Posted on 05/15/2003 12:50:59 PM PDT by WaveThatFlag
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:48:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A few times in my 12 years writing this column, I've stumbled on a topic so unsettling to readers that it demanded a follow-up. Last month was one of those times, when my story on the problems of dual-income, no-sex marriages drew a torrent of e-mail that read as if I'd jabbed an open wound.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Your analogy fails because there is a dramatic difference between a friend and a spouse. Let's change your example slightly, yet dramatically:
If I desperately need $5,000 and my spouse gives it to me out of love, that's great. But what if I told the friend that s/he is obligated to give me the $5,000 because that's what' marriage is about.A friend is never truly obligated. A spouse is.
A spouse is OBLIGATED to financially support the other (greater need aside). If one desperately needs financial support, the other IS obligated to provide that support, regardless of whether s/he "wants to", and regardless of whether s/he must be reminded of that obligation.
Brought back to the topic...
A spouse is obligated (by voluntary total commitment) to fulfill the needs of the other, including sexual needs (unless there is some particular/compelling/conflicting reason).
If nothing else, both can (and should) take comfort and satisfaction in knowing that through their bond and devotion to each other, the needs of one are satisfied by the service of the other - whether the need is financial, sexual, or other, and whether the giver "wants" to. Friends have not committed their whole beings to serving each other; spouses have.
You worry that a friend may ask too much.
You miss the point, confusing friends and spouses.
A spouse has asked for - and has been promised - everything; the error is not in asking too much, but is in not giving enough.
Nope, but being a business owner for twenty years (independent software consultant -- currently looking for work) required me to become very familiar with business law and contract law, and my 2nd Amendment interests got me reading a lot about Constitutional law
One piece of advice I was given was to find his breaking point. Proposition him every night consecutively - until he says I just can't perform tonight dear. Who do you think wore out first and how many days do you think it took? If you have never ponedered this scenario - then you are still operating under the belief that sex is for him instead of for "THEM".
If she says it doesn't matter, isn't eager, has no interest - she has been faking it and has never really had one. If she had she would want it as much as you do. She won't ask - and she will deny that she might like to find out - because our culture tells women that it's a man thing, that the bedroom is his domain. She will think that you are buttering her up in order to get something for yourself for the first little while. (You are - but she will win a lot more than you will in the endevor.) Change the rules - change the perception -prove to her that sex is a cooperative venture, and make her believe she deserves as much satisfaction as you do and she will begin to open up. After a while - when she begins to learn that she can have as much satisfaction as he can - she will start to act like it. I just hope you can handle it.
From Lorianne's viewpoint, it seems like a lack of sexual interest on the wife's part is a fact of life, to be accepted and lived with.
From my viewpoint (and I think fqued's and others), lack of sexual interest is a defect in the relationship, to be remedied (by whatever means necessary) before it damages the relationship.
If you were in a boat, and a fist-sized hole suddenly opened up below the waterline, most people would not just stare at it and go "how interesting". You would recognise it as something that must be fixed before the boat sinks. Similarly, a breach in the relationship must be fixed, quickly, before the marriage sinks
We HAVE answered the question. You refuse to understand it.
Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation?
Because that person has a natural, powerful drive to have sex (an act that requires two people) and that someone has committed his/her self to satisfying the other's needs (including sex).
Because the alternative is misery or adultery.
Because if the spouse won't, someone else will.
Because the drive for sex increases until the desire is somehow satisified.
Because "I don't want to" does not satisfy the need of the other.
Because bad sex is more satisfying than no sex.
Because marriage is ultimately about sex.
Because lack of interest by one does not address the deep, powerful, hormonal, irresistable interest by the other.
Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation?
Why would a person WANT to deny sex with someone who has obligated his/her self to that person?
Why would a person accept another's voluntary obligation to monogamy, only to deny that agreed-to sole outlet of a fundamental human need?
Why would a person want to neglect the needs of their spouse?
Why would a person want to risk driving their sex-starved spouse into the arms of another?
Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation?
Because in having a need they turn to the sole person who can and will properly satisfy that need.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "All cats are gray in the dark."
No, that is not my viewpoint.
From my viewpoint (and I think fqued's and others), lack of sexual interest is a defect in the relationship, to be remedied (by whatever means necessary) before it damages the relationship.
This is my viewpoint. To remedy the lack of interest.
If you were in a boat, and a fist-sized hole suddenly opened up below the waterline, most people would not just stare at it and go "how interesting". You would recognise it as something that must be fixed before the boat sinks. Similarly, a breach in the relationship must be fixed, quickly, before the marriage sinks
Right. IMO the action to repair the boat will not be done if one spouse simply accepts "obligation" sex and ignores the underlying problems. IMO, simply accepting things means simply accepting sex given under obligation and not trying to fix the relationship so that sex is a shared mutually satisfying experience. Allowing it to be one-sided under the pretext of obligation is ignoring the hole in the boat letting the boat sink.
So, why would a spouse want obligation sex? What is the end goal? Is it to just have sex regardless if the marriage is sinking?
ding ding ding we have a winner here! ;-)
I find that hard to believe, sort of. Of course, women are different than men. Some do not have purely vaginal orgasms due to the fact that the analogous organs in men are the testes.
Hey guys, have you ever had a testicular orgasm? Probably not. Women have got mini-penises that have all the nerve endings necessary to produce the big "O" if it's treated in a careful and relaxed manner. It's not so difficult really. Women need the added dimension of "being sexy", an intellectual event to get off, more than men.
It just takes a little more time and attention than humping and ejaculating. And they love you for it, as long as you can keep it up, so to speak.
Here is another analogy. It may seem totally off the subject at first glance, but bear with me.
I once was complaining to a friend that I wished that since God is all powerful, why didn't He just make us obey Him and make us love Him, instead of it always being a struggle, and she said that wouldn't satisfy God, that even God wants to be loved out of desire on our part. She asked if I would like it if my husband just loved me because he had to love me, and had no choice in the matter? Because then he would like a 'robot' with no real feeling on his part, just obligation. And no, I wouldn't like that. Is that sort of what you are saying?
I haven't read everything you've said, just went back and kind of picked up on this last part of the discussion, so excuse me if I'm clueless :-)
Marriages don't sink. People make decisions. Marriages don't do, think or say anything. When 2 people are devoted to each other, there is much more tenacity involved than if one or both are secretly waiting for something better to come along.
Getting married has been reduced to going steady in the western world, even if there are children's lives involved. It's not a good thing.
No worries. I'd say you covered it pretty well, but if you are trying to convince the Big 'L', I do not think you will be very successful. She tends to not accept that one can do something for a spouse for purely altruistic reasons, and has already stated that it is akin to 'Rape' if it is anything other than when she is 'in the mood'. So the 'L' with her.
Yes, we understand too well about obligations, both self-imposed and obligatory. She, however, simply cannot accept that along with the marriage vows come certain obligations If they were not there, why marry in the first place? When you marry someone, you are stating formally that certain obligations are accepted, not simply the ones you are most comfortable with. It is not simply to Love, Honor, and Cherish, but also to fill a need in each other. There is a reason that the Vows include "Forsaking all others", and sex is part of the bargain. I would really like to meet her (alleged) husband, and shake his hand. He is a much better man than I.
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.