|
|
Post by merrygoround on Jul 22, 2017 3:35:02 GMT -5
There was simply no compromise from ex - it was his way or no way. Now, whether he saw my attempts to talk, initiate, ignite some kind of sexually intimacy as pressure? Probably as it was outside of what he was happy with for HIM. Five times a year? Less? A little more? Anything I wanted in order to up that frequency, or even god forbid, think about a different position was met with scorn, derision and basically made me feel like shit. The pressure was then placed on me to accept as he was never going to change.
Yeah, let's just put it down to mismatched libidos. But it's more than that, isn't it? It's mismatched everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 22, 2017 6:19:29 GMT -5
There was simply no compromise from ex - it was his way or no way. Now, whether he saw my attempts to talk, initiate, ignite some kind of sexually intimacy as pressure? Probably as it was outside of what he was happy with for HIM. Five times a year? Less? A little more? Anything I wanted in order to up that frequency, or even god forbid, think about a different position was met with scorn, derision and basically made me feel like shit. The pressure was then placed on me to accept as he was never going to change. Yeah, let's just put it down to mismatched libidos. But it's more than that, isn't it? It's mismatched everything. What I came to understand over the decades, and is often discussed here, is that it's all about control. It is not a coincidence that most of our refusers are selfish controllers. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 22, 2017 7:16:07 GMT -5
There was simply no compromise from ex - it was his way or no way. Now, whether he saw my attempts to talk, initiate, ignite some kind of sexually intimacy as pressure? Probably as it was outside of what he was happy with for HIM. Five times a year? Less? A little more? Anything I wanted in order to up that frequency, or even god forbid, think about a different position was met with scorn, derision and basically made me feel like shit. The pressure was then placed on me to accept as he was never going to change. Yeah, let's just put it down to mismatched libidos. But it's more than that, isn't it? It's mismatched everything. What I came to understand over the decades, and is often discussed here, is that it's all about control. It is not a coincidence that most of our refusers are selfish controllers. Yup....that's what I saw plastered all over this original post. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 22, 2017 7:19:21 GMT -5
I got mixed reactions and some played the old card of "no one should be pressured into having more sex". I happen to disagree because my view is that you need to find an amount of sex that works for the marriage and not one of the parties in the marriage. Any views or comments A good response to this old card would be " so no one should be pressured into having less sex?" |
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 22, 2017 11:00:00 GMT -5
A brief history of the marriage covenant... In the beginning, monogamy included a very specific expectation of sex. It is embodied in the often quoted Corinthians 7:1-35 verse in the New Testament, a cultural more that goes back almost 2000 years. So the relevant part of the marriage covenants look like this:
"To forsake all others" (fidelity)
"To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work)
Both together form the covenant of monogamy. Both are required to make it a workable system.
Skip forward 2000 years to the beginning of the 20th century and the birth of the feminist movement. And then when it really got rolling in the 60s and 70s. The feminists demanded body autonomy so now the marriage covenant looks like this:
"To forsake all others" (fidelity)
"To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work)
A bit one-sided, me thinks? Now monogamy is a license to unilaterally enforce celibacy into the marriage. But that is to be expected because the extremists that drove the feminist movement were all about a battle of control, and I hate to admit they seemed to have won, and they seemed to have emasculated the male of the species.
In the post feminist world, where one would be hung by his balls for suggesting that there is an (ahem) expectation of sex, this is what the marriage covenant must look like, if both spouses are to have equal rights. And if the feminists were in any way reasonable, they would have demanded this be put in place...
"To forsake all others" (fidelity)
"To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work)
It might appear, at first glance, that there is now no marriage covenant, other than a business contract. That might be a valid assessment, but it is necessary to maintain BALANCE and fairness. Personally I took my balls back and I would never consider marrying. Not under the rules our culture dictates for the faux monogamy of the modern era.
I know I'm going strike some nerves here, but you know in your heart I'm right about all this, even as you try to blast me off the face of the Earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 22, 2017 15:20:22 GMT -5
beachguy, I agree with the erosion. Mostly motivated by the forces you mention, I think society and the legal system have turned marriage (or, more specifically, divorce) into a punitive tool for manipulating or exacting revenge. I wonder how much of the dysfunction could be avoided with a solid prenup that doesn't let the outcome default to social whims of the day. That is, I think legally-recognized marriage is a good thing (there are many positives), but leaving it in the hands of society to redraw the contract at-will is definitely a bad call. Nobody in business would ever agree to such terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by csl on Jul 22, 2017 22:16:36 GMT -5
A brief history of the marriage covenant... In the beginning, monogamy included a very specific expectation of sex. It is embodied in the often quoted Corinthians 7:1-35 verse in the New Testament, a cultural more that goes back almost 2000 years. So the relevant part of the marriage covenants look like this: "To forsake all others" (fidelity) "To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work) Both together form the covenant of monogamy. Both are required to make it a workable system. Skip forward 2000 years to the beginning of the 20th century and the birth of the feminist movement. And then when it really got rolling in the 60s and 70s. The feminists demanded body autonomy so now the marriage covenant looks like this: "To forsake all others" (fidelity) "To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work)A bit one-sided, me thinks? Now monogamy is a license to unilaterally enforce celibacy into the marriage. But that is to be expected because the extremists that drove the feminist movement were all about a battle of control, and I hate to admit they seemed to have won, and they seemed to have emasculated the male of the species. In the post feminist world, where one would be hung by his balls for suggesting that there is an (ahem) expectation of sex, this is what the marriage covenant must look like, if both spouses are to have equal rights. And if the feminists were in any way reasonable, they would have demanded this be put in place... "To forsake all others" (fidelity)"To have and to hold" (the quid pro quo necessary to make monogamy work)It might appear, at first glance, that there is now no marriage covenant, other than a business contract. That might be a valid assessment, but it is necessary to maintain BALANCE and fairness. Personally I took my balls back and I would never consider marrying. Not under the rules our culture dictates for the faux monogamy of the modern era. I know I'm going strike some nerves here, but you know in your heart I'm right about all this, even as you try to blast me off the face of the Earth. Gee, I wonder if anyone has written about Traditional Vows. His and Hers, maybe? Nah, who would write about old stuff like that? |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 22, 2017 22:48:50 GMT -5
Most jurisdictions have legislation in place where an aggrieved spouse, who feels that the spirit of the implied agreement has been breached, can end the agreement if they so choose.
There are jurisdictions (like Belgium 70%, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, and Hungary all over 60%, the USA 53%, Australia 43%) where people take the option of ending the agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by wom360 on Jul 22, 2017 23:21:30 GMT -5
Most jurisdictions have legislation in place where an aggrieved spouse, who feels that the spirit of the implied agreement has been breached, can end the agreement if they so choose. There are jurisdictions (like Belgium 70%, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, the Czech Republic, and Hungary all over 60%, the USA 53%, Australia 43%) where people take the option of ending the agreement. Yup. And most who choose to stay don't like to own that choice. |
|
|
|
Post by nolongerlonely on Jul 24, 2017 3:33:19 GMT -5
Here's my take on the subject. I've been with someone who must have faked desire at the beginning, and then became a refuser. In latter years claiming to have no sex drive. Yet seems to like watching porn. The refusing was just a form of control. It manifested itself in many other ways, control in every way, what we do, where we live, what we eat, everything. I'm a fairly easy-going sort. My take on a 'relationship', is to give, and to receive. I found myself only giving, and so for a while, would politely ask for sex when I felt I needed it. I became like a dog, sit and wag my tail and hope for the reward. A quick hand-job perhaps, or maybe a 'go' on top, with this lifeless human beneath me. About 10 years ago, I decided I wasnt going to ask any more. And it all stopped.Completely and totally. And I grew to no longer even fancy her, and also grew to lose all of my confidence in every way. I've said it before, but its this forum that helped me claw my way back to being the human being I once was.
So, to answer the question. Arent all relationships about compromise ? You buy a new car, and ask if they will give you some money off, or chuck in a tank full of fuel, or a service, or a warranty. And if its all agreed, everyone shakes hands and walks away happy. So, if I was lucky enough to be confronted with someone who wanted me to physically pleasure them alot, well I'd do my damndest to perform. I'd put everything into it. The desire to deliver happiness, in the bedroom, in the relationship, in every way possible. Because thats just me. I want to share everything, and enjoy it all together. No point having a relationship without that sort of ethic. But if for some awful reason I was unable to match the libido of my partner, I'd work hard in other ways. Oral, or toys, or whatever it took to deliver a level of pleasure. I'd delight in watching her enjoy it, and work really hard to hit all the right spots, even if for some awful reason, my dick didnt work. I actually went through that phase of thinking a few years ago, wondering if it would still function, years of do-it yourself. And it didnt seem to get so hard as it used to. I really worried, I might finally escape from my 'SM shithole' and find a wonderful lady to not only fall in love with but also worship physically.I thought it was the ultimate irony, living in the sex-free life and then when finally escape, no funtionality in the trouser department. If it happened, I'd still try anything to deliver the pleasure she wanted. And I know I would love every second of the discovery. Because above all else, we would be doing it together. Thats what a relationship means to me, being together on every level. Not sure if I have answered the topic adequately. Lol. I'd strap a stick to my dick if I thought it wasnt going to function, just to make sure my partner enjoyed something from me. She would be my world. I cant wait to find her. Just hope she doesnt get splinters.
|
|
