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]
It's pointless. It's only a vain and pathetic hope that the other person will be swayed by the obligation argument. As you state, you can't demand true love. Affection by obligation is a sham.
The obligation must be understood from the start of the marriage, and WILLINGLY and enthusiastically embraced. Anyone who marries without doing so is making false promises as the "I do" leaves his lips.
In the short term, it is conceivable that one partner has a selfish spasm and needs a tender loving reminder.
By the time one party feels he must constantly remind the other of the obligations of marriage, things are looking pretty bleak. In the long term, if one doesn't fulfil the obligations, it's only a matter of time until either they divorce, or the ignored party simply throws up his hands and returns the favor.
I don't beleive it is more difficult for a woman, if she have a loving, caring partner. I have several girlfriends that say they have never had even one, but IMO, at least in their cases, it is because their husbands are more interested in their own satisfaction, not their wife's (which is a shame because it could be even better for the man if he made sure his woman was happy too).
The ages of the women they researched would effect it as well because it gets easier to have an orgasm as you get closer to your peak.
I also disagree with this. As a woman gets older, she can have as many circulation problems as a man, so it can either take longer or maybe not happen at all. The good news is there is help available.:)
I wouldn't be surprised if more than 80% of teen girls that are sexually active had never had one because their bodies aren't as developed as they need to be yet and they and their partners aren't as experienced.
I guess we disagree quite a bit, at least about teen girls bodies not being developed enough to have orgasms. I was a teenage girl a long time ago and I think that's about all I want to say about this.
Excellent response.
They make special products just for that problem, they are called intimate moisturizers these days.
Very true. 'tis something that raises us above the animals. A good and righteous person will channel and/or supress that drive; no matter how frustrating, 'tis best to only seek release in optimal proper situations.
The problem with Lorianne's argument is that she seems to think it can be simply shut off, which is not true. One's sex drive may be channelled or suppressed, but the nagging need remains and can - in a moment of weakness and temptation - be indulged improperly. A good spouse will not (barring special cases) deny the proper satisfaction of needs of the other. Sex is not simply an amusement to be engaged in with an arbitrary enthusiastic partner, it is a basic human need to be engaged in only with a devoted (enthusiastic or not) partner.
The Bible loudly condemns adultery for good reason.
The Bible also clearly directs couples to marry and give themselves physically, upon request, to each other for good reason.
To make sure the hole in the boat does not get bigger.
If "obligation sex" is pointing to a problem damaging the relationship, obviously just ignoring the problem and demanding obligation sex won't fix the problem...but neither will witholding sex entirely.
Let's rephrase the situation:
If one spouse does not want sex, out of love both the one who wants it should not insist on it, and the one who does not want it should not deny/avoid it; both should seek to serve the other's needs and desires, and work to fix the problem and find a mutually satisfying middle ground.
LOL. The new one I saw at the drugstore yesterday was called a "warming lotion". Says it "heats up on contact".
What will they think of next...
Well, perhaps that is where patience comes into play. Deep deep intimacy takes years, I think, to develop. And here I have to confess that I am an optimist where marriage is concerned. Every marriage goes through seasons of lack of desire, boredom, etc., but seasons pass. IF (and I realize this is a big 'if') both partners are committed to the marriage and to loving each other, then the physical relationship will not languish in mediocrity forever. I've read what some had said on this thread about men giving their wives help in the kitchen, with the children, and what some have said about wives always expecting more and more, all the while dangling the carrot of sex in front of their husbands. I've also read comments referring to how some men only consider their own satisfaction, not caring whether or not their wives enjoy this part of their marriage or not, she's just obligated.
The bottom line to me is this: Love is desiring to act in the best interest of another person, without too much regard for "what do I get out of it?" If both my husband and myself have this attitude toward each other, then everything else has at least an even chance of falling into place. Barring illness, I will not let my body become so out of shape and overweight that my husband doesn't desire me. I will not criticize him constantly. I will make him feel 'safe' with me, no matter what happens, no matter how he 'performs'. I will not make a habit of always being 'too tired' or 'having a headache.' I will tell him that he is attractive to me, that I desire him, and let him know when he pleases me. My husband will do the same sorts of things for me, not entirely or merely on a reciprocal basis, but because we are both focused on the same goal, which is giving 100% for each other.
What to do about the marriage when one just doesn't care? I know of marriages that continue in this way. There is more to marriage than the physical, and I think our society is a little too obsessed with "good sex." But I still go back to that bottom line, which is desiring the highest good for your marriage partner. If one can get to that point and stay there, there can be hope that the other person will come around.
They wouldn't be able to keep it in stock...
Just denying sex (unresponsive or enthusiastic), collecting on your marital obligations from the other spouse (to not force you into anything you don't want to do), would also be sweeping the problems under the rug.
Ignoring the need doesn't mean it's not there.
True. It goes both ways. But pretense is not the answer. I feel women are being instructed to pretend on the basis of "obligation" and this is ultimately damaging to the relationship for both parties. Ultimately, the one pretending becasue she feels she must is going to feel "used" and the other spouse is also going to feel unfulfilled knowing the sex is not offered out of true sexual desire and not mutually enjoyed.
IMO I don't see anything good that can come out of a pretenses such as this. It would seem to me to delay or permanently defer dealing with other issues.
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.