|
Post by Handy on Dec 20, 2020 16:58:11 GMT -5
more people have been driven mad by guilt than by hoariness.
I can see the connection between guilt and hoariness. You feel a strong sex drive, lust for sex with some one but feel having sex with someone other than your partner is wrong so the guilt builds up for thinking about a random sex partner.
The"just say No" mentality comes with guilt messages for sex and drugs. The anti-sex drive messages many of us hear year after year that tries to say people need to be logical and for men to not think with their "little head" because we should know better and be rational humans and not animals or have a better mental capacity of a dog.
|
|
|
Post by Apocrypha on Jan 11, 2021 16:49:33 GMT -5
jerri One thing I miss in the write-up by Dr. Mark D. White is the word "implicit". I looked, I looked again, and I don't think I saw it once.
We regularly enter into contracts without writing reems of fine print, because we consider some things to be implicit. One thing implicit in a marriage contract (an oral contract, people making promises and oaths to each other) is that that some income is shared. One promise, albeit vague, is to support each other. One is, unless explicitly (!) stated, cohabitation. Often there are promises of
'making you happy'. (wow, that's a tall one!).
Can we safely assume that one implicit promise is "there shall be sex"?
I think we all here can probably agree on the latter. So, does that throw a different light on Dr. White's wondering out loud if non delivery of sex is as big a fraud as going outside the relationship?
I have pondered this from time to time (usually in the middle of a sleepless night). I manage to be gracious about it 99% of the time, but occasionally, when I'm feeling a little depressed, the thought intrudes: "I've been rolled".
It's absurd to expect sex from someone who doesn't want to have it with you. It's absurd to expect that sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is going to result in good sex. It's more likely that it will end up being used as a demonstration of how little that person wants sex with you. It will also be a demonstration to the aversely inclined person that you are more than willing to have sex with anyone - given that you would have sex with someone who doesn't want it. It becomes proof of your perversion and a further weapon to be used to justify how ill-suited you are as a partner. I think you need to go bigger than Dr. White's thesis as to whether or not someone who withdraws sex has transgressed some obligation. This implies that something as simple as a change of behaviour is needed. To me, going bigger means : Does the relationship you have - from your perspective and hers - resemble a marriage? Would either of you say a celibate partnership is a marriage? If not that, what is it? In my case, my direction became much more clear and the suffering of indecision eased, when I realized the marriage was a fantasy we were both lying about. The reality was that the marriage part of the relationship was over, and whatever was left more resembled a somewhat amicable or cooperative close separation. Taking sex out of the equation - meaning recognizing what had already happened - that I no longer had a sexual relationship with that woman - changed my expectations of the relationship and prevented a perpetual state of fresh disappointment and injury. It allowed me to move beyond a state of perpetual grievance - which I don't think Dr. White's thesis allows.
|
|