Posted on 12/29/2008 11:11:17 PM PST by goldstategop
n Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.)
In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness.
Why?
Here are eight reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex.
1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex.
2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
This brings us to the next reasons.
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. She never “should” have it. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.”
4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. To many women, especially among the best educated, the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.
5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings.
6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it?
7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety.
8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long.
The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.”
That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex.
If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.
That's where we picked up the term.
OR in other words (as I said) they *aren't* "always ready"; they just wish they were.
My wife is 43 and I'm 51 and we have a slew of kids but all in all it's still wonderful even though my water runs a hair warmer than her’s she still has more than her share of go get em.
I have never believed this notion that women get hornier in their late 30s and 40s but I do think they get maybe more comfortable with what they want sexually.
Neither are all men horndogs like some think, with testosterone declining naturally as much as it has in younger fellers it would not surprise me to see more and more more sexually less inclined men.
I don't think a woman is obligated to have sex with her mate either just for duty sake but she has to try to keep him somewhat satisfied just to keep it all going.
Women need a lot more input in sex than men....way more and from a lot of perspectives emotional and physical but it doesn't always have to be rose petals and candles....spontaneity is nice too.....and passion.
If a couple really have passion for each other then hopefully through sex they will reach a point of personal intimacy where folks get as close as two humans can get to one another through coitus primarily. It's sounds goofy but the cliche that really intimate sex between folks who love one another and have a vested life entangled with each other can almost feel as one together....well, it's true.
just my musings as a n old guy...
it's easier for men, especially with ED meds....women have to try to stay thin and pretty and it's hard....folks have to maintain a perspecteive on it.
we all wish our wive’s were like the girl in the James song “laid” but that sorta thing ain't gonna keep on happening forever especially after 2 or more younguns pop out.
i dunno....man, women are just so great sexually but they are not always easy
i really have always lived for that more than anything earthly but now with many children it's sorta taken a back seat to number two with children now first.
in my youth after aged 19 or so....chase girls or make money to chase girls
I think God everyday that he put them here....they can be so incredibly lovely and I got a good one
hope all youngbloods here get lucky..but remember to be good to them
I agree. However, the other point being made, at least by some, is that men are wind-up ejaculation machines, and that's simply not true of all individuals at all times. Otherwise, as I pointed out, there'd be no market for "chemical assistants."
“I remember stories about women in my grandmother’s era lying still and enduring sex as a marital duty. Is that the glorious past to which you wish to return?”
And I remember stories from Boy Scout campouts about ghosts roaming the woods. Just about the same degree of credibility.
“Of course, the bargain made for her submissive cooperation was that the male had to fully financialy support her and remain monogamous.”
And there’s your real objection. It was a two-way street. Both men and women had marital rights and responsibilties, and both were expected to live up to them. Under the one-way feminist regime, men only have responsibilities, women only have rights.
“(Women do tend to put on weight to discourage advances under those conditions”
That must be why Reubens’ models failed to meet modern standards of emaciation, why the Germans spoke admiringly and proudly of dicke fette Frauen, why Tevya in “Fiddler” wishes he were rich so his wife could get fat. Jeez. The world didn’t start the day you were born.
“or they develop psychiatric problems as were common in the Victorian era.)”
Another myth.
“If you truly want a cold fish in bed enduring your advances because of duty and finacial insecurity”
You just hate it that women used to have responsibilities within marriage, don’t you? The circumstances you describe were hardly common, despite your hatred of the notion that husbands have marital rights.
“I would rather have a loving relationship with which to share life’s experience and to help validate my existence, but then I am a female.”
Yeah, right. You’t rather have social approval for the withholding of marital rights as an exercise of power.
You’re a genius, Laz.
“Doesn’t and shouldn’t”
Does and should.
Fer corn’s sake, the withholding of marital rights is one of the few traditional justifications for divorce.
Genuis: Guy Entering Nebulous Universe, Intelligence Suspect.
Let’s just say that some men don’t have to play the obligation card. Mr. Prager is obviously not one of those men.
LOL... that's pretty good.
True.
LOL!
Now the deal is, we are supposed to provide sex on demand, earn "our share" of the income, do all the housework, remain forever attractive, and still provide sex on demand. In return we get... um... what do we get? OH! Someone to mow the lawn.
You're kidding, right? That's what the Guatemalan landscape service is for.
“Her husband arrived home unexpectedly and said “I need to use you,” so her friend had to leave.”
Uh, huh. And if were 2008 Seattle, and a guy and his buddies were sitting on the sofa with their feet up on the coffee table watching the Super Bowl, and his “career woman” girlfriend came in and threw all the buddies out and turned off the TV because she wanted some, there’d be nothing but applause from the distaff section of the bleachers.
“earn “our share” of the income”
Blame feminism for that one.
He’s yet to figure out his contribution to the problem. Until he does he will remain unsuccessful with women.
Exactly. You made my point clearer.
It really doesn’t matter to me who is to blame. It still boils down to this: I know what it’s like to be with a man who has no sense of fair play, and now he knows what it’s like to have to start over alone.
nothing personal but Abigail Adams was sort of a strident liberal of her day.
women as fish metaphors is dangerous territory hoss..lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.