[Lorianne]

You and others keep lecturing me about obligation but not answering the question. Assume there is an "obligation" to have sex. I'm not argueing that point (though I don't agree with it). Let's just say that obligation exists.

Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation? What is the point of that, what does the one calling in the marriage chips get out of it? Does it help the relationship? Does it make the marriage then valid? What is the long range view of such a relationship?

What I'm trying to figure out is what is the end game of this "obligation" thing? Obviously one cannot make someone love you or want to be with you or want to have sex with you ... or want any number of things. But with the obligation aspect, one coerce the other to pretend those things. But what is the point of being with someone who doesn't want to be there? What's the point?

It's not just sex.

What is the point of conversing with someone who doesn't want to converse with you, but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to converse with you? Is it enjoyable? What is the long range plan with that person?

What is the point of going out to dinner with someone who doesn't want to go out to dinner with you , but you have somehow convinced them that they have an obligation to go out to dinner with you? Is is enjoyable eating with someone who you know wouldn't be there except out of a sense of obligation? What is the long range plan with that person?

You see, it's not a matter of IF the obligation exists, what I'm trying to ask if what is the point of one person cashing in on that obligation? What is the goal of that?

[fqued]

You just don't listen. This has been answered and answered. Go back and read post #983 and 984.

Lorianne, people have answered your "questions" time and again, sometimes with very sophisticated and well-thought-out statement. Go back and read this whole thread. These questions have been answered and answered and answered.

[SauronOfMordor]

Why would a person WANT to have sex with someone who is only doing it out of obligation? What is the point of that, what does the one calling in the marriage chips get out of it? Does it help the relationship? Does it make the marriage then valid? What is the long range view of such a relationship?

See my post 979

When you have gotten to the point where sex is only happening "out of obligation", it's time to either fix what's wrong sexually, allow the unsatisfied partner to have an alternate outlet for his sexual needs, or call it quits.

[ctdonath2]

You and others keep lecturing me about obligation but not answering the question.

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.

[watchin]

I think that's best you've explained your question yet. Of course, it's already been answered.

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.