Replies

Okay, let us start with a concept that I don't think anyone would disagree with.

I am married and have four children. I have plenty of obligations, duties, responsibilities toward those children. I MUST fulfill those obligations REGARDLESS of whether I want to, feel like it, am appreciated, respected, thanked or not. If I don't feel like fulfilling my obligations, and therefore didn't, I will be roundly condemned, and rightly so.

Yes, it would be nice to be appreciated, but that is secondary to the duty, itself.

What if my kids do not appreciate my fulfilling my obligations, like telling them they can't do this, or must do that? What if they "hate" me for it? That does not change my obligation.

(interesting sidenote: my kids have obligations, duties, and responsibilities, also. One of those is to respect and obey their parents (baring truly immoral demands, etc). If they don't respect me or obey, does that change the fact that I have responsibilities to them? no.)

That is the concept of obligation, of duty, of responsibility.

Now on to second concept. Men (especially younger men) have a sex drive as big as all outdoors. A married man much prefers sex with a willing wife, but sex with a stiff wife is preferred to no sex at all. Look at it as a scale of one to ten. Sex with a willing turned-on wife is ten, no sex is zero. Sex with a wife who grudgingly gives it is maybe a two or three. The man, relatively speaking, wants a two or a three more than a zero. He settles for what he can get.

Now on the ontological problem--what is the end result of all this?
The issue is not really the problem of the man having sex with a grudging wife, there is a logically prior problem that you have a man who wants sex and a woman who doesn't. That is the issue, and that is, metaphorically speaking, a quadraplegic marriage.

Now see the beauty of the concept of obligations in marriage. (Keep in mind that the obligation of sex is only one of the many obligations that both husband and wife have.) The concept of obligation gives a foundation to a marriage--a solid firm ground. So, taking just the issue of sex, the woman who does not really have any interest in sex, understands that the giving of sex to her husband is part of that which makes a solid marriage. This same principle applies to all the other obligations.

And YOU and EVERYONE have obligations to your spouse(s).

QUERY TO EVERYONE: YOU TOOK AND GAVE WEDDING VOWS. THOSE ARE OBLIGATIONS. WHAT WERE THEY, AND ARE YOU FULFILLING THOSE? DO YOU CONSIDER THOSE THE ONLY OBLIGATIONS YOU HAVE TO YOUR SPOUSE?

I MUST fulfill those obligations REGARDLESS of whether I want to, feel like it, am appreciated, respected, thanked or not

You are totally right.

On the heels of being widowed I remember being "dead man walking" for over a year. If I did not have a very strong sense of obligation I do not know what would have kept me going. My kids could care less about "my" feelings. They need(ed) to be provided for - period.

My inspiration every morning when my alarm buzzed was from the Dunkin Donut commercials

"Time to make the donuts" I figured if he could endure it (even if it was a pretend person) then I could too. So many mornings those would be the first words out of my mouth when the alarm went off.

I'm starting to see the divergence of viewpoints here.

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