|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jun 30, 2016 1:27:44 GMT -5
Not trying to make excuses for them, but your post made me think of how AWFUL my spouse is at prioritizing DryCreek Not just about sex or time with me, but about everything (outside of work) I wonder how many refusers share this trait? Certainly, good time management is not a skill that many possess. And kids have a way of expanding to consume all free time, if you let them - also something that can be consciously managed but often isn't. But sex and intimacy don't need project-management skills. It's not logistically that difficult. It doesn't take that long. (Even less for some of us!) It certainly isn't the root of our problems. It doesn't explain away the lack of sex on vacation; on a lazy weekend morning; when the kids are away, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by angryspartan on Jun 30, 2016 6:58:12 GMT -5
As for the thought of not needing to provide sex statement, I couldn't disagree more. That's exactly the reasoning refusers use(not saying your are a refuser). Both husband and the wife have a responsibility to meet the other's needs. When they meet these needs, they should do so with love and a enthusiasm. And I would argue that if any of the refused gentlemen on here are of the mindset that "she oughta be providing," it's a pretty safe bet, there isn't much being provided. I think expecting it is the beginning of trouble. It should be freely given and if not, something's amiss and has to be figured out first. And, no I'm not the refuser. Bu then, why would I be here if I were? You are right, it should be freely given. Im not insinuating master/slave dynamic here. What I'm trying to get through is, there isn't anything wrong with having expectations of what you want out of your marriage and requiring your spouse to meet them. If that were not the case, then vows wouldn't be given at the very beginning of the marriage. We pledge our love during the ceremony, expecting our spouse to keep them is not unreasonable. If we have no right to have expectations, then we really have no right to be upset with our refusers. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jun 30, 2016 7:32:55 GMT -5
Not trying to make excuses for them, but your post made me think of how AWFUL my spouse is at prioritizing DryCreek Not just about sex or time with me, but about everything (outside of work) I wonder how many refusers share this trait? Certainly, good time management is not a skill that many possess. And kids have a way of expanding to consume all free time, if you let them - also something that can be consciously managed but often isn't. But sex and intimacy don't need project-management skills. It's not logistically that difficult. It doesn't take that long. (Even less for some of us!) It certainly isn't the root of our problems. It doesn't explain away the lack of sex on vacation; on a lazy weekend morning; when the kids are away, etc. My spouse is quiet the opposite. Time manage,and multi-tasking is a gift. You should see our color coded Bar graphs for all 9 of our schedules.the organized files, the bills that are paid on line, the investment accounts, all the activities for children she finds to sign up for, the list goes on. When her daddy needs a last moment trip hours away for a hearing aid. She can miss scheduled meetings, take a day off from work leave all the house hold, children responsibilities with me, and off she goes for an entire day. Like a Mini vacation! Yet she won't even consider once a year having a half an hour of sex? Over 14 years of hearing, " I'm exhausted!". Just another manipulative controlling lie. Then comes the years of all the marital wooing. ( like the love languages) all the gifts, the planning, the acts of service, the compliments, the fulfilling of duties and obligations, the hinting, the outright asking, the REJECTION! Yes for both men and women! What this article said to me personally, was " here's a reminder of what you have been programmed, trained, and conditioned for, all your life as a man. You are to be the leader, the instigator. You are to make yourself vulnerable to rejection, by speaking first, asking out, spending money, planning, researching, dressing properly, meeting family, landing that good paying job, buying houses, settling down, finding a church, having multiple children, etc.....all so you can be rejected, humiliated, let down, turned down, laughed at. When what you want is to be desired. 23 yrs of this marriage leaves the biggest question of all. Will I ever feel desired by another woman? I find that extremely unfair, humiliating and sometimes suicidal. |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jun 30, 2016 7:36:21 GMT -5
"If we have no right to have expectations, then we really have no right to be upset with our refusers"
-
That's spot on.
The same principle would apply in a support group for refusers, where the basic story would read - "Everything is great, bar my spouses incessant requests for sex"
It is, after all, essentially the same thing, the refused spouses version being - "Everything is great bar my spouses repeated sexual refusals"
-
Both versions are perfectly valid positions.
In one example, one spouse is upset about the sexual aspects of the situation.
In the other example the spouse is also upset about the sexual aspects of the deal.
-
The "difference" is that we - in this refused group - reckon our version has more validity than the refusers version.
Refusers would be just as entitled to claim that their version is the superior position to adopt.
-
There's no "right" or "wrong" in these 2 viewpoints. They are essentially the same thing viewed from opposite facets.
-
Equally, there's no point in a refused spouse trying to argue the toss about the subject with a refuser.
Or vice versa.
The refused is not going to change their personal view. (and why should they ?)
The refuser is not going to alter their personal view either. (and why should they ?)
-
The core issue in these examples - dissatisfaction with the amount of sex in the marriage - is either a dealbreaker for the one of the spouses, or it ain't.
-
In 'our' group, refused spouses, in about 16% of cases, it's a dealbreaker and the refused is getting out.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jun 30, 2016 7:54:34 GMT -5
"If we have no right to have expectations, then we really have no right to be upset with our refusers"- That's spot on. The same principle would apply in a support group for refusers, where the basic story would read - "Everything is great, bar my spouses incessant requests for sex" It is, after all, essentially the same thing, the refused spouses version being - "Everything is great bar my spouses repeated sexual refusals" - Both versions are perfectly valid positions. In one example, one spouse is upset about the sexual aspects of the situation. In the other example the spouse is also upset about the sexual aspects of the deal. - The "difference" is that we - in this refused group - reckon our version has more validity than the refusers version. Refusers would be just as entitled to claim that their version is the superior position to adopt. - There's no "right" or "wrong" in these 2 viewpoints. They are essentially the same thing viewed from opposite facets. - Equally, there's no point in a refused spouse trying to argue the toss about the subject with a refuser. Or vice versa. The refused is not going to change their personal view. (and why should they ?) The refuser is not going to alter their personal view either. (and why should they ?) - The core issue in these examples - dissatisfaction with the amount of sex in the marriage - is either a dealbreaker for the one of the spouses, or it ain't. - In 'our' group, refused spouses, in about 16% of cases, it's a dealbreaker and the refused is getting out. I like what you say here! I always do! We have to part ways on the , " there's no right or wrong in these two viewpoints." Unless this is a asexual marriage agreement from the beginning, which clearly no one here has that, there is definitely a wrong! we also learn that it goes beyond sex, that often the refuser is a controller. That too is definitely a wrong in a marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jun 30, 2016 8:15:23 GMT -5
An observation last night. My wife asked my daughter to rub her back and brush her hair for her. I was in the den painting. My wife was in our bedroom in her recliner, she laid down flat on the bed for our daughter. I came in the bedroom and watched this happen. It reminded me why I no longer will ever do that again for my wife. My wife laid there like a stone. When my daughter was done my wife's response was, " are you finished? Make sure you put my brush away, don't leave it out. My daughter said in an upset tone, " I did already". My wife's response was " oh good." What I notice is there was never a thank you, or one tiny touch back. Not a" come here let me hug you, let me brush your hair, let me rub your back," nothing. All taking, no giving.
Funny to listen to my daughter tell her all the things I 'm thinking. Mom, your really, big, mom, you need to exercise. Mom, your hair is so grey. Mom, your hair is really frizzy!
Kids say the darnedest things!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jun 30, 2016 9:55:44 GMT -5
Looking at the list, I have to say *I* need sex for all the same reasons these (good Christian?) husbands do. -I need sex to feel loved/desired. -I need sex to feel confident in my sexuality. -I need sex so as not to feel rejection. -I need sex so that I don't go into depression from lack of feeling desired. I guess I feel the need to add that these Christian sex articles always seem to put the onus on the woman to *provide* sex. 'Wife' is not synonymous with 'concubine.' Sex is a 2-way street and I no more need to *provide* sex to H than he does to me. It should be shared, as a covenant of marriage, in the spirit of keeping the relationship sacred and not allowing it to devolve into the dreaded roommate situation too many of us deal with. As I suspected, many women will identify with some/all of these "reasons". As for the phrasing "provide sex"... well, I agree it can be taken in the negative way you suggest. How about this: "Husband and wife both stand to benefit from a sex life that is fulfilling to each; both have to do their part to communicate their needs to the other; listen to the needs of their spouse; and do what they can to make this fulfilling to both. As with all things in marriage, there will be the need for some compromise, and maybe even a bit of stepping out of one's comfort zone; not out of duty, but out of love and the desire to have a marriage that is full in all the dimensions a marriage should be full." OK, it is wordy... but I think that is a sentiment we can get behind, right? THAT SAID: I think some refusal-inclined wives NEED to hear the rather blunt message (from other women): "Listen: you need to give it up to your husband, girlfriend. No, it is not a recipe that in and of itself guarantees your marital happiness, but -- trust me --your marriage is unlikely to be what you want if you keep your legs too tightly closed." (I'll let someone else draft the "blunt version" to the refusal-inclined husbands... in fact, there are some keen female minds here who I would LOVE to hear their version!) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 14:10:44 GMT -5
"How about this: "Husband and wife both stand to benefit from a sex life that is fulfilling to each; both have to do their part to communicate their needs to the other; listen to the needs of their spouse; and do what they can to make this fulfilling to both. As with all things in marriage, there will be the need for some compromise, and maybe even a bit of stepping out of one's comfort zone; not out of duty, but out of love and the desire to have a marriage that is full in all the dimensions a marriage should be full." , thanks for coming to the rescue on this one, man. Yes, this is lovely. I can definitely get on board with it (not so sure about my refusing H, though). This, um... well, let's see... For starters, I have to admit, I really, really dislike the "keep your legs tightly closed" bit. If I'm frank about it, I think it's sexist, crude, and offensive. I think all of this talk of "giving it up" begs the question of what's really wrong in the marriage. It comes at it from the wrong angle. Maybe that's the heart of the issue. This is a fun one to ponder, though. It kept my mind going all morning, so thanks to angryspartan for posting. Even if we do agree to disagree.  |
|
|
|
Post by baza on Jul 1, 2016 1:55:06 GMT -5
greatcoastal Quoting you here - "We have to part ways on the , " there's no right or wrong in these two viewpoints."
Unless this is a asexual marriage agreement from the beginning, which clearly no one here has that, there is definitely a wrong!
we also learn that it goes beyond sex, that often the refuser is a controller. That too is definitely a wrong in a marriage".- I'm not seeing it I'm afraid. Here's 3 scenarios for you. #1 - spouses agree to a sexless marriage, and after 6 months, one of them starts insisting on sex. #2 - spouses agree to a sexual union, and after 6 months, one of them starts refusing to engage. #3 - spouses agree to a sexual union of say 2 X week, and after 6 months, one of the spouses starts insisting on 14 X week. - I'm not seeing that any of the above persons are "wrong" in their respective preferred level of sexual engagement. - But, I would agree that in the above, the spouses radically moved the goalposts / changed the rules / call it what you will (I'd go with "lying" as a descriptive"), and I would be quite happy with saying such behaviour is "wrong". One partner acting unilaterally in respect to any issue involving the partnership is "wrong". - However, any individuals preferred level of sexual engagement, be it 0 x week, 2 X week or 14 X week is neither right nor wrong. It just is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Jul 1, 2016 2:18:18 GMT -5
I also think that people change. Some of us for sure got bait and switched, but others ended up with people who did want sex in the beginning and now don't. But you can't force yourself to want to be intimate with somebody if you don't. You can't say 'it's not fair that they don't want me' and I don't think you can expect someone to put out because they signed a piece of paper. The problem is in the assumption that the institution of your marriage is more important than the needs and feelings of the two people who are actually married. If the marriage as a sexual relationship is dead then it is dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Jul 1, 2016 9:36:18 GMT -5
"How about this: "Husband and wife both stand to benefit from a sex life that is fulfilling to each; both have to do their part to communicate their needs to the other; listen to the needs of their spouse; and do what they can to make this fulfilling to both. As with all things in marriage, there will be the need for some compromise, and maybe even a bit of stepping out of one's comfort zone; not out of duty, but out of love and the desire to have a marriage that is full in all the dimensions a marriage should be full." , thanks for coming to the rescue on this one, man. Yes, this is lovely. I can definitely get on board with it (not so sure about my refusing H, though). This, um... well, let's see... For starters, I have to admit, I really, really dislike the "keep your legs tightly closed" bit. If I'm frank about it, I think it's sexist, crude, and offensive. ... This is a fun one to ponder, though. It kept my mind going all morning, so thanks to angryspartan for posting. Even if we do agree to disagree. I think we disagree less than it appears on the surface. I agree that the latter remark is certainly crass... and it is not in my nature to speak so crudely. It would be insensitive to speak that way to someone who is loving, sensitive, and TRYING. But I think some times a bit of "tough love by way of crass speech" may be called for; some folks need to be shocked in to reconsidering their [lack of] sexual approach to their spouse. (Frankly, I felt I was channeling @smartkat or Rhapsodee as I wrote that! Now they are allowed to be offended for me saying that, if they'd like!) You mention that the "flowery passage" is lovely, but "not so sure about my refusing H" getting it... that is kind of my point. The "flowery passage" is for normal, well-balanced, non-self-absorbed people who WANT intimacy and WANT to meet their spouse's need for normal intimacy, too. Long-term refusers may need a "jolt". Whether that comes from a bit of shocking speech, or learning that their spouse is devastated, or learning of the spouse's infidelity or plans to divorce, or an actual smack with and actual 2x4... I propose some crass speech may be the kindest of those all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 12:34:04 GMT -5
I dislike the expression "keep your legs closed" because I associate it with bossy, sanctimonious traditional values types, who don't believe women should enjoy sex. The kind of people who perpetuate the Madonna-or-wh0re idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 13:27:27 GMT -5
unmatched, the problem is when one spouse unilaterally changes the rules without comprimising with the other spouse so needs can still be met. Hate cleaning? Fine, make enough $ to hire to maid to do your share Hate sex? Allow your spouse to find it with someone who enjoys it, without forcing a divorce if it's not otherwise wanted
|
|
|
|
Post by angryspartan on Jul 1, 2016 15:41:55 GMT -5
I dislike the expression "keep your legs closed" because I associate it with bossy, sanctimonious traditional values types, who don't believe women should enjoy sex. The kind of people who perpetuate the Madonna-or-wh0re idea. But legs closed makes for some great sex.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2016 15:56:53 GMT -5
Trying to picture that one, angryspartan. Having fun with it!  |
|
