|
|
Post by solodriver on Jan 6, 2017 5:20:43 GMT -5
I think it also happens because of 3 words, that if allowed to enter into a loving relationship, are like termites to a wood house. If not stopped immediately, they will destroy an individual and the relationship.
We know what happens if we don't call pest control immediately upon finding evidence of termites, because when you find the first evidence of it, hidden damage has been occurring for unknown amount of time and that damage needs to be repaired.
Those 3 words are control, selfishness, and unforgiveness. Refusers fall into one of or more of these categories. Any excuse that they give you can be pointed back to one or more of these words. Even medical reasons, such as my wife's case, can be pointed back to selfishness.
|
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 6, 2017 16:16:06 GMT -5
My most recent rejection proved a point to myself. It wasn't that I was going another night without sex, it was the feeling of being unwanted, undesirable and what I believe to be important, unimportant to her. The sexually frustration is just the turd on top of a sloppy shit cake! It's.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunniedays on Jan 6, 2017 18:20:46 GMT -5
"It's not that she can't, it's that she won't."
Won't what? Feel the same desire as you? She won't pretend to have a sexual urge? That statement implies your wife has the ability to have a sexual urge, but she refuses to, simply out of spite. Why would she do that? Do you think she actually has a much higher desire, but she refuses to express it? In other words, "She can.....But she won't." Can what? Can have sex as much as you would prefer? Of course. Anyone "can" have sex. Is that what you want? Or do you want her to WANT to have sex? Because there's a huge difference.
She can't or won't. Either way. Would it resolve your feelings of undesirability if she engaged in sexual relations with you purely out of selflessness? What if she did, because she can, only to please you? Would you be content knowing that it wasn't fueled by actual sexual desire? Seems like you might feel rejected because you're feeling she doesn't "desire" you. But you say your marriage is not bad, other than the lack of sex. Maybe she does desire you, just not in the way you want to be desired. Maybe your definition of desire is just different than hers. The problem is, a person can't demand another person to sexually desire them.
You might have to decide if her deficit is non-negotiable. The bottom line is, if your wife truly "can, but won't," do something out of vindictiveness, control or spite, then why on earth would you stay with her?
|
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 6, 2017 19:06:34 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. What feminism did: it destroyed the concept of an EXPECTATION of sex within a marriage. On a wide cultural level. There is no longer any cultural expectation of sex since, as we all know now, we all own our bodies and our spouses have no rights to our bodies, and therefore no expectations. And I think it is obvious that the top leadership of the feminist movement has always been filled with bitter angry lesbians/asexuals who hate men. That is not to say that every woman that identifies as a feminist is the same, but it is the political leadership that sets the agenda, not the masses of supporters. So no ladies here need to take personal offence to that. Why is the lack of cultural expectations important? There is still a huge cultural expectation, actually a demand, for fidelity. If a spouse cheats, the cheated on spouse feels perfectly within their rights for a quick divorce and in most cases will tell everyone s/he knows about that cheating bastard/bitch. OTOH, there is us, suffering for years and decades. And embarrassed to tell anyone and feeling stigmatized if we do finally divorce because we are afraid people will think "he left her just for sex?". We talk about this problem of the social stigma for leaving an SM all the time here. Another example: after hearing about some spouse that cheated, have you ever asked the "victim".... "when was the last time you fucked him/her"? If the cultural demand for an expectation of sex was equal to the cultural demand for fidelity, things would be very different. In fact it would be a totally different world. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinkberry on Jan 6, 2017 21:34:36 GMT -5
You are confusing feminism with human rights. Every human has a right to their own bodies.
Frankly, if we are laying a broader societal blame here, I think we need to blame the complete lack of premarital counseling that exists these days. It used to be quite common for priests, ministers, psychologists, and others to give a very clear picture of the many expectations of marriage to a couple before they married. I think this also accounts for many of the financial problems couples face these days. They don't realize that joint finances are a wholly different thing from individual finances.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jan 6, 2017 22:30:50 GMT -5
It seems to me that getting married in the 2000's is about making sure yours costs more than you peers did, that you have a more expensive gown than your peers did, more bridesmaids, more guests, a flasher reception, a better band, more drama and meltdowns, and a way better video to put on farcebook.
Economically, about $50,000 AUS of someone else's money ought be your minimum.
And then, there is how much you ought spend on pre-marital guidance and suchlike, as a % of the total financial picture.
In these enlightened times, the going rate appears to be "0" % (far better to spend that money on an additional tier to the cake, or on another stretch limo hire).
|
|
|
|
Post by thefullmoon on Jan 7, 2017 1:19:19 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. What feminism did: it destroyed the concept of an EXPECTATION of sex within a marriage. On a wide cultural level. There is no longer any cultural expectation of sex since, as we all know now, we all own our bodies and our spouses have no rights to our bodies, and therefore no expectations. And I think it is obvious that the top leadership of the feminist movement has always been filled with bitter angry lesbians/asexuals who hate men. That is not to say that every woman that identifies as a feminist is the same, but it is the political leadership that sets the agenda, not the masses of supporters. So no ladies here need to take personal offence to that. Why is the lack of cultural expectations important? There is still a huge cultural expectation, actually a demand, for fidelity. If a spouse cheats, the cheated on spouse feels perfectly within their rights for a quick divorce and in most cases will tell everyone s/he knows about that cheating bastard/bitch. OTOH, there is us, suffering for years and decades. And embarrassed to tell anyone and feeling stigmatized if we do finally divorce because we are afraid people will think "he left her just for sex?". We talk about this problem of the social stigma for leaving an SM all the time here. Another example: after hearing about some spouse that cheated, have you ever asked the "victim".... "when was the last time you fucked him/her"? If the cultural demand for an expectation of sex was equal to the cultural demand for fidelity, things would be very different. In fact it would be a totally different world. Beachguy, it is not fair to blame either feminists or society... You have been in a very bitter marriage for too long, but you had a choice...and millions in similar situation acted differently... divorces and affairs(with own complications and problems of course) have been existed for very long time... Society can't nurture everyone's marriage, it is up to individuals to keep their marriage or dissolve it at any point... In your personal situation( sorry if I am too intrusive), your wife lured you into marriage under the false pretences... So theoretically it gave you a right to annulment...sure it easier to say than do...but maybe you could create a new revolutionary law (of Beachguy)according to which a marriage can be legally finished after single side stopped sex for at least (6,12 or so months) without any reason explained and mutually agreed... I bet you don't want to be known to humanity with this new law and it is understandable... but all new things are hard... Women did not get right to vote very easy, divorce did not pop up on its own... Now we can get marry, divorce, not marry at all, cohabitate, live alone, have affair(ok some won't like it, but it is not their life)..... Before feminism it was not that sweet either( I personally prefer this day and age).... In the Victorian era, the gender roles were still persistent. Having sexual desire was identified almost solely with men and women of lower classes, like prostitutes (Degler, 1974). During this time even male doctors were persuaded that women had no sex drive. When a woman did express sexual desire, it was seen as a disease that needed to be taken care of immediately and with drastic measures – like removing the sex organs (Degler, 1974). Sexual desire was thought to be a quality that only men should have in this time period (Degler, 1974). In 1894, Ruth Smythers published a book in the Victorian era called Sex Tips for Husbands and Wives from 1894. She wrote guidelines for about how newlywed women should “endure” sex (White, 2008). Some of her tips include: “THE wise bride will permit a maximum of two brief sexual experiences weekly — and as time goes by she should make every effort to reduce this frequency. Feigned illness, sleepiness and headaches are among her best friends in this matter.” “A SELFISH and sensual husband can easily take advantage of his wife. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: Give little, give seldom and above all give grudgingly. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.” “A WISE wife will make it her goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her.” “MANY women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands — they need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.” “WHEN he finds her, she should lie as still as possible. Bodily motion could be interpreted as sexual excitement by the optimistic husband. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness.” “IF he attempts to kiss her on the lips she should turn her head slightly so that the kiss falls harmlessly on her cheek instead. If he lifts her gown and attempts to kiss her any place else she should quickly pull the gown back in place, spring from the bed, and announce that nature calls her to the toilet.” “ARGUMENTS, nagging, scolding and bickering prove very effective if used in the late evening about an hour before the husband would normally commence his seduction.” historyofsexuality.umwblogs.org/pre-20th-century/victorian-era-2/I am sure I looked through the book once at bookshop and read there as well, that after completing the family a wife should stop sex completely, as it loses its procreational purpose... |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Jan 7, 2017 20:17:31 GMT -5
thefullmoon - Wow! I am certainly a lowly class of woman. Ha! Obviously, Queen Victoria got super busy considering her many children. I always find that odd considering the Era of the Prudes was named after her. I am sure she was what Usher likes to muse: A lady on the street but a freak in the bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefullmoon on Jan 7, 2017 21:32:32 GMT -5
thefullmoon - Wow! I am certainly a lowly class of woman. Ha! Obviously, Queen Victoria got super busy considering her many children. I always find that odd considering the Era of the Prudes was named after her. I am sure she was what Usher likes to muse: A lady on the street but a freak in the bed. I would not fit the Era either  |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Jan 8, 2017 0:10:59 GMT -5
Glad to see so many strong women on here. I'm a dude, and I identify as feminist. Sorry fellas--i don't blame feminism for women withholding sex. I think that goes down both sides of the aisle. So... I am going to throw a wrench in this. I am a woman. I absolutely blame feminism for an entire host of ills - but I don't blame women. Which was the point. Feminism has turned into something entirely different than it should have been. I eye-roll at least 5x a day because of well-meaning feminists before me. Thanks for all the extra work, bitches. |
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 8, 2017 4:51:51 GMT -5
It's definitely not feminism that causes people to withhold or refrain for sex but it sure as hell is socially unacceptable to demand or expect your partner to do better.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Jan 8, 2017 5:32:07 GMT -5
Some people rather play the 'blame game' than try to work on a solution for their troubles.
Nothing new there. Been going on for thousands of years, I am sure.
I'll tell you a little story: When I was a little boy my grandma told me what was expected
of me. She was a kind of traditionalist lady.
I was supposed to open the doors. I was supposed to earn the money. I was supposed to give
up years of my life and join the army. I was supposed to do all the wooing and eat all the
rejections. Girls got out of all that shit.
Trust me: I wanted to be a girl. Those dangly bits were kind of inconvenient at times and
guys would not pick so many fights with me.
When feminism came along, I was right there in the front row, marching with the sistas.
And I'm still all for it: equal pay for equal work? Right on! Equal rights irrespective
of gender, ethnicity or creed? Right on! Equal responsibility for your life and your actions?
Don't forget those. Don't forget those.
I don't have a problem with feminism, I have no problems with having an EQUAL partner rather
than a kitchen slave or a fuck-toy that I can get out and put away when it suits me. If that
was my game, I'd turn Muslim and move to Pakistan, where men have conjugal rights and the
women count for less than the pet camels. Or is it dromedaries? Thanks, but no thanks.
It's between two people, as I see it. They have to work something out. And if one gets carried
away with a weird take on the bible, or with strange New Age practices or with feminism or
socialism or puritanism or any other mental virus, then their no-longer-partner will have to
reassess their options if the stricken person proves intransigent. That's all there is to it.
It was that way with King Solomon, it was that way with Simone de Beauvoir and it is the same
for you and me. People, couples, have to muddle through.
Take your 'rights' and your blame game and stick'em.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jan 8, 2017 14:49:09 GMT -5
Some people rather play the 'blame game' than try to work on a solution for their troubles. Nothing new there. Been going on for thousands of years, I am sure. I'll tell you a little story: When I was a little boy my grandma told me what was expected of me. She was a kind of traditionalist lady. I was supposed to open the doors. I was supposed to earn the money. I was supposed to give up years of my life and join the army. I was supposed to do all the wooing and eat all the rejections. Girls got out of all that shit. Trust me: I wanted to be a girl. Those dangly bits were kind of inconvenient at times and guys would not pick so many fights with me. When feminism came along, I was right there in the front row, marching with the sistas. And I'm still all for it: equal pay for equal work? Right on! Equal rights irrespective of gender, ethnicity or creed? Right on! Equal responsibility for your life and your actions? Don't forget those. Don't forget those. I don't have a problem with feminism, I have no problems with having an EQUAL partner rather than a kitchen slave or a fuck-toy that I can get out and put away when it suits me. If that was my game, I'd turn Muslim and move to Pakistan, where men have conjugal rights and the women count for less than the pet camels. Or is it dromedaries? Thanks, but no thanks. It's between two people, as I see it. They have to work something out. And if one gets carried away with a weird take on the bible, or with strange New Age practices or with feminism or socialism or puritanism or any other mental virus, then their no-longer-partner will have to reassess their options if the stricken person proves intransigent. That's all there is to it. It was that way with King Solomon, it was that way with Simone de Beauvoir and it is the same for you and me. People, couples, have to muddle through. Take your 'rights' and your blame game and stick'em. Spare me your red herrings and ad hominem attacks. I didn't advocate marital rape, Muslim style. Just balance. Of all people, I would expect the members here to get that. Just shows the level of cultural "indoctrination" |
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Jan 8, 2017 16:39:25 GMT -5
Big words. You should probably bother to learn what they mean before using them.
(now THAT was an 'ad hominem' attack).
Yes, I have a very different take on the subject. The fact that you can't accept
that and put it down to "cultural indoctrination" says more about you than about me.
Plonk.
|
|
|
|
Post by rejected101 on Jan 8, 2017 19:26:28 GMT -5
"It's not that she can't, it's that she won't." Won't what? Feel the same desire as you? She won't pretend to have a sexual urge? That statement implies your wife has the ability to have a sexual urge, but she refuses to, simply out of spite. Why would she do that? Do you think she actually has a much higher desire, but she refuses to express it? In other words, "She can.....But she won't." Can what? Can have sex as much as you would prefer? Of course. Anyone "can" have sex. Is that what you want? Or do you want her to WANT to have sex? Because there's a huge difference. She can't or won't. Either way. Would it resolve your feelings of undesirability if she engaged in sexual relations with you purely out of selflessness? What if she did, because she can, only to please you? Would you be content knowing that it wasn't fueled by actual sexual desire? Seems like you might feel rejected because you're feeling she doesn't "desire" you. But you say your marriage is not bad, other than the lack of sex. Maybe she does desire you, just not in the way you want to be desired. Maybe your definition of desire is just different than hers. The problem is, a person can't demand another person to sexually desire them. You might have to decide if her deficit is non-negotiable. The bottom line is, if your wife truly "can, but won't," do something out of vindictiveness, control or spite, then why on earth would you stay with her? This is why I like this site! I'm getting a different slant on things that sometimes differs from what my own somewhat bitter (at times) mind thinks of. In other words thanks. However, often I think like this for a very simple reason. There are days/nights where I would be perfectly happy not to have sex and I'm not particularly 'in the mood'. If my wife initiated I would not turn her away because it's not difficult, it's not particularly time consuming, it's not hugely tiring, there are no cost implications, no baby sitter is required and i wouldn't feel that it's particularly fair to dismiss her advance just because I was happy not to. There is a HUGE difference between I really am not in the mood to do this vs I hadn't given it a second thought because I'm happy without this tonight. Just because someone is happy without sex tonight does NOT necessarily mean that they would be unhappy with sex tonight. I suspect (I don't know for a fact) that my wife is at the 'I'm perfectly happy not to tonight' phase more often than the 'I really don't want to do this' phase which is why it causes frustration and upset. I find it hugely odd that me and a lot of people I know for that fact went from a once a month sexual encounter to a 3,4 even 5 times a week encounter the second we agreed to have conception sex. Isn't it funny that 3 times a week is so easy for this period but 3 times a month during general life is like asking for the earth to be moved for you? It's not that she does it out of spite, it's more like she doesn't need to and therefore doesn't bother! I believe it's complacency! I read an article written by a sex therapist once that said a runner will often not be in the mood to go out again for yet another run and forcing yourself to put on those running trainers is sometimes a really big battle of will. But when they get out there they enjoy their run and they feel much better for having gone. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is not possible for her but I judge it based on what I would be like with her and I know I wouldn't reject simply because I wasn't already feeling horny. |
|
