue to resolvement - one way or another. If it ain't, then not so much. If we knew the answer to that, NONE of us would be here! |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jan 5, 2017 6:10:02 GMT -5
rejected101Two main reasons #1 - is because there have been no consequences for their actions, so they have nothing to lose by behaving as they do. #2 - is because you, by staying in the situation, have given their actions your approval. Sure, it might be grudging approval, or very unenthusiastic approval, or seething resentment approval. But it is approval none the less. If you stay in the situation, you have effectively approved it. And that sends a very clear message to your spouse that their behaviour is acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jan 5, 2017 10:01:13 GMT -5
So if you have one person who will be pleased as punch with 3 times a week married to someone who is pleased as punch with once every month or so, why is it that the second person always always wins the day? Society. It tolerates the concept that "I know I made a commitment, but it's inconvenient so I shouldn't have to stick to it". Along with "but I expect to still receive all the benefits of the arrangement that are due to me". That, and because they have the ability to comply, yet make it the most lifeless experience possible. Which meets the letter of the contract, but hardly the spirit of the agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 5, 2017 16:30:15 GMT -5
So if you have one person who will be pleased as punch with 3 times a week married to someone who is pleased as punch with once every month or so, why is it that the second person always always wins the day? Society. It tolerates the concept that "I know I made a commitment, but it's inconvenient so I shouldn't have to stick to it". Along with "but I expect to still receive all the benefits of the arrangement that are due to me". That, and because they have the ability to comply, yet make it the most lifeless experience possible. Which meets the letter of the contract, but hardly the spirit of the agreement. I blame the feminists... Back when monogamous marriage was first defined, there was a specific quid pro quo defined as an integral part of the idea of monogamous lifetime marriage. It was called conjugal rights. This idea goes back thousands of years and it was crafted by some smart people trying to solve a very difficult problem - how to make people, who are not innately monogamous, conform to these new rules for the purpose of dividing sheep herds upon the death of the family patriarch. They well understood human nature and understood how to put balance into this arrangement, as best they could. So to recap, here are your commitments upon marriage: 1. Monogamous 2. Life time 3. Conjugal rights (for both parties). Now, the feminists came along and they quashed #3. Without modifying the other two major tenets of the marital contract. Thus destroying all the balance created in the original marriage contract. Thus placing all the control in the marriage with the refusing spouse (which historically happens to be women, on a statistical basis). I'm not arguing for conjugal rights. What I am saying is that by leaving the other two tenets of the contract in place, without mofification, the entire concept of marriage is now totally fucked up, and why I personally would never remarry. Marriage is now a license to enforce celibacy on your spouse. If you're a sexual person (man or woman) you have to be an idiot to get married and accept such a one sided contract. Regardless of what you think about conjugal rights, back in the day people knew what they were getting into. They knew their responsibilities under that more balanced marital contract. Anyone unable or unwilling to comply with ALL THREE provisions was not forced to marry. The attitude of society is now... sexual person, go pound sand. Your only legal solution to this is to leave. Violate #2. Something has to give... I know I'm going to get gored on this, but it's the unvarnished historical truth behind the mess all of us face now. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jan 5, 2017 16:59:35 GMT -5
Society. It tolerates the concept that "I know I made a commitment, but it's inconvenient so I shouldn't have to stick to it". Along with "but I expect to still receive all the benefits of the arrangement that are due to me". That, and because they have the ability to comply, yet make it the most lifeless experience possible. Which meets the letter of the contract, but hardly the spirit of the agreement. I blame the feminists... Just to throw gas on the fire, there is also the court system, and the APA's vulnerability to political pressure to not include PAS,HAP,NPD, and HPD. Largely due to political pressure from the NOW. Politics, Politics, Politics! Add some dynamite to that, you can include the overwhelming majority of females in the Psychological field today that follow this logic. |
|
|
|
Post by LITW on Jan 5, 2017 17:10:45 GMT -5
Bravo Beachguy .... excellent post, I think you hit that one dead center. I have been told to "go pound sand", not in so many words, so many times as to make me feel that my sexual needs are not worthy of concern.
That said, I am not interested in fighting for conjugal rights for myself, if it comes down to a fight. I would sooner masturbate than have sex with a partner who is there out of a sense of duty or coercion--I want a partner who is enthusiastic about going to bed with me. Apparently thats too much to ask in my reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 5, 2017 17:55:34 GMT -5
Bravo Beachguy .... excellent post, I think you hit that one dead center. I have been told to "go pound sand", not in so many words, so many times as to make me feel that my sexual needs are not worthy of concern. That said, I am not interested in fighting for conjugal rights for myself, if it comes down to a fight. I would sooner masturbate than have sex with a partner who is there out of a sense of duty or coercion--I want a partner who is enthusiastic about going to bed with me. Apparently thats too much to ask in my reality. I never said that Conjugal Rights was a perfect system  . I kind of wonder how it worked in practice, back in an age where it was an accepted practice and even a legal doctrine. And underlying that, in the age where it was instituted, supposedly people did not generally marry for love. How did that effect the sexual relations of married spouses? But I think the important issue now, is that, as imperfect as it may have been, it set up a specific EXPECTATION of the duties of the spouses. It probably made it more acceptable to leave a sexless marriage, where now if it's known that you left "just because of sex" you are almost automatically a bag guy. That was probably not the case back then. "I don't want you, but nobody else can have you either" "All you think about is sex" "You should love me for who I am, not for what you want to do with my body (you fucking ape)" (feel free to add your "favorite" rejection statement from your refuser) I don't think those words were ever uttered in an age when sex was a specific expectation and requirement of marriage.... |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 5, 2017 18:02:53 GMT -5
I can think of a couple of solutions to the lack of conjugal rights, in order to restore some balance to the marriage contract... 1. A 5 year renewable contract, that must be explicitly enacted by both parties (I think bballgirl gets credit for this) 2. Replace monogamy with a right of first refusal, with specific terms agreed upon by the parties. I like #2, and if I ever was stupid enough to marry again, I would do that, in writing, notarized. I doubt I would ever get any takers, thus I would remain happily single forever after. But this is my preference. And in the age of genetics, there is no need for monogamy to verify the authenticity of the heirs to the sheep herd. You might think we just aren't wired for that (many people here don't want to stray for emotional reasons). But I suspect most of the general reluctance to anything Poly is more culturally indoctrinated into us than anything innate to our genetics. Edit: I like #2 better for philosophical reasons. The feminists wanted total rights to their bodies. Fair enough. I want my fucking rights to my body too. |
|
|
|
Post by novembercomingfire on Jan 5, 2017 18:15:55 GMT -5
I can think of a couple of solutions to the lack of conjugal rights, in order to restore some balance to the marriage contract... 1. A 5 year renewable contract, that must be explicitly enacted by both parties (I think bballgirl gets credit for this) 2. Replace monogamy with a right of first refusal, with specific terms agreed upon by the parties. I like #2, and if I ever was stupid enough to marry again, I would do that, in writing, notarized. I doubt I would ever get any takers, thus I would remain happily single forever after. But this is my preference. And in the age of genetics, there is no need for monogamy to verify the authenticity of the heirs to the sheep herd. You might think we just aren't wired for that (many people here don't want to stray for emotional reasons). But I suspect most of the general reluctance to anything Poly is more culturally indoctrinated into us than anything innate to our genetics. Edit: I like #2 better for philosophical reasons. The feminists wanted total rights to their bodies. Fair enough. I want my fucking rights to my body too. Magnificent. I will never marry again. I have no doubt i'll be stupid enough, but i desire freedom too much. I want my fucking rights to my body back as well. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Jan 5, 2017 18:32:01 GMT -5
I can think of a couple of solutions to the lack of conjugal rights, in order to restore some balance to the marriage contract... 1. A 5 year renewable contract, that must be explicitly enacted by both parties (I think bballgirl gets credit for this) 2. Replace monogamy with a right of first refusal, with specific terms agreed upon by the parties. I like #2, and if I ever was stupid enough to marry again, I would do that, in writing, notarized. I doubt I would ever get any takers, thus I would remain happily single forever after. But this is my preference. And in the age of genetics, there is no need for monogamy to verify the authenticity of the heirs to the sheep herd. You might think we just aren't wired for that (many people here don't want to stray for emotional reasons). But I suspect most of the general reluctance to anything Poly is more culturally indoctrinated into us than anything innate to our genetics. Edit: I like #2 better for philosophical reasons. The feminists wanted total rights to their bodies. Fair enough. I want my fucking rights to my body too. Yes I suggested the renewal on EP like we do the tags for our cars but every 5 years. The extra tax money could give teachers raises  It would be interesting to see as a society if we put it to a vote how many would be in favor of it. Yeah I'll never get married again either but if you ever do beachguy then come down here so I can smack some sense into you first. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinkberry on Jan 6, 2017 2:07:40 GMT -5
I call bullshit on the feminist argument. Along with loss of conjugal rights also came LOTS of premarital sex. In this day and age, most people are well acquainted with their partners before marriage. If someone can't be honest about what they want and what they are willing to do long term, they are solely to blame, not the spouse kept in the dark, not the feminists, not anyone's mommy or daddy issues. Grown ups are honest and say what they mean. Jackasses pretend before marriage, then foist unrealistic bullshit limitations onto their spouse afterward.
Jackasses abound by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by darktippedrose on Jan 6, 2017 4:33:54 GMT -5
Again, another viewpoint for you to consider. "Which is actually worse. Living with incessant requests for sex due to my husbands high libido, or the feeling of coercion of and being just a sex object which trumps it. It is not that he can't control his libido, it's that he won't".What I am trying to get at in these examples of her point of view is, that there is not much to be gained in taking an adversarial position in these matters. There is no point in apportioning blame or fault. I haven't seen that tactic work in any sustainable sense even once in here. You may be as right as right can be, but it doesn't matter jack shit if you are. It ain't going to change a thing. It just becomes a game of "he said - she said". Is this situation, in your judgement, serious enough to call a halt to the marriage ? If it is, then you are a huge chance of bringing the issue to resolvement - one way or another. If it ain't, then not so much. Another good post that brings the alternative argument to the table. One trait I have seen though is an unwillingness to compromise from those who don't see sex as an important part of marriage. Is it really so difficult to go a week or 2 without sex... no is of course the answer. Is it really so difficult to have sex once in a 7 day period....no again is the answer. So if you have one person who will be pleased as punch with 3 times a week married to someone who is pleased as punch with once every month or so, why is it that the second person always always wins the day? When my husband first started to really reject me for sex, it was PAINFUL to go 2 weeks without sex. And it was painful for him to have sex or even hold my hand once a week. So yeah, I do think both the physical sex/no sex and the emotions that go with it, are both important issues. |
|
. I kind of wonder how it worked in practice, back in an age where it was an accepted practice and even a legal doctrine. And underlying that, in the age where it was instituted, supposedly people did not generally marry for love. How did that effect the sexual relations of married spouses?
