FreeDuck wrote:I don't know, Bella. Maybe it's the word "obligated" that bothers me. Who wants to think of sex as an obligation? I mean really, what could be a bigger turn-off.
I can see that.
But I guess what I am saying is that while we aren't obligated to have sex, I think it's important that we don't always just think of ourselves. You know what I mean? This is never going to come out right....
Doesn't anyone else have sex sometimes when they may not really have wanted it to begin with? I've never regretted it. I've never decided that I shouldn't have "given in". I always enjoy myself and if nothing else, I feel good that he is happy now. And I always get my "pay back" for helping him out. If you know what I mean. :wink:
I think that's something that all of us married, and probably many of us unmarried, people are familiar with.
Yeah, I address that here Bella.
Chai Tea wrote:If a man (or woman for that matter) is abusive about demanding sex when the other doesn't want it, that's a problem.
But truthfully, in a long term relationship, like a marriage, I don't see the problem with "accomodating" the other person when there is love and trust and respect. We have a tube of lubricant next to the bed, and hey, it's enjoyable being desired.
How many times a day do we do something for our loved ones, that we wouldn't care about doing for ourselves....giving our bodies to the other is all part of the love.
Honestly, sometimes I think we have gone a wee bit overboard with the "this is my body and I don't have to have sex if I don't want it"
I'm not talking about all the time, but jeez, what's the problem with giving the person you love something he wants? I little moaning an ego stroking isn't a big price to pay for the appreciation shown afterwards.
Chai Tea wrote:Yeah, I address that here Bella.
Chai Tea wrote:We have a tube of lubricant next to the bed, and hey, it's enjoyable being desired.
.....
I little moaning an ego stroking isn't a big price to pay for the appreciation shown afterwards.
Or stroking of something else..... :wink:
There are certainly obligations that go with being married. Relenquishing control of your own body is not one of them.
I tend to agree with bear, bella, chai and others that are leaning towards "aaccommodating" the spouse every once in awhile (Big surprise there!). Sure there has to be a balance and the accomodation doesn't need to happen every time but once in awhile really shouldn't be that big of a deal.
One thing I would like to add is that I think in long term relationships we too easily fall into roles. I think one person becomes the initiator (usually the man) and one becomes the acceptor/rejector (usually the woman). I think this is where the constant pawing/constant rejection thing comes into play. I get lovin' at a fairly consistent basis (and I'm pretty sure the Mrs isn't alawys in the mood but lends me a helping hand anyway) but sometimes I get the feeling that if I didn't initiate we wouldn't ever have sex.
Einstein once said "I have tried 99 times and have failed, but on the 100th time came success." I think men are simply playing those odds. We are merely shooting for the one time the other person says yes. One constantly tries and the other constantly rejects. After awhile this is bound to add stress to a relationship. Changing roles once in awhile, IMO, would go a long way to help alleviate the stress. Not only is the initiator not being rejected but is actually the object of desire for once.
The whole obligaton thing is two sides of the same coin. Some want sex more than the other and is obligated to NOT have sex as much as they want. Why is it unfair for the person with the lower sex drive to be obligated to have sex more than they might want? There really is a happy middle ground I think.
DrewDad wrote:There are certainly obligations that go with being married. Relenquishing control of your own body is not one of them.
I promised to love and honor him....what better honor than to offer myself, both in body and spirit.
It's no burden.
DrewDad wrote:There are certainly obligations that go with being married. Relenquishing control of your own body is not one of them.
Gimme a break! Can't a man be in charge of his wife anymore? Next thing they'll want the vote, and their own bank accounts, and not swear obedience to their husbands anymore. Where is this gonna end?
Oops ... sorry... wrong century.
FreeDuck, do you know if this talk radio host is married? If so, is her husband satisfied with the way she fulfils her marital obligation?
Sometimes I'll look at my husband and say...
"You're the man, and I have to do whatever you tell me."
Then we both just laugh and laugh.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
The next time she's on, maybe I'll call and ask her if she is fulfilling her marital obligations.
Chai, my husband and I use that same line... then we have wild master/slave sex. After which I cook him a steak.
Now there's a wife who lives up to her obligations. Bravo!
Chai Tea wrote:Sometimes I'll look at my husband and say...
"You're the man, and I have to do whatever you tell me."
Then we both just laugh and laugh.
Us, too.
I smile sideways at him, bat my eyelashes, and (in my best Donna Reed voice) say, "Yes, dear."
It always cracks him up.
I've had to think about this a bit.. and may change my mind as the thread goes on. My own marital experience doesn't exactly apply, in that I think I said 'no' only once and it was no big deal, just plain exhausted, that's it. And he said no once or twice, don't remember particular instances.
I'm sure both of us just went along with the other wanting sex lots of times, but much more often we both were interested. Frequency varied - it just does over 23 years.
Still, I sort of shut down at the word 'obligated' in this thread too. And, ugh, duty. Fuggedaboutit. I think there is a right to say no and that (yes, this again) no means no.
That said, routine 'no's' indicate trouble in River City, and I can easily see the need for counselling to figure out what is happening, and I can definitely see it all being a deal-breaker in some situations...
Maybe wife has a post-childbirth turnoff in some kind of physical-psychological self defence. Maybe husband has lost some libido for physiochemical reasons. Maybe wife is simply tired and touched out. Maybe husband is a crummy lover. Maybe romance has flown out the window, if ever there was a sense of romance. Maybe thrill has gone bye-bye, and why is that and what can be done about it, without hurling blame back and forth? Maybe one person is feeling trapped and is using sex to break through that and some hostility shows. Maybe one person is feeling trapped and withdrawing for that reason for a bit of time. Maybe none of this, and the partners are wired differently that year.
Try telling you female significant other "I'm not obligated" then get your pillow and head for the couch.
Osso jostled forth something that had bothered me about FreeDuck's account of this "therapist," namely, that the blame game doesn't solve anything. If a couple has this problem -- one wants more sex than the other -- telling either one of them that it is his or her fault isn't going to help, in either direction.
If we're assuming that the woman has a far lower sex drive than the man (which, again, is not always how it works out), telling the guy that it's his fault for being so demanding and that he has to just deal with it until the woman wants to will likely just make him resentful and frustrated; while telling the woman that it's her fault and she better fix it can make her just feel guilty and pressured. Neither of which are particularly sexy or romantic states of mind.
I know this is a version of I've said already re: compromise, but wanted to emphasize that the fault-finding itself isn't very therapeutic, IMO. I think some sort of proactive, collaborative approach is a lot more likely to get this couple back in sync.
Excellent take, osso. The frequency variation was something I was trying to figure out since my relationship is just now going on 8 years -- not really long enough to know. And I absolutely agree that too many no's signal trouble. Hopefully, in a good relationship, communication would go along way to working that trouble out.
Soz, I totally agree with everything you just said. It's so easy to see how these problems can perpetuate themselves if they're not dealt with in a positive way.
Well, I feel that a woman is not OBLIGATED to have sex, but if she isn't willing to have sex, at a very minimum, a couple times a month, then a husband should not be OBLIGATED to remain true to her.
No woman should have the gall to say "No, I won't, but you better not do it with anyone else." That's just so unfair. She should expect infidelity if that's how she feels, and she should be prepared to lose him if he finds someone in those escapades that he loves more.
But if a woman is prepared to accept that, then what kind of marriage is it? And should she be staying with him in the first place?
And by the way, I'm a woman, and I'm certainly no expert in marriage since mine is still shaky, but I really do believe all this.
and I believe sozobe is right on the blame game.
If a woman is not willing to have sex, it may not be her fault. She may have a husband who needs to be more considerate in bed, or he may just need to take a bath! Who knows? It's not always her fault.
Communication is the key, that's for sure. And a willingness to compromise.
This is the line I really liked:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote: I held out for a while and then just started f*cking everyone with a clear conscience.
So, basically, what you're saying is that you started doing women who had a clear conscience, right?
