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.
” Last month I got my monthly times off and was worried I was late.”
Don’t you just LOVE that feeling?
And you can’t tell if your nausea is from pregnancy or from panic?
“He said, “I wouldn’t be mad. I’d be broke. But, I’m broke already.””
LOL!
I know how he feels.
Amazing how the little critters can swim through money.
Which makes one wonder about guys who HAVE to go without sex for a duration. What about their prostates?
Last time I was late and it was nothing, I got a pregnancy test and stared at it for five minutes to make sure I really wasn't going to wind up with another line. It was a strange thing to not see on such a test.
First, it surprises me somewhat that you would so perfunctorily tell me that you don't know. Maybe many women don't know, or just aren't sure. My wife doesn't know, either.
About the premise of the article - Prager's second sentence of this article says that men should understand that all sexual encounters shouldn't be expected to end in intercourse. I agree with that. But I'm also a guy, so the more, the better, if you get my drift.
I personally don't buy this premise that men's needs are purely or only biological and physical. It's blatantly obvious that all that is PART of it. But if that's all it is then that makes us, the human race, nothing but animals. Pretty much the polar opposite of being made in God's image.
Your question seems to discount any part of a man's desire to share an emotional, as well as physical, bond with his wife. Like if a guy can just take a couple of minutes and relieve the physical pressure he's feeling, then that's all he's interested in. Hell, let's be honest - I don't need ANY woman for that, if that's the only immediate goal I have.
It's like women claiming they have no physical need of sex; it's only the emotional connection they are seeking. I think that's far too one-dimensional of an answer for either sex to claim.
For me - and I won't claim to speak for men everywhere - I'm also seeking the emotional bond along with the physical, when I'm trying to make love to my wife. I can tell her until I'm blue in the face. But no matter how weak or strong my wordsmithing skills are, they are still just words. Even if completly heartfelt...guys are more about action. So I want to show her.
I want her to see in my eyes that I'm delighted with the woman I've chosen to make a life with. I want her to see and feel how proud I am that she chose a life with me, forsaking all others. I want to display to her, with whatever passion and intensity that I can bring to the experience that I've rejected all others, so to share these times and moments with her alone. That she's exceedingly special and important to me in so many more ways than I could ever speak in words, and that she's my earthly treasure. I want to put aside all the world's distractions for a time and build the best physical and emotional bond that I'm capable of, for as long as the moment can last.
Ask another man, if my words don't convince you.
Well, I have opinions and deductions, after almost 20 years of marriage, but so many people on these threads have been offering "data" contrary to my experience that I keep checking Der Prinz out of the corner of my eye to see if he's going to have a prostate eruption or something.
Prager's second sentence of this article says that men should understand that all sexual encounters shouldn't be expected to end in intercourse.
I assumed from that that he meant he expected oral sex or some other all-for-him interaction, because that's just my perception of him. Your mileage may vary of course. I understand some people like his writing.
Regarding the rest of your post, that is consistent with my experience with my husband, and you seem like a really nice man whose wife should be happy.
I don’t think I want to know.
Yeah, the article does start with the premise of a good and decent man. In that light, as a wife, you need to do what it takes to keep that decent man happy. I tried for a long time to keep my no good man happy and failed miserably. We have 7 great kids and I have no regrets about them. I have come to learn that happiness comes from the inside. He was and remains miserable and it is not my job to be his constant source of entertainment and/or happiness.
I’ve quit checking for signs.
I somewhat suspect checking for signs actually can CAUSE pregnancy.
There are couple of her works, The Emotional Terrorist and Prone to Violence which you may find interesting reading.
Pizzey is hugely unpopular with the feminist "women are always victims" set.
” I have come to learn that happiness comes from the inside. He was and remains miserable and it is not my job to be his constant source of entertainment and/or happiness.”
I often hear my mother-in-law make the comment regarding my husband’s stepmother....”she wanted him. she got him.”
My MIL did wind up meeting and marrying a good man who adored her.
“One observation is that there is a type of woman who NEEDS the excitement of conflict, and will work hard to provoke her husband/boyfriend into conflict with her.”
I watched one of these women at work on night many years ago.
Pushed buttons all night just so he would lose it in front of everybody.
I helped her out once thinking she needed my help.
Big mistake.
“It’s like women claiming they have no physical need of sex;”
Who ARE these women?
“It’s unfortunate that Prager, twice divorced and (I believe) currently without a wife,”
CURRENTLY WITHOUT A WIFE you say???
Really? Isn’t THAT interesting?
So, that would be TWO WIVES Mr. Prager has gone through?
Isn’t THAT interesting?
I’m married to one.
Has she been to the doctor?
Or a counselor?
I really don’t know many women like this.
Would you tell an asthma sufferer who is having an episode where she can't breathe, that this proves that she doesn't need to breathe? As an admittedly "over the top" example, it illustrates a case where one part of your body is sending screaming signals that you should perform an action, while the part that actually needs to perform the action is not working
It's one of those things you may need to be a guy to understand.
So far over the top that it doesn't elucidate at all.
Good for your MIL. I am also hoping to find a good man some day and enjoy a good/happy/fulfilling marriage. :-)
man, that’s gotta stink big time
Well, I can see their point. Sex is a bit more that intercourse. There is the enjoyment of all that goes with it. A man whose “equipment” needs help does not forget all of the enjoyment of being with a woman
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.