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.
There's masturbation. Men who go without ejaculation for a while can have spontaneous nocturnal emission. Men locked up in prison for long duration will even turn to other men.
Regarding men in a marriage who don't get sex from their wives for an extended period, it is invalid to assume that they are not getting their sexual release in some other way.
What seems to be a fundamental difference between men and women is that a man does not necessarily need to have an emotional attachment to a woman, or even particularly like her, in order to have satisfying sex with her.
Yes, both his wives have divorced him (transitive verb and direct object intentional). Here is a link to a quite interesting bio of someone I’m awfully glad I’m not married to (dangling preposition intentional :-):
http://www.lukeford.net/Dennis/indexp2.html
And she writes a check every month to a life coach. I don't know what it's costing me, I just mail it.
I was referring to when a woman cannot due to pregnancy or a physical reason.
In that case, I’m going to stop trying to communicate the concept. It is. Guys experience it. I guess it’s one of this things where you need to be a guy to understand.
Which is why a woman might reasonably conclude, if her experience supported such a conclusion, that sex has nothing to do with love, and nothing to do with her. It's just him and his prostate.
Fortunately, my experience has not led to this conclusion, but reading threads where people discuss their personal values (as it were) can be like reading "People" magazine: "Eeew, I'm glad I don't know those people!"
That’s fine. It was thoughtful of you to try.
oh my goodness!
you poor thing.
Sounds like she could benefit from a good dose of something.
Or an attitude adjustment.
I thought life coaches were supposed to help with things like...life?
Has she tried some raspberry leaf tea or Gypsy love tea (I know the name sounds funny), but herbals do help jumpstart the hormones sometimes. Maybe she can do a little research and see what helps.
I’ve actually been very impressed w/ Sarah’s intellect and conservative principles.
She thinks like I do. ‘Pod.
Thanks for the link.
Funny - seems very smart, but I’m glad I’m not married to him.
For all the effort he seems to put into writing about happiness, he doesn’t seem very happy.
Yes, he appears to be troubled. That doesn’t make everything he says wrong, of course ... although I’ve never considered him a conservative, really. However, if I want advice on marriage, childrearing, dog-training, or being happy, I’d start by asking someone who’s accomplished the activity with a fair amount of success, not a “theorist.”
She mentioned that she had been divorced three times, and so I wrote her off.
She did say one interesting thing though.
In giving advice to women she said:
“If you are married and do not have deep issues like violence etc, stay married.
“Work on your marriage instead of changing husbands, each man is a bad as the next.”
I laughed and dealt with it with out any “professional” help.
Well, doesn't that make her an expert at getting divorced?
“Work on your marriage instead of changing husbands, each man is a bad as the next.”
I wouldn't put it that way, but I agree in principle. I'd say, "Any other man you marry is going to be a human being, just like this one. And you'll still be one, too."
Two human beings (plus offspring, plus livestock) ... it is what it is.
: >)
One phrase my wife used at the time and still uses from time to time is “you are not the kind of man a woman throws away”.
I rack what happened to me up to this incredibly common tale: http://www.fredoneverything.net/Divorce.shtml
During those last months I read a book called Dance of Anger. Very interesting. Also, my ex was into “repressed memories” at that time and thought she had some. She convinced me to go to a class called “Learning to live, Learning to love”. It was done at our church (large one).
There was a womans class and a mens class. The mens classroom text really hammered men on all sorts of stuff, which I thought was great. Both sides need to look at what they can change - focus on their own problems.
Then I found out both sides were using the same text!!!
But regarding the “needing conflict” thing. My teacher was extremely concerned about me “repressing memories” of my parents fighting and their “spanking” me. I was too. I remembered no fights and only one “spanking”.
I called my mother and found out that the only time she ever spanked me was the one time I remembered, and they NEVER fought in front of us. They always went into the bedroom.
My ex, in the meantime, had parents that fought all the time and her father had had an affair with the neighbor.
We were too dissimilar. It didn’t become a serious problem until our oldest became a teenager. I handle conflict by becoming “Mr. Spock”. I want to get to the problem and solve it without mucking it up with emotion. And the more strident she gets, the more calm I appear. Her inferrence of my actions was that I “didn’t care”. If I cared, I would yell back.
But enough about that.
My wife is from a family where the mother and father were so devoted to each other (and still are) that it is sickening. ;)
And I am reaping the benefits of the example they set.
It’s all about the Gift of the Maggi, and other stuff. You work on your responsibilities in the relationship and let your spouse work on theirs. If both of you feel that way, it is the closest thing to heaven on earth that you will find.
I honestly never knew a man could feel this way about a woman, nor feel as loved and respected by his woman as I do. Not even close...
Or, as one friend said - and my husband and I keep saying we won’t say - “Better the devil you know than the one you don’t.”
Guys do fall in love with women, and an emotional attachment does enhance the sexual experience. Different guys have different needs. In general, though, guys are more able to separate sex from emotion than women can, otherwise prostitution would not be the world's oldest profession.
For most of their pubescent lives, we tell daughters to wait for love. To expect to be romanced, cherished and valued. Not to get pregnant! Not to be a slut! Behave like a lady! Then men expect their wives to rev their motors at the drop of a hat and respond biologically and psychologically as they do. The more husbands have the patience to romance, cherish, show wives they are valued and loved, the easier and faster it becomes for women to relax phsycologically and respond.
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.