Obligated to have sex?

FreeDuck wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

Women feel it's their right to withhold sex ( a control issue) but will not recognize the man's right to get it somewhere else if it's refused him enough at home. Double standard bullshit and the cause of MANY a divorce.

For the record, the times when I felt like I didn't care if I ever had sex again, I would have been perfectly fine if hubby got it elsewhere as long as he wore a condom and didn't spend any money on her. But women certainly have the right not to have sex if they don't want to. Do you really want to have sex with us if we're not into it?

Quote:
I don't know how many of you have been divorced but really... would going ahead and engaging in sex once in awhile even if it's not the most important thing on your list be more unpleasnat than a nasty divorce and the ripple effect it has on not just your life but others? (like children)

The woman said she was ready to go once a month. Does that qualify as once in a while?

For the record I believe that like I believe the moon is made of green cheese..... Laughing

And once a month is not once in awhile..... once a month is ridiculous IMO.....sex is a part of the expression of love between two people... a physical joining is real world stuff.....constant rejection of sexual advances between married people is a slap in the face and a rejection of that love.... I'm not saying that sex is everything but only an idiot would say it's not a big part.

not like I'm saying you're an idiot... let me make that clear ((((((((BEAR HUG)))))))))))))) and that's not a salmon in my pocket... I'm just glad to see you.

0 Replies

Soz, I agree with that for the most part. Elminating sex completely would be quite a blow, but what if there was an accident and one partner was no longer able to have sex? Or what about immediately after the birth of a child when many woman are just too tired? Is the woman required to negotiate that or is it just recognized as temporary? It just seems like things to do with the body are not things we can guarantee -- before or after marriage. My hair was red before we got married, but I'm sure it won't be in 10 years. I was skinny when we got married but I'm not so skinny now. People change over time and the whole idea is that, in marriage, you're supposed to roll with that. Hubby and I don't have as much sex as we had before we got married. That didn't happen right after the honeymoon, of course, but it happens. Is it possible to keep up that level of screwing over the course of 10 or 20 or more years, through child-rearing, menopause and old age? It just seems like some level of flexibility is required.

In the case of the caller, I'm sure it was an issue in her marriage or she wouldn't have called. It sounded like she wanted to want to have sex more than once a month, she just didn't. But nobody suggested exercise (works for me) or spicing up the relationship with a little romance, or anything like that. Those seem to be simple things that can help bring back the desire. But from the outset the suggestion was that it was very abnormal not to want to have sex all the time if it's good sex. I mean, chocolate tastes great, but I don't eat it every day.

0 Replies

From the mouth of Groucho Marx:
One of Groucho's best ad-libs is reportedly a response to a contestant who had almost a dozen children. Groucho asked why the contestant had so many children, to which the contestant replied "I like my wife." Groucho responded, "I like my cigar, too. But I take it out sometimes."

0 Replies

Bear, you obviously don't know me very well if you don't believe what I said about hubby getting some on the side.

I'm not saying sex isn't a big part of a relationship, but it isn't the most important part. Obviously if two people have incompatible sex drives, that's a problem -- one that I would hope would have been discovered before marriage. But just like the solution isn't for you to go to the doctor and get estrogen shots to reduce yours, the solution isn't for the partner with the lower sex drive to go above and beyond to increase hers. These things are often cyclical and it seems like a compromise would make more sense. If one can't be reach and both partners are miserable, well, that's that then.

And I'll add something about the constant rejection of sexual advances. If you're constantly pawing at her, maybe that's why she's rejecting you. Constant pleas for sex come across as needy and childish, IMO. How about letting her come to you sometimes.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I mean, chocolate tastes great, but I don't eat it every day.

I do and I appreciate that greatly..

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Can't he do it with himself? It's not like she was saying she would never have sex with him, just that she only felt like once a month. Is it the most important thing in a marriage? Is it a deal-breaker?

I truly think that depends on the marriage.

I know couples for whom sex has never been a big part of the deal...and who have not had sex for years, but seem very fulfilled together in other ways.

I come across others where lack of desire on the part of one or the other is either a deal breaker, or condemns the relationship to a corrosive sort of aridity...or where one partner, or both, look elsewhere for sex, but maintain the relationship.

Human beings be oddish things! There's infinite variety.

I agree that for most couples familiarity gradually lessens frequency of sex, and that there tend to be up and down rhythms both in closeness and desire. For some that is ok, for others fine, for others a recipe for separation.

It sure seems to be a common cause for relationship tension, that and money.

I also do not agree with pathlogising different desire levels...though if such disparity causes corrosion it is something worth working on, methinks.

Personally, I have been in relationships where there was real equality in that area, some where I have felt horny more often, and some where he did.

0 Replies

That makes a lot of sense, dlowan. As usual. :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm not saying sex isn't a big part of a relationship, but it isn't the most important part.

My philosophy on this is

Good sex is only 1% of a relationship

Bad sex is 99%

0 Replies

Yeah, FreeDuck, that's the "of COURSE everyone has the same sex drive and it's very, very high" thing.

Dan Savage has said that he started his column in a reaction to the Dear Abby's and Ann Landers', but now he's pretty mainstream in the world of sex/ relationship therapists, himself.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there has to be a meeting halfway, and if the two partners are so far apart that meeting halfway is a huge stretch for either of them, the marriage will be in trouble. As in, while I think it's wrong for a man who wants to have sex every day to have sex every day even if the woman only wants it once a month, I think there are also problems if in that situation they only have sex once a month. I don't think it should be that one will or the other prevails, but that there is some sort of compromise.

That can include the woman doing things that up her sex drive, like exercise, as you mention. It can be the man realizing that the woman is touched out from being around a small child all day and organizing a day for her to do her own thing and feel more comfortable in her own skin again. There are a lot of ways to approach it, and none of them should involve "you don't want to but that's too bad, have sex with me, I'm obligated "; but it also shouldn't be "you want to but that's too bad, no sex, I'm obligated."

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Basically, what I'm saying is that there has to be a meeting halfway, and if the two partners are so far apart that meeting halfway is a huge stretch for either of them, the marriage will be in trouble. As in, while I think it's wrong for a man who wants to have sex every day to have sex every day even if the woman only wants it once a month, I think there are also problems if in that situation they only have sex once a month. I don't think it should be that one will or the other prevails, but that there is some sort of compromise.

That can include the woman doing things that up her sex drive, like exercise, as you mention. It can be the man realizing that the woman is touched out from being around a small child all day and organizing a day for her to do her own thing and feel more comfortable in her own skin again. There are a lot of ways to approach it, and none of them should involve "you don't want to but that's too bad, have sex with me, I'm obligated "; but it also shouldn't be "you want to but that's too bad, no sex, I'm obligated."

That totally makes sense. "Touched out" is an excellent description for what happens to women with small children (and excessively horny husbands, bear). There are a lot of things involved in maintaining a healthy sex life, and there absolutely should be a meeting in the middle, I agree.

This woman wasn't acting like she wanted to withold sex from her husband, she just didn't have the drive. But I reacted strongly to the response she got (very Savage) and the implication that there must be something wrong with her.

0 Replies

Quote:

the implication that there must be something wrong with her.

Well, in case you missed the memo

bad sex is the womans fault. all the time..
NO sex, and she is frigid.. because.. its all about her..

0 Replies

And she wants to control her husband or punish him because she hates men.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Bear, you obviously don't know me very well if you don't believe what I said about hubby getting some on the side.

I'm not saying sex isn't a big part of a relationship, but it isn't the most important part. Obviously if two people have incompatible sex drives, that's a problem -- one that I would hope would have been discovered before marriage. But just like the solution isn't for you to go to the doctor and get estrogen shots to reduce yours, the solution isn't for the partner with the lower sex drive to go above and beyond to increase hers. These things are often cyclical and it seems like a compromise would make more sense. If one can't be reach and both partners are miserable, well, that's that then.

And I'll add something about the constant rejection of sexual advances. If you're constantly pawing at her, maybe that's why she's rejecting you. Constant pleas for sex come across as needy and childish, IMO. How about letting her come to you sometimes.

you immediately dismiss sexual advances as constant pawing. There's a disconnect. Additionally, initiating sex regularly is neither constant pleaing or needy and childish. It is normal behavior for someone who's not been emasculated. IMO, constant rejection of regular sexual advances is controlling and degrading. And by regular I don't mean day and night but many not all but many women have now gotten the idea that reasonable sexual advances mean "Only when I'm in the mood" That's bullshit.

But hey, you're now in complete control of your bodies. Congratulations. You're in the work force, you're approaching mens same rate of cancer, heart attacks, depression suicide and pulling even with us in life expectancy. . You've come a long way baby.

I still love ya Miss Duck, and I'm not describing my relationship, I'm presenting a point of view.

0 Replies

I definitely agree with that whole aspect -- again back to everyone has the same sex drive, don't they? -- that if women don't want to have sex, it's cause they're being controlling, mean, punishing, etc. If he doesn't want to eat a second dinner I make for him 20 minutes after the huge pasta dinner, is it because he hates me or because he's plain not hungry?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I definitely agree with that whole aspect -- again back to everyone has the same sex drive, don't they? -- that if women don't want to have sex, it's cause they're being controlling, mean, punishing, etc. If he doesn't want to eat a second dinner I make for him 20 minutes after the huge pasta dinner, is it because he hates me or because he's plain not hungry?

yes but I bet he'd a least eat some of it for you to show his appreciation. :wink:

0 Replies

Many of the comments sound so all-or-nothing. Or the beginnings of unspoken resentment.

Sex is fun. It's healthy. It boosts the immune system. It improves circulation. It can be aerobic.

It's not an "obligation, " but at the very least it's usually an unspoken part of your decision to marry someone.

Just do it. Even a quickie.

0 Replies

Quote:

but many women have now gotten the idea that reasonable sexual advances mean "Only when I'm in the mood" That's bullshit.

I have to agree.

( ****.. im agreeing with bear.. god help me.. Laughing

)

to just repeat what you have said..

Sex is a big part of a relationship.
You tell your partner no all the time, or give them the idea that sex is all about YOU by only allowing it to happen when YOU are in the mood is selfish and abusive.

Besides, I know for a fact that my body doesnt always feel 'horny', and most of the time that feeling comes after sex starts..
Wich is fine with me. Cool

0 Replies

Synonymph wrote:

Many of the comments sound so all-or-nothing. Or the beginnings of unspoken resentment.

Sex is fun. It's healthy. It boosts the immune system. It improves circulation. It can be aerobic.

It's not an "obligation, " but at the very least it's usually an unspoken part of your decision to marry someone.

Just do it. Even a quickie.

ahhh... a healthy attitude. Should my beloved Shelley ever leave me, this is what I need in a 5th Mrs. Bear. Laughing

0 Replies

Maybe I could become a Mormon and invite Shewolfn and Synonymph to join the Bear circle of Big Love.

I say that only because squinney is at work and I can get away with it....

0 Replies

Obligated to have sex?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know