Now you can beat your wife !!

[John Paton]

I live in Melbourne Australia and this story has surfaced.

A local Islamic cleric has told his male followers


you can force your wife to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient and despite Australian rape laws it was impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex with him.

Islamic law allowed men to hit their wives as a last resort, but they were not to make them bleed or become bruised.


he also went on to say

under Islamic law, it was a man's right to demand sex from his wife whenever he felt like it.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24945543-661,00.html

It is so unfortunate we have to put up with "religious" leaders of this ilk. I say ship him off overseas. Any takers ??

But the Prophet Mohammed says


'The best of you is he who is kindest to his wife'


Why do some people get so outta whack ??

[Clair Dickson]

Why do some people get so outta whack?

Because it suits there own selfish desires. And probably a lack of empathy for anyone.

[Kateri]

I live in Melbourne Australia and this story has surfaced.

A local Islamic cleric has told his male followers



he also went on to say



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24945543-661,00.html

It is so unfortunate we have to put up with "religious" leaders of this ilk. I say ship him off overseas. Any takers ??

But the Prophet Mohammed says



Why do some people get so outta whack ??

I was also outraged at this story, John. These comments are from someone who has distorted a message from their Holy Book. They were not supported and Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, was horrified. Comments and people like him remind us that violence towards women must be passionately and vehemently stopped. Perhaps his own ego is the driving force here. God bless his wife!

As to why some people get so out of WHACK ? Well, I don't know, perhaps it is so that those who know better, vigilantly do better.

[RobJ]

A MELBOURNE Islamic cleric has told his male followers they can force their wives to have sex and hit them if they are disobedient.
Non-muslims have been following this practice for centuries. Many still do, even in societies in which either act might be considered unlawful.

Cheers,
Rob

[Kateri]

Spot on Rob. The talk he was giving was to a large group of young men. It is not a specific cultural issue but a universal social issue.

[Plot Device]

The phrase "do not use a stick larger than your thumb" suddenly came to me.

Good old Google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=twQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA590&lpg=PA590&dq=%22not+use+a+stick+larger+than+his+thumb%22&source=bl&ots=gDKjt3I1kh&sig=9afCJY6PwilBUQhoND0bckZFk3s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

[KikiteNeko]

"If I demand sex and my wife says no, how is that rape?"

Le sigh. What a sad little man.

[HeronW]

taking a baseball bat to abusers works for me.

[selkn.asrai]

A lot of men (wrongfully) think that if a man forces sex with his spouse, it's not rape because they're married.

I've heard chauvinists and misogynists use this argument. Rape is the act of strangers, muggers and blind dates. Husbands are incapable of rape. Just rightful dominance.

*shudder*

[Clair Dickson]

Some religions... including Catholicism teach that the woman's body belongs to the man after marriage. They temper it by also saying that a man's body belongs to the woman. But the first door can certainly lead to problems.

(I know because I heard this stuff during my marriage prep.)

[Cranky]

We can point fingers and be all aghast, but here in the US, I don't think a husband was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife until the '70's.

We made the leap, but not all that long ago, this was a pretty mainstream belief, not simply the province of mysogynists and fringe folks.

[Monkey]

It's certainly not just Islamic men who feel entitled to sex with their wife any time they please.

This was a link posted here at AW by another member:
Here is a working link that professes a similar view AND refers back to the original article, links included

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=7840

And I've had experience with a man with a similar attitude...he was definitely not Islamic or even Christian.

As for hitting your wife, that's not limited to one religion, either. Just look up "Christian Domestic Discipline".

I think it's all sick.

[kuwisdelu]

A lot of men (wrongfully) think that if a man forces sex with his spouse, it's not rape because they're married.

Sadly, rape laws in some states still reflect this thinking. I suspect they're the same states with laws that say rape can only be done by a man.

We can point fingers and be all aghast, but here in the US, I don't think a husband was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife until the '70's.

We made the leap, but not all that long ago, this was a pretty mainstream belief, not simply the province of mysogynists and fringe folks.

[Captshady]

It's certainly not just Islamic men who feel entitled to sex with their wife any time they please.

This was a link posted here at AW by another member:
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage...d9904e41c0&t=c [edit] Apparently that link doesn't work anymore. It was an article about how women should never refuse their husbands sex because men equate sex with love. Refusing sex, according to the article, could lead to unfaithfulness and divorce, and there was more than a hint of "and it would be the woman's fault!"

The article didn't say any such thing. The article addressed circumstances of if a woman is incessantly "not being in the mood" for sex (a hugely common occurance) when she's married to a good man. There's a huge damned difference.

[Cranky]

Sadly, rape laws in some states still reflect this thinking. I suspect they're the same states with laws that say rape can only be done by a man.

Point taken. I shall resist the urge to google to find out which states. Gah!

[Shadow_Ferret]

Why do some people get so outta whack ??
I have no idea. If everyone lived by these principles, it would be a much better, happier, satisfied world.

*ducks the thrown chairs*

[AncientEagle]

When we got married, I told my wife she would have the right to beat me any time I didn't want sex when she did. So far, she's never hit me.

But seriously, why do these things happen? Ignorance, aided and abetted by a culture that allows it.

[Joe270]

I don't think a husband was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife until the '70's.

That's probably a reflection of an increase in womens' greater economic freedom from the 50s and 60s, finally overcoming matrimonial oppression.

Prior to the 50s, it was exceedingly difficult for women to get a decent paying job. There was still a general attitude that women couldn't do 'man's work', like firefighting, police work, most industrial jobs, etc. Women in the military?!? That's just crazy talk.

It takes breaking that economic prison where women must rely on their husbands for a living, where women are kept out of the workforce. We're getting there in the USA, but there's still some ground to make up, like equal pay for equal work.

[Monkey]

CaptShady, this is from the originally quoted article:

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him.

<snip for brevity>

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant.


You're saying that's NOT implying that telling your husband you aren't in the mood for sex can lead to marital strife? That if this happens, it's not the woman's fault?

If a woman does not want sex, and the man forces himself on her, it is rape. If the man uses blackmail, even if he's using the relationship itself as blackmail, it's still rape. Don't tell me that it's necessary because women want sex so infrequently. That's a load of crap. Different people have different sex drives, and if this was going to be a huge problem in the marriage, then you should have discovered that BEFORE you said "I do".

[Plot Device]

The article didn't say any such thing. The article addressed circumstances of if a woman is incessantly "not being in the mood" for sex (a hugely common occurance) when she's married to a good man. There's a huge damned difference.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing that spousal rape is wrong, or if you are saying that sometimes it's okay.

What ARE you saying?

[Captshady]

CaptShady, this is from the originally quoted article:



You're saying that's NOT implying that telling your husband you aren't in the mood for sex can lead to marital strife? That if this happens, it's not the woman's fault?

That's what I'm saying, yes. It IS saying that it can lead to marital strife and that the woman shares in the responsibility.

If a woman does not want sex, and the man forces himself on her, it is rape. If the man uses blackmail, even if he's using the relationship itself as blackmail, it's still rape. Don't tell me that it's necessary because women want sex so infrequently.

NEVER said that!!!!!!!! You love to turn anyone that disagrees with you into a monster.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing that spousal rape is wrong, or if you are saying that sometimes it's okay.

What ARE you saying?

Spousal rape is wrong.

[Plot Device]

So you're saying:

A) A high frequency of a wife choosing to refuse her husband can lead to ...

C) marital strife which ...

D) is partly the woman's fault, and yet ...

E) no case of marital strife should ever justify/lead to force and/or violence.

[kuwisdelu]

Point taken. I shall resist the urge to google to find out which states. Gah!

Good news: I googled it myself. This was the case a few years ago (well...is the 90's still "a few years ago"?). It's since been criminalized all across the US.

Bad news: Many states still treat it as a lesser crime with more lenient penalties. IMO, penalties for rape are too lenient as it is.

[Monkey]

NEVER said that!!!!!!!! You love to turn anyone that disagrees with you into a monster.

Captshady, I've never called you a monster, thought of you as such, or meant to imply anything like that about you. This is an issue that hits close to home for me, and I appologize if any of my responses have seemed to vilify you or have been out of step with the general tone of the thread.

But the original article that I'm refering to was repulsive to me, mainly for the part I quoted, but also for "Part II" of that same rant. I originally posted it to make my point that the idea that women somehow owed their bodies to their husbands was not just an Islamic concept. I didn't mention who posted it, and I didn't mean it as an attack. After that, I was clarifying my position on the ARTICLE, not on any POSTER.

[Captshady]

So you're saying:

A) A high frequency of a wife choosing to refuse her husband can lead to ...

C) marital strife which ...

D) is partly the woman's fault, and yet ...

E) no case of marital strife should ever justify/lead to force and/or violence.

Sure. No case of any strife should ever justify/lead to force and/or violence.

[Shadow_Ferret]

So you're saying:

A) A high frequency of a wife choosing to refuse her husband can lead to ...

C) marital strife which ...

D) is partly the woman's fault, and yet ...

E) no case of marital strife should ever justify/lead to force and/or violence.
Wouldn't it be MOSTLY the woman's fault? I mean if she's the one refusing...

[kuwisdelu]

Well...I'll certainly say disagreement in sex drives generally causes marital (or relationship) strife. Doesn't matter who's refusing who. However, it's no one's fault, just something that should either have been dealt with beforehand or compromised on. You can't blame people for their sex drives, but it's something important to be dealt with in any meaningful relationship.

Needless to say, that's no justification for rape.

[Shadow_Ferret]

However, it's no one's fault, just something that should either have been dealt with beforehand or compromised on.

I disagree. It's the fault of whoever is doing the refusing.

[cethklein]

This is a problem in the UK as well. People need to appreciate America for the fact that unlike the UK and Australia, we've yet to allow Islamic fundamentalists to dictate our laws (it's only a matter of time before Australia starts giving them exceptions like Britain did.) I hope I'm wrong but I'm probably right.

[veinglory]

I would say refusal would lead to strife only in a troubled marraige where discussion and work on the problem did not occur.

I would say "marital strife" is meaningless. And where there is disagreement it is pointless to even thinking of laying blame. If there are disagreements and they are seen as individually owned, this is a troubled marraige.

I would further suggest that once violence (including rape) occured the Austrlian police will apply the law, as written and in full. Including in most cases that the abused spouse need not press charges for an arrest to occur.

So if it seems a person is being abused and may not be willing to seek help, this is where the neighbors and community have a role to play. Australia has a far different culture to the UK--and I do not know of a case even in the UK where islamic law is respected by the rule of law. Only a few idiots in positions of purely religious authority (Islamic and Christian) have even suggested that it should. Those in the police force have rejected these suggestion as counter to the innate need for the impartial rule of law as laid out by the Westminster system.

As for the refuser being at fault. If a man tortures and kills his wife's dog in the morning, how is not having sex in the evening her fault? Even if laying blame was helpful, it cannot be done in a blanket fashion. And that overlooks the notion that an unwilling women should submit to her body being "used" because it is her duty to please her husband. Why not the other way around? If not having sex would please the wife, this is equally the husbands duty to please her--especially as he has other ways to acheive orgasm and sex with an unwilling partner would seem to serve no other purpose.

[/horrified rant]

[Haggis]

Wouldn't it be MOSTLY the woman's fault? I mean if she's the one refusing...

I disagree. It's the fault of whoever is doing the refusing.

Say the husband is a complete jerk. Refuses to work. Refuses to bathe. Refuses to do a thing around the house to help, and treats his wife like a maid. Would it still be the woman's fault?

[Donkey]

My wife likes a good beating before sex, and I have the bruises to prove it. :D

(That was a joke)

With egocentric sociopaths like this guy, the real kick is having total power over another human being. I say, let's put him the slammer and marry him off to Bruno, the homosexual S&M master.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Say the husband is a complete jerk. Refuses to work. Refuses to bathe. Refuses to do a thing around the house to help, and treats his wife like a maid. Would it still be the woman's fault?That scenario, no.

I was using the sex as blackmail scenario. Withholding sex until she gets her way. Or as punishment.

[Monkey]

Ferret,

Sex, when wanted, is a really awesome thing.

Sex, when not wanted, is emotionally and, for a woman, physically painful. It leaves you with a sick feeling in your stomach and a strong desire not to be touched by the person you just had sex with.

It's not a woman's "fault" if she's trying to avoid that second feeling. She shouldn't be put in that position.

EDIT:

Wait, nope...we're in agreement, I guess. Withholding sex as blackmail or punishment or whatever sucks, will cause problems in a marriage, and would be the woman's fault.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Ferret,

Sex, when wanted, is a really awesome thing.

Sex, when not wanted, is emotionally and, for a woman, physically painful. It leaves you with a sick feeling in your stomach and a strong desire not to be touched by the person you just had sex with.

It's not a woman's "fault" if she's trying to avoid that second feeling. She shouldn't be put in that position.
I have no idea what you're talking about because it isn't what I was talking about.

ETA: Nevermind, we agree on something. :)

ETA2: And at no time have I ever argued it's OK for the man to force himself upon her.

[veinglory]

Then you might need to restate what ypu meant because I read it the same way.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Then you might need to restate what ypu meant because I read it the same way.
Me? Read what the same way?

[Captshady]

IIRC, in countries where sharia law is the law of the land, the clerics make the laws. If sharia law were the law of the land in Australia, rape and wife beating would now be legal (much like it is in Iraq).

IMO it's worse than the fact that it USED TO BE okay in christianity, or that men exist in this country that see no problem with spousal rape. Islam(ist extremists) appear to not see women as equals.

[kuwisdelu]

IMO it's worse than the fact that it USED TO BE okay in christianity, or that men exist in this country that see no problem with spousal rape. Islam(ist extremists) appear to not see women as equals.

How is it worse? I doubt when it was more accepted in Christianity that those men saw women as equals, either. In fact, there are Biblical passages that suggest they aren't.

[Monkey]

The problems of spousal rape and misogyny transcend any one religion or time period. Islamic extremists own their part of the ugliness, but they don't get credit for the whole pile.

[Captshady]

How is it worse?

It's happening now.

That fact that it happened in our history doesn't excuse it happening in the now.

[kuwisdelu]

It's happening now.

That fact that it happened in our history doesn't excuse it happening in the now.

Gotcha. I think. I had thought you meant there was something that made it more excusable when Christians did it.

[Captshady]

Gotcha. I think. I had thought you meant there was something that made it more excusable when Christians did it.

Not at all. The fact that Christians did it shouldn't excuse the fact that it's happening now.

[James81]

They should make a law like this in America for ex-wives.

Better yet, if one party decides to do something (like cheat for instance) it's ok for the other party involved to beat them senseless.

[Clair Dickson]

Well, sadly, there are still people who call themselves Christians in the US and live by the guideline that a woman's body belongs to her husband. I know several in the church I used to go to.

Vile behavior has no boundaries between religion, gender, or race.

[Clair Dickson]

They should make a law like this in America for ex-wives.

Better yet, if one party decides to do something (like cheat for instance) it's ok for the other party involved to beat them senseless.

The only concern i have with this is that there are some vile, vindictive ex-spouses. Just as some spouses will use their children against each other, I can totally see some women claming marital rape just to punish their husbands. :(

[James81]

I can totally see some women claming marital rape just to punish their husbands. :(

I have the solution to that too.

When it's proven to be false, we take the women that do this out and crucify them (not lethal injection, I'm talking nails and boards to a cross).

[Cranky]

Good news: I googled it myself. This was the case a few years ago (well...is the 90's still "a few years ago"?). It's since been criminalized all across the US.

Bad news: Many states still treat it as a lesser crime with more lenient penalties. IMO, penalties for rape are too lenient as it is.


Nice. That's just peachy. Still, at least it's officially a crime.

[darkprincealain]

Bad news: Many states still treat it as a lesser crime with more lenient penalties. IMO, penalties for rape are too lenient as it is.

Quoted for truth.

I would say "marital strife" is meaningless. And where there is disagreement it is pointless to even thinking of laying blame. If there are disagreements and they are seen as individually owned, this is a troubled marraige.


Also quoted for truth.

Say the husband is a complete jerk. Refuses to work. Refuses to bathe. Refuses to do a thing around the house to help, and treats his wife like a maid. Would it still be the woman's fault?

At that point, I would argue she is justified in attempting to resolve it, and if it cannot be resolved, to divorce the $*!)% already.

No matter what is going on, and no matter who is doing it, sexual violence, or violence and use of force of any kind is not justified in a relationship of this nature. Work on the issues, and squeeze in an anger management class or two, but don't try to justify away what everyone seems to be able to agree is deplorable.

[Tirjasdyn]

The phrase "do not use a stick larger than your thumb" suddenly came to me.

Good old Google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=twQTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA590&lpg=PA590&dq=%22not+use+a+stick+larger+than+his+thumb%22&source=bl&ots=gDKjt3I1kh&sig=9afCJY6PwilBUQhoND0bckZFk3s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

Just watch the movie "the Duchess" last night. That exact phrase came up. Of course it was the most F'd up movie ever.

[waylander]

I have the solution to that too.

When it's proven to be false, we take the women that do this out and crucify them (not lethal injection, I'm talking nails and boards to a cross).

Allegations such as this are notoriously difficult to prove or disprove.

[TerzaRima]

This thread should be retitled Here, look at this Rorschach blot!!

[James81]

Allegations such as this are notoriously difficult to prove or disprove.

That's just a sacrifice we'll have to make to get the fear alive again.

[trickywoo]

Who was it that said, "The worst kind of bad men are religious bad men."?

Case in point.

[Captshady]

Who was it that said, "The worst kind of bad men are religious bad men."?

Case in point.

Wise statement!

[Contemplative]

Any kind of physically forced sex is wrong, and just cause for lethal violence in self-defense.

That said, I disagree strongly with the people here saying that in a marriage one partner can deny sex to the other at any time, for any reason, for any period. I think that at least putting in an effort toward a healthy sex life ought to be part of the marriage contract (exempting, of course, a couple that agrees to an ascetic marriage or long-distance marriage or whatever before the vows).

I think that sex is a pivotal part of the human experience and people of both genders have a right to pursue a healthy sex life, and it's not healthy to expect people to surrender this right in the long term.

I know that women (and men!) often suffer libido dropoff, or emotional problems about sexuality, or whatever. This is always a deeply painful, awkward situation, and any decent human being will treat it with empathy and care -- but it can only go on so long, and ultimately it falls to the other partner to decide how long. I don't blame a man who says to his wife, after an extended period of frigidity, that he wants to end the marriage, or make it an open marriage, or some other resolution.

I have tremendous sympathy for the woman. Her problem, whatever it is, is probably painful and embarrassing, and utterly not her fault. But I don't think the man is an asshole for leaving, especially if a sincere and empathic effort was made to solve the issue. Her emotional problems, as tragic as they are, shouldn't be allowed to impose celibacy on him. That kind of martyrdom is an ill, codependant thing, and it's only our society's contempt for sexual desire that makes it socially acceptable. There is a subtext here that the man is dirty and selfish for wanting sex to begin with, and that's wrong -- sex is an essential part of human happyness, for both genders.

I have a lot of contempt for married women who use withholding sex as a means of control and dominance. Honestly, I think either adultery or divorce is fully justified in that kind of circumstance. Marriage should be a covenant of equals, not some sitcom-caricature of a woman bullying a man and getting away with it because, well, she's a woman and "trapped him".

So basically, yeah, I think sex is part of the marriage covenant, and if the woman (or man) can't deliver, she deserves sympathy, counsel and respect. But if the woman won't, consistantly, and is using it for power, and the man was upholding his side of the covenant (including the love, cherish, respect, etc.) -- then she broke the covenant, as decisively as if she cheated on him, and he's free to sow his seed wherever he may, or just vanish one day. He owes her nothing.

This is a sensitive subject for me. I've seen this (sex-as-control) happening in real life on multiple occasions, and I've faced vicious accusations of sexism and misogyny for calling it like I see it. It's one of the reasons I have a less than favorable view of the feminist movement.

I do agree with the other poster talking about how unpleasant sex can be for a woman that really doesn't want it. Everyone has a right to not be in the mood. What I'm talking about here is using it as a bartering chip, or periods that go on for months or years.

[RobJ]

That said, I disagree strongly with the people here saying that in a marriage one partner can deny sex to the other at any time, for any reason, for any period. I think that at least putting in an effort toward a healthy sex life ought to be part of the marriage contract (exempting, of course, a couple that agrees to an ascetic marriage or long-distance marriage or whatever before the vows).
Sex is great. Understand that for some people love is not just stronger than sexual desire, but will outlive it by a considerable amount.

Many relationships will suffer periods of sexual inactivity, in some cases long term. A long as both partners are comfortable with this it's just fine and dandy. Problems arise if, and only if, one of the partners isn't comfortable with it, as you suggest would be true in your case. There's nothing wrong with you feeling like that, you're an individual and you have your own limits as to what you will or won't tolerate in life.

When people try to push their own limits on others (as societies often do in any one of a number of ways) trouble always follows.

But each marriage, or relationship, is a society within a society, and has to set its own rules.

For you, there needs to be a rule enforcing some kind of entitlement to sex. For others, there might need to be a rule enforcing some kind of entitlement to abstinence from sex. You can't set those kinds of rules in stone when you marry someone. You can try, but people change as they get older.

Cheers,
Rob

[kuwisdelu]

When people try to push their own limits on others (as societies often do in any one of a number of ways) trouble always follows.

But each marriage, or relationship, is a society within a society, and has to set its own rules.

For you, there needs to be a rule enforcing some kind of entitlement to sex. For others, there might need to be a rule enforcing some kind of entitlement to abstinence from sex. You can't set those kinds of rules in stone when you marry someone. You can try, but people change as they get older.

I think it's less of an entitlement to either, so much as an obligation to work toward making the other person happy. In a marriage or committed relationship, both partners have a responsibility to working toward the other's happiness. That doesn't mean giving in to whatever the other wants--it means working out a compromise and coming up with something that satisfies both partners, or calling it quits.

I'm not sure anyone is entitled to sex, except maybe johns who've just paid their hookers, but in a relationship continually doing something that makes the other partner unhappy without trying to work toward a mutual solution is neither healthy nor fair.

[DamaNegra]

Tell me, please, what are your reasons for saying a man is obligated to satisfy his wife... ¿What can she base her demans on?... The necessity of making each other happy can only be legally given between two beings that have equal standing in strenght [...] But the existance of that ridiculous convention has no sense when it is made between a weak being and a strong being because, ¿with what right does the first demand anything from the second? [...] It is obvious that the relations established between husband and wife are the same that can exist between a chicken and me, because both the wife and the chicken are nothing but domestic animals that have to be used according to the use that nature has established for each, but without any difference.

This was written by a rabid atheist (extra points for knowing which). It's not just religions that treat women as property in a marriage, it has been men in general throughout the centuries.

That said, I find that point of view absolutely disgusting. Anyone who uses sex as a weapon or treats other people as inferior is abominable and deserving of any punishment the law will allow for them.

[Plot Device]

Okay ... the following is the sole opinion of ME: a woman who is not now --nor has she ever been-- married. For those of you who want to tell me I don't know what the hell I am talking about, at least be nice about it. I will admit to GROSS generalizations here, but I am only trying to cast basic differences between men and women, not trying to claim it's true of ALL men and ALL women.





My take on sex in a marriage ...............




Just about every last guy in the world, with almost zero exception, NEEDS sex. (The exceptions do exist, but they are rare.) I originally heard in a college lecture that 100% of all men in the world masturbate, and at first I thought that was an irrational assumption to make. But now I think it's probably true, with the only exceptions being guys who literally have something biologically wrong with them.

Men think about sex day and night, non-stop, for about 60 or 70 years. The DEGREE to which guys think about sex will vary from one guy to the next, and will also very depending upon current life circumstance (married or single, happy or miserable, successful at life or struggling at life, etc). For most normal and well-adjusted guys, thoughts of sex constantly gyrate all day and all night vibrating around the edges of their conscious thoughts as a quiet yet undeniable background murmur. And the triggering mechanism for male arousal is a hair-trigger capable of getting tripped by the tiniest stimuli from any of the five senses. A normal and well-adjusted guy can usually get any surprise arousals under control instantly. As for the (thankfully) rarer and less-stable guys, sex is a disturbing obsession capable of overriding their sense reason. Not so for women. Women will typically first learn about sex (as young girls/teens) and perceive it as a something very bizarre, silly, disgusting, and even mind-boggling. Thoughts of sex do not come naturally to a young woman right away. Women will at first be curious about it, and eventually will indeed start to desire it, but CONSTANT and CEASELESS and NEVER-FLINCHING thoughts of it day and night for deacdes on end is almost non-existent for any woman in the world. What do women think about ceaselessly? Security and safety, specifically in the realms of the phsyical, the financial, and even social.

Now, guys first enter puberty with the wonderful realization that they are getting bigger and stronger and taller and more powerful all the time. The false sense of invincibility eventaully creeps in (for some guys the invincibility stage hits sooner than for others) and usually deludes most guys for a brief period of their adolescense (some guys unfortunately continue under this delusion well into their 20's). Women, however, enter puberty with the realization of weakness, pain, discomfort, and physical limitation. Delusions of indestructablity are almost never part of a woman's coming of age.

Guys have ambitions to go out and conquor the whole world. Women have hopes of achieving security and comfort.

Guys would be happy to spend the entire 20 years from age 15 to 35 sailing around the globe five or six times, climbing mountains, hunting big game, diving into caves, seeing magnificent cities, driving fast cars, having lots of fun sex with lots of different beautiful women, and just being a roving playboy accountable to no one. And maybe somewhere in there he might also aspire to becoming a powerful executive who builds his own business from scratch and makes his first million before he's 23. He CAN put off the family thing until he's in his mid-to-late 30's becasue he has time. But women do not have that kind of time and generally want to get married much sooner, have a couple of kids, and stay close to family. And an ocassional vacation to the Berkshires might be nice.

Now in spite of a guy's best efforts to avoid getting married "too soon," well ...

The guy's dreams of spending a solid 20 years travelling the world and having great adventures can get totally derailed because he goes and falls in love. Now it's not that he didn't EVENTUALY want a wife one day. It's just that he kinda wanted to get all that playboy/James Bond stuff completely worked out of his system before finally settling down. Falling in love BEFORE he could see the world really tosses a monkey wrench into the works of his loosely planned-out life of fun and adventure. It's not commitment per se that guys fear, instead its the possibility that now they will NEVER get to do those couple of crazy he-man accomplishments that they had their hearts set upon. Couldn't she have waited just five or six more years before coming into his life?

But he loves her--totally totally loves her-- and so he goes for it. "I do." And now the next 20 years will involve a mortgage and car payments and a season of diapers followed by a season of Christmas pageants followed by a season of waiting up late at night and worrying about how long junior has been out with his friends.

He gave up all that James Bond coolness for THIS. Does he regret it??? No. Love is love, right?



Now let's get back to that whole sex thing.



The guy who's running around the world, snow boarding in Zurich and cutting killer business deals in Hong Kong thinks about sex just as much as the guy changing diapers and video taping his daughter's little league game. No difference in sex drive at all there. Both men have that same quiet yet undeniable background murmur of sexual desire constantly lurking around the edges of their conscious thoughts. But the guy with the kid and the mortgage has a very deep burden of obligation that the jet-setting playboy doesn't have: he loves that wife and those kids, he would do anything for them, and he strives with soul-wrenching degrees of self-sacrifice to provide for them. The jet-setting playboy sacrifices himself for no one. The playboy gets his sex when he wants it, with whomever he wants it from, with no obligation on his part. The married guy only gets it from one place (we all know where). As for the frequency that the playboy gets it -- maybe he has a main squeeze, maybe he has several girlfriends at once, maybe he has a woman that he "owns," or maybe he can afford lots of prostitutes (or if all else fails, provided he lives alone in the notorious "bachelor pad," he can masturbate in total privacy with as much frequency, drama, and loudness as he feels like). But the married guy gets it from just one source.

Now ... do either of these two guys "NEED" sex? Yes they do.

Do they need it like they need oxygen? Maybe not biologically. But a guy does need it emotionally, and perhaps to the same degree of emotional need that a person has a biological need of food. And here's the part that some women either just don't get, or if they DO get it, they do not experience the same inner shame from engaging in deliberate sex-deprivation of a sex-dependent partner as they would if they engaged in food-deprivation of a food-dependent family member.

The part women don't get/don't feel shame over is that a guy's ogoing emotional stasis and sense of well-being and even the basic health of his ego are all directly wired into his ongoing acquisition of sex. He works hard all day, and he's certainly physically tired, but he still needs that emotional recharge and that ego-rebooting. He needs it, and deprivation of it can cause harm. (And women do NOT get that.)

A guy can spend the whole day getting beaten down by a grueling work environment. But he knows his work day will end in a few more hours, and that he can then go home to several really wonderful and comforting things that will make everything better: great kids, nice food, and hot sex. Those things right there are enough to make him want to actualy RUN home. James Bond be damned, I fricking love these kids, this is great food, and the sex is fantastic. As was already said: he thinks about sex all day long, it's always there around the edges. And so he likewise thinks about going home all day long -- he counts the minutes.

But woe unto the woman whose husband no longer counts the minutes.

Woe unto the woman whose husband dreads going home.

Woe unto the woman whose husband STOPS going home. Because if he's not getting it at home, he's getting it someplace else. Just because you've not been in the mood for the past six months doens't mean that the quiet murmur no longer plagues him throughout every minute of every day at that crummy job that he took for you rather than travel the world as a carefree playboy. It doesn't mean that the hair-trigger doesn't still get stimulated in him with as much ease as five or even ten years ago. His libido lives on. His need lives on.

How long can your husband go without sex before desperation will drive him elsewhere? The answer to that might be found in the counter-question: How long can any person go without food before desperation drives them to seek it elsewhere? (I believe 6 to 8 weeks is how long it takes to starve to death.)

Now he certainly won't DIE without sex, at least not biologically so the way he would die without food. But in the realm of the emotions and the ego there's some damage that can result from this kind of deprivation. He might masturbate for a while --after all, 100% of all males do so-- but the thing about masturbation is it's usually accompanied by a fantasy. And who do you suppose he's fantasizing about? Is it you? Is it a woman he saw on the train home today? Is it the last woman he was with BEFORE he met you? Is it a Hollywood starlet he saw in the most recent James Bond movie? Is it one of his co-workers? Do you really think that he's NOT masturbating, and that he's NOT fantasizing? --100% of all males do it. And how about the current state of sensitivity to that hair-trigger? Is he perhaps LESS-inclined to get the ocassional surprise stimulation under control as of late? Or does he perhaps look forward to those surprises and deliberately nurse them whenever they happen?

A lot of women don't understand ANY of this.



Okay .... so that is my general observation of men and women and marriage and one piece of the sexual dynamic in a marriage.

Fire away.

[John Paton]

PD you are amazing ;)

I guess guys do think of sex a lot and being one of them myself I do fall in line.

And I have a theory about all of this.

In order for sex to be fulfilling in so many ways - you must first satisfy the following conditions.

1. There must be a spiritual compatability
2. There must be an emotional compatabiltity
3. There must be a compatability regarding general intelligence

However, the overriding condition is both partners must be consensual in order for sex to take place.

Sex is such a cold word.

A desirous union of all the wonderful things they have in common maybe. A celebration !

You have opened up the discussion and it has made me re-evaluate stuff.

Regards

JOhn

[AncientEagle]

Damn, PD! That's poetry!

If I were single, I'd propose to you right now.

[darkprincealain]

I agree PD, generalizations and all. I'm sure it won't be difficult to find at least one guy here who disagrees with something you've said above. But overall this is why I've always been a big fan of the three Gs when it comes to relationships. I believe we should all try to be good, giving and game.

I'm sure if we were really to look for it, there is at least a little room for the argument that women have needs to this level, but theirs run toward needs for the children and their own emotional states.

All I can say is I hope these crazy people realize the error of their ways and realize that they may be reacting negatively to something negative that is being done to them.

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." -Confucius

"Whatever you fight, you strengthen, and what you resist, persists." -Eckhart Tolle

[Toothpaste]

If what PD says is true, then oughtn't men do everything in their power to get sex? And if so, wouldn't they therefore maybe eventually come to the conclusion that the best way to get it would be to be sensitive the their wife's needs, treat her with respect and affection, understand that cleaning the house is just as romantic as flowers, and that if their wife has been run off her feet all day that means they would be less likely in getting some? Woe be the woman? Maybe woe be the man who can't figure out that if he wants some, he's got to give some in turn.

(I'm not actually disagreeing with you PD, but I think the focus on your post is so much on what men need, what men give up, the poor situation men find themselves in, and I just felt the need to equalise it. If men and women want such separate things, then they are going have to work together to make it work. I'm not sure how much it helps to lecture women, "Men need this, sorry kiddo!". Also I have to agree that those are sweeping generalisations. I know men and women both who would not fall into your categories. But still, I agree it is important to note that there is, more often than not, an inherent difference.)

[Clair Dickson]

If what PD says is true, then oughtn't men do everything in their power to get sex? And if so, wouldn't they therefore maybe eventually come to the conclusion that the best way to get it would be to be sensitive the their wife's needs, treat her with respect and affection, understand that cleaning the house is just as romantic as flowers, and that if their wife has been run off her feet all day that means they would be less likely in getting some? Woe be the woman? Maybe woe be the man who can't figure out that if he wants some, he's got to give some in turn.



Well, from what I've seen, many men are trained not to help around the house. I can't tell you how many women I know that will treat their husband like a complete moron because he does the dishes "wrong" or the laundry or whatever. As if all men are taught to do these things. (But don't ever criticize a woman for not knowing how to change the oil in her car or even notice the oil light being on...)

I remember my dad trying to help out with one of my baby brothers. My mom chewed him out for everything he did. Yet, somehow the baby was dressed with a diaper securely fastened and seemed fine.

Also, I think in a man's world, it's not considered okay to butt into someone else's task. (Perhaps it's implying that the doer can't handle the job?) You don't often see men walk into another man's house/garage/yard and start working on his buddy's project. If the buddy asks, great. But how many wives will ask-- and do it without being a jerk about it.

Just some thoughts on why many men don't help out. Sadly, there are few women in my life who don't rag on their husbands for being helpful, and for not being helpful. The men can't win. And can't get laid... (Oh, you're just helping because you want sex!)

I think that denying a man sex regularly or frequently is akin to denying a woman support (emotional or otherwise). Neither should be happening in a good marraige.

I've heard far, far too many women talk about how ridiculous it is for their husbands to want sex, especailly after there are kids because there's no point anymore. That, to me, is bait and switch. You put out until you have what you want out of it?

Nothing justifies rape. But there's few things that justify the way I've seen many wives treat their husbands, in and out of the bedroom. It seems no surprsie to me that many men shut down and check out of their relationships.

I know few women who can state what they need, let alone what they want until they are on the breaking point and can only bitch. Men are not mind readers. And so many women expect them to "know" what needs to be done. A good relationship requires communication. Period. If you want your man to help out around the house and this will increase his chance of getting laid-- tell him (and mean it!) I can almost guarantee a man who will clean the house from top to bottom at super human speed-- unless he's been burned before by a false or manipulative statement.

[Joe270]

Just about every last guy in the world, with almost zero exception, NEEDS sex. (The exceptions do exist, but they are rare.) I originally heard in a college lecture that 100% of all men in the world masturbate, and at first I thought that was an irrational assumption to make. But now I think it's probably true, with the only exceptions being guys who literally have something biologically wrong with them.

Uh, I'd say that 100% of women masturbate, too, unless they have something biologically wrong with them.

The trick is for both want sex at the same time. If a guy wants some, there are tried and true ways to put a woman in the mood. It takes some work, but the payoff is worth it.

All a woman has to do, if she's feeling randy, is to flash a bit or don some lingerie.

I'll tell ya, that lingerie bit is great. It doesn't just say 'I love you', it says 'I want you to have sex with me NOW, stud'. That's a huge ego boost for guys.

It takes two. One can't take from the other without giving.

[Kateri]

Thankyou PD for all your insights. Working with men, counselling for many years, has led me to sadly acknowledge that women's sexual power is misused as well. It is a great power and has the capacity to bond and heal. Men's positive physical power is protective and reassuring.

Men have more pressure on them than ever before to perform in the home, the workplace, the bedroom. They have a loosely defined role within society where demonstration of physical or sexual control may be the only way they feel powerful.

I have worked with men, and women, whose tolerance of a toxic relationship has manifested in a terminal illness. They are literally made sick by the longing for connection and spiritual, emotional closeness. Male "plumbing and wiring"' responds to the great sexual power of women. And many women know it and use it. Men are visually turned on and females are turned on by support and communication. Both sexes need to understand that this basic difference need not be a source of conflict, there can be resolution.

However, who would want to be with someone who supposedly "loves"' you but withholds and gives sex as reward or punishment. Or worse still, refuses to participate at all? The sexual expression with a spiritual, physical and emotional context is extraordinary. It is a reconnection to the self and is the glue in a relationship. It is not grasping or manipulating, it's liberating.

This connection is the inspiring stuff of great writers, artists and musicians. We, as humans, continually seek that connection. Some of us find it and its sacred. This kind of love inspires children to believe in love in a chaotic world. It enables us to trust that we can be our best and take risks towards that end. It keeps us well. It reminds us to hope and to be compassionate.

If you experience this "divine" other worldly connection I hope you cherish and nurture it because it IS more than sex. It doesn't come with a piece of a paper saying you are bound to another. It comes with peace and freedom; the antithesis of violence.

[waylander]

PD's post should be required reading for every woman/girl in, or contemplating getting into, a relationship

[Plot Device]

Well, I was expecting a lot more "Shut up, you don't know what you're talkng about." But I guess my observatons ring true for a few folks at least.

Thank you for the accolades.





I also wanted to add that the phrase "the ol' ball and chain" comes to mind when men talk about their wives to other men. She represents a form of imprisonment, an obstacle to a life of freedom he can only dream about now but that he chose to give up ever pursuing.

[AncientEagle]

I agree with all or parts of many of the above posts. But I'm a little bothered by the idea of a direct exchange: If you understand your man, you'll grudgingly provide a little sex to keep him happy; after all, he's just built that way, poor guy, and his needs have to be satisfied to keep him functioning. Or, if you guys will just do some housework, you'll be paid by the hour--two hours of housework, 30 minutes of sex.

I've been married a long time. I grew up in a family where my father, poorly educated and doing mostly manual labor, nevertheless took an enlightened view toward his marriage. He didn't consider housework a threat to his manhood, and so he thought nothing of preparing a meal if he had time, or cleaning the house, or making a bed. So I grew up thinking that was normal. I've always shared the housework, washed dishes, helped with cooking if needed, diapered babies, got up and did the 2 a.m. feeding. Have always done my own laundry, and if something needed ironing, did my own ironing. (Which is a sacrifice--I HATE ironing.)

It's a good thing I was accustomed to this, as my wife is now an invalid, and I get to do it all anyway. But my point is, I never considered, nor did she, any of this a one-for-one exchange. Loving her, I wanted to reduce her workload. Loving me, she appreciated what I did, and even bragged on me occasionally. The final result: We enjoyed sex (not as often as I wanted to, naturally, but often enough), and I never had the impression she was just giving in to sex to pay me for the work I did. If I'd felt that way, I doubt I would have stayed married.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with what has been said. I just don't think a mercenary approach, "I'll wash these dishes and make this bed, but then I expect to be paid for it in sex," makes for a sound sex life, which in my personal opinion is a combination of physical desire, matched for timing to the degree possible, and love for each other. (Not the hot, burning, I-can't-live-without-her/him love of the early stage relationship, but the deep concern and caring for another.)

As always, your mileage may vary.

[Plot Device]

In light of the above post, perhaps the subconscious grappling that some husbands engage in with the angry word "whore" makes more sense now.

[Monkey]

I don't buy the supposedly huge differences between men and women. Maybe I'm just a "mannish" woman, or maybe I've just dealt with a whole lot of "feminine" men. Maybe my own youngest kids--a boy and a girl, close in age--are just too close to one another and around each other too much to show these whopping gender differences.

I'm just not seeing it. Never have.

Sure, there are some differences, but I see it this way: if you started pairing people up by "most similar" (and weren't using physical traits as your measure) then you'd probably get mostly men with men and women with women because of our cultural training and other influences...and because it's going to be that way naturally in some cases. But you're also going to get some female/male pairings. If you add happily and lengthily married people into the mix, those two are very likely to get paired together as "most similar" because their environment and financial situation is similar and they bounce ideas and thoughts off each other so frequently. The longer and more intensively two people have an open sharing of ideas, the more they're going to find common ground. Heck, I find common ground here on AW even with posters that I almost never agree with, just because we discuss things so much.

And sex drive varies so extremely between individuals. You have female and male asexuals...and no, they don't necessarily have anything "biologically wrong with them". Then you have males and females with sex addiction, or a drive that matches a sex addict's, but with full control and enjoyment. Most of us fall somewhere on that scale, and if you read the sex thread we had a while back and started pairing similar opinions, you'd probably get a lot of male/female pairings.

This is why I'm a big proponent of sex before marriage. If one of you has a huge drive, the other one should, too. If one of you is asexual, the other better be, too...or be open to an open marriage. You need to know yourself and know your lover. Unless sex isn't important to either of you, and then you're probably good. ;)

I'm not saying that women (or men) should EVER use withholding sex as a weapon or manipulation. I'm saying that telling women that they should spread whether they want to or not because otherwise they risk damaging their marriage, is wrong. Trying to use gender differences to justify it is doubly wrong. I can tell you from experience that once you feel raped by someone, even if that someone is your husband, you do NOT want intimacy with them again for a very long time, if ever. If it happens again, the feeling intensifies. Add that up over a year, and you can easily have a woman repulsed by her husband's touch. No one should have to go through that. It's not fair to the woman or to her husband. Especially when a little time and/or attention would have prevented it.

All that said, I agree with Joe. If you're in the mood and your partner isn't, it's not a crime to try and GET them in the mood. You might strike out now and then, but if you know your lover well, you'll usually get somewhere.

And for the incurably horny, you can always set up a "you pose, I masturbate" sort of thing that lets both partners feel appreciated and no one feel penetrated. Or whatever. Find something that works. Just don't tell a woman she HAS to for the good of her marriage.

[Captshady]

And for the incurably horny, you can always set up a "you pose, I masturbate" sort of thing


YOU ROCK!!!!!!!

[icerose]

I don't know. In my marriage we made a goal before we ever got married that we would at least be intimate every single day of our married lives. Didn't have to be actual sex, but the intimacy had to be there. Both my husband and I need it, but there are days where I just don't feel up to it, or he's exhausted. In that, we take time to kiss and cuddle and touch each other so we have that connection. Sex has never been a tool or exchange. Sometimes we jokingly bribe each other with positions for something we really want, but other than that we try really hard to watch out for each other's needs and to me that's what it's about.

Force should have no place in a relationship.

ETA: We've been married 8 years now and haven't missed a day, three kids and all.

[Plot Device]

I don't know. In my marriage we made a goal before we ever got married that we would at least be intimate every single day of our married lives. Didn't have to be actual sex, but the intimacy had to be there. Both my husband and I need it, but there are days where I just don't feel up to it, or he's exhausted. In that, we take time to kiss and cuddle and touch each other so we have that connection. Sex has never been a tool or exchange. Sometimes we jokingly bribe each other with positions for something we really want, but other than that we try really hard to watch out for each other's needs and to me that's what it's about.

Force should have no place in a relationship.

ETA: We've been married 8 years now and haven't missed a day, three kids and all.


:heart::heart::heart::heart::heart: :e2kissy: :heart::heart::heart::heart::heart:


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww! :)

[AncientEagle]

I don't know. In my marriage we made a goal before we ever got married that we would at least be intimate every single day of our married lives. Didn't have to be actual sex, but the intimacy had to be there. Both my husband and I need it, but there are days where I just don't feel up to it, or he's exhausted. In that, we take time to kiss and cuddle and touch each other so we have that connection. Sex has never been a tool or exchange. Sometimes we jokingly bribe each other with positions for something we really want, but other than that we try really hard to watch out for each other's needs and to me that's what it's about.

Force should have no place in a relationship.

ETA: We've been married 8 years now and haven't missed a day, three kids and all.

Given the habits you describe, I'm betting it will be a lot more than three kids soon! (Just joking; sounds like a great relationship.)

[kuwisdelu]

Well, from what I've seen, many men are trained not to help around the house. I can't tell you how many women I know that will treat their husband like a complete moron because he does the dishes "wrong" or the laundry or whatever. As if all men are taught to do these things. (But don't ever criticize a woman for not knowing how to change the oil in her car or even notice the oil light being on...)

I can attest to this. The times I did our laundry on my own, I've succeeded in:

1. Shrinking all of her pants.
2. Shrinking her sweaters
3. Stretching her sweaters (???)
4. Ruining one of her nice $80 silk blouses, which ended up costing me $200 (both to replace, and an additional "I'm sorry" bonus--at my own choice)

ETA: It should be noted that all of *my* clothes came out fine...women's clothes are just so damn complicated!

I also do most of the day-to-day apartment cleaning, but I'm not allowed to pick up her stuff, or she'll get annoyed. On the rare occasions we do a major cleaning overhaul, I'm not allowed to help, because I'll do it wrong.

In her defense, though, she is the one who knows how to change the oil and replace my flat tires.

I think that denying a man sex regularly or frequently is akin to denying a woman support (emotional or otherwise). Neither should be happening in a good marraige.

Makes sense to me. We've had a recent sexual lull, as a result of mental health issues completely out of our control. Despite knowing it's not my fault and she would fully desire me otherwise, it does impact my self-esteem. Rationally, I know it shouldn't, yet it does.

[icerose]

Given the habits you describe, I'm betting it will be a lot more than three kids soon! (Just joking; sounds like a great relationship.)

Haha, no. We decided before we got married that we would only have three kids and there are medical reasons why I can't have more, so we're good.

But yeah we try. Affection and communication are what keeps us going, given both of us are extremely stubborn, opinionated, and have hair trigger tempers, I'd say it's working.

[Contemplative]

I sort of agree with what Plot Device wrote. I don't think men need sex, really -- that's a line of thought that leads to very ugly axioms and justifications -- but I do think that humans are profoundly unfulfilled without it, and that nobody should be expected to deny their desire in the long term.

I do think PD is understating women's sexuality, too. My impression is not that women are less desirous, or more able to be fulfilled without sex -- it's that women are much harder to satisfy sexually, because they have specific needs that take skill to meet -- both in physical technique, and in emotional context -- for it to be fulfilling. Women also have a lot more social stigma around exercising their sexual desire, but that doesn't mean they can be fulfilled without it. The counterpoint of "a married woman should make a sincere effort to give her husband sex when he wants it" is "a married man should make a sincere effort to talk to his wife about sex, and find out what conditions and situations she needs to enjoy it."

My perspective on this, honestly, is strongly colored by the fact that I don't like monogamy. I think life-long monogamy is a tremendous sacrifice for a man to make. While there are many monogamous men and promiscuous women -- and that's great - I do think on demographic average monogamy favors feminine sexuality over masculine.

Lots more women want, and plan for, a husband, than men want and plan for a wife, as PD noted. Women know there's not enough desirable men that want marriage to go around, just like men know likewise about women wanting casual sex. I'm not making generalizations here or characterizing individuals -- I'm talking about how demographics shape supply and demand. It is fundamentally the same economic imperative that leads men to use emotional blackmail to get sex as that leads women to use emotional blackmail to get married. Unfortunately for these women, emotional blackmail is better at getting an insecure woman to put out against her will than it is at getting a man to marry and remain faithful for his whole life.

I have no sympathy for the blackmailers on either side of the equation, and I have no sympathy for social traditions designed to aide this kind of blackmail, whether its saying "guys will be guys, you have to put out if you want to be popular" or "men shouldn't be afraid of committment, and it's a sign of immaturity and insecurity if they are."

I think Monkey's using a very warped lens when she says, "telling women that they should spread whether they want to or not because otherwise they risk damaging their marriage, is wrong". I do think that untimately, if a married woman isn't "providing", it is damaging the marriage, and the man has a right to say that. I think that if its clear the woman doesn't want sex, she should end the marriage. If she doesn't, he should. "You pose, I'll masturbate" is degrading and humiliating for the woman, unfulfilling for the man and likely to induce guilt and anger in both parties.

Now, it should be noted that I don't see any inherent benefit to preserving a marriage for its own sake, and likewise "damaging a marriage" isn't any serious sin. If there are children, redefine the marriage as an open marriage or have an amicable divorce and stick together as platonic parenting-partners; if not, split up and find partners that work better.

This whole topic really serves to remind me why I find "love waits" to be a profoundly evil, corruptive, sadistic doctrine. A successful marriage, in my eyes, pretty much requires both partners to have prior sexual experience, so they understand their sexuality. It allows people to seek out other people with similar levels of libido, fetishists to seek out similar fetishists and prevents the situation where a woman marries, has children and then discovers she's a lesbian (or ditto for gay guys, though the more aggressive male sexuality makes that less likely in my eyes). "Love waits" is grounded in disrespect for human sexuality, and causes sexually incompatible partnerships that lead to humiliation, guilt, degradation, infidelity and motives for emotional abuse on both partners' sides.

[Contemplative]

Well, from what I've seen, many men are trained not to help around the house...

Many men, I think, are also simply comfortable in less ordered or maintained environments. There needs to be a distinction between the sexist man who doesn't do housework because he think's that's women's work, and the man who doesn't clean, or doesn't clean as much, because he's comfortable living in the apartment the way it is.

Women are also trained, from early in their life, to measure their social status competitively with other women based on the quality of their home. Women do this to other women -- I do not think it is something guys (of my generation, at least) look for in a partner. If the motive behind keeping a house clean is solely the woman's social pretension toward her community peers, then yes -- it damn well should be her that does the work.

There's also the (increasingly rare, thankfully) situation where the man has a career and the woman stays home as his dependent and lives off his salary -- in which case yes, she should be doing the damn housework (unless there's kids -- raising kids is a full-time job). Fortunately, I think this kind of setup is largely extinct outside very traditional areas -- women no longer want it, and men will no longer accept it.

This is something I had to speak about, because it's a canard I hear leveled against men a lot, and I think it's unfair.

Labels like "slovenly" or "neat freak" are subjective. Partners in a marriage have to agree upon a lot of things, including the level they want to maintain their house at.

[darkprincealain]

:LilLove: Congrats, icerose. Sounds like you're both willing to work on the relationship.

This is what the men in the OP and in DamaNegra's post seem so unwilling to do. We have to be upholding our half of the bargain, and to be honest, I think we have to want to be upholding it. Because the bad days will come, and those days some guys just don't want to do much of anything.

[Cranky]

Many men, I think, are also simply comfortable in less ordered or maintained environments. There needs to be a distinction between the sexist man who doesn't do housework because he think's that's women's work, and the man who doesn't clean, or doesn't clean as much, because he's comfortable living in the apartment the way it is.

Women are also trained, from early in their life, to measure their social status competitively with other women based on the quality of their home. Women do this to other women -- I do not think it is something guys (of my generation, at least) look for in a partner. If the motive behind keeping a house clean is solely the woman's social pretension toward her community peers, then yes -- it damn well should be her that does the work.

There's also the (increasingly rare, thankfully) situation where the man has a career and the woman stays home as his dependent and lives off his salary -- in which case yes, she should be doing the damn housework (unless there's kids -- raising kids is a full-time job). Fortunately, I think this kind of setup is largely extinct outside very traditional areas -- women no longer want it, and men will no longer accept it.

This is something I had to speak about, because it's a canard I hear leveled against men a lot, and I think it's unfair.

Labels like "slovenly" or "neat freak" are subjective. Partners in a marriage have to agree upon a lot of things, including the level they want to maintain their house at.


Excuse me, but "thankfully rare"? I'm a SAHM, and a student. I've had a career outside the home and will again, but that phrase rubbed me the wrong way. Choosing to be a homemaker isn't something to be ashamed of, or "should" be rare to see, imo. Doing the "damn" housework? Yikes. Yeah, it's not fun, but it's necessary work.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a more "traditional" set up for your family.

[kuwisdelu]

Excuse me, but "thankfully rare"? I'm a SAHM, and a student. I've had a career outside the home and will again, but that phrase rubbed me the wrong way. Choosing to be a homemaker isn't something to be ashamed of, or "should" be rare to see, imo. Doing the "damn" housework? Yikes. Yeah, it's not fun, but it's necessary work.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a more "traditional" set up for your family.

Agreed. In fact, I'd be a stay-at-home husband if I could... I love neatness and hate traditional jobs.

[Captshady]

Agreed. In fact, I'd be a stay-at-home husband if I could... I love neatness and hate traditional jobs.

Been there, done that. Short of the wife expecting me to do far FAR more than she ever did as a stay at home wife, the stigma of being a stay at home dad was freaking overbearing, no matter how much money you bring into the fold.

[Contemplative]

Excuse me, but "thankfully rare"? I'm a SAHM, and a student. I've had a career outside the home and will again, but that phrase rubbed me the wrong way. Choosing to be a homemaker isn't something to be ashamed of, or "should" be rare to see, imo. Doing the "damn" housework? Yikes. Yeah, it's not fun, but it's necessary work.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a more "traditional" set up for your family.

(SAHM?)

Yeah, sorry, wrong impression there.

What I meant to say is that if you want to be a homemaker permanently, and live off the man's salary, that's cool, and that's a legitimate life choice if you want it -- but then you don't have a lot of room to argue that the man doesn't clean enough. I've actually berated feminism in the past for trying to tell women what the "right" life choices were, so I certainly shouldn't be doing it myself.

Upgrading your education is something totally different, and not what I was talking about at all. That's very much being a breadwinner -- it's just delayed income.

I'm not sure how I feel about the power dynamic in a traditional-style homemaker/breadwinner marriage. It's not really an equal relationship in terms of labor, so I'm not sure it should be in power, either. If the wife's work is to raise kids, fine -- that's real, hard work. But without the kids it becomes a lot more murky.

I do oppose the very selective application of feminism that says, "I'll be a homemaker, but I damn well want to be in charge, and spend whatever I want, and..." There are women that started their life as daddy's little girl, and want to carry that dynamic into their marriage, and I'm not sure they have as much space to complain if the man acts dominant or treats them like an accessory, because they're in a relationship where they are consuming but not really producing. At the very least I think the man should have control over the finances.

Feminists seem to always want the best deal possible for the woman, without looking into whether she voluntarily entered into an uneven or unequal relationship.

The woman certainly has the right to be free from any kind of (physical or emotional) abuse, and to end the relationship at any time. Beyond that... she probably should be obedient, since she's essentially an employee of the man. It takes a fair bit of mental gymnastics to look at a breakwinner/homemaker relationship and say it's equal, because it's defined by inequality.

Captshady,

I agree with you strongly in protesting the stigma against being a stay-at-home dad. It's an ugly thing and needs to change, and you have my support and sympathy.

We would have a much better world of fathers were allowed a more active role in their sons and daughters' lives.

[Contemplative]

To again clarify on a touchy subject: I'm not saying wives should be obedient. I'm saying that relationships are defined by give-and-take, and people have a right to end them if they are giving more than taking.

So when you take a very traditional relationship that includes, by traditional values, obedience on the wife's part, in exchange for basically not working, and you take out the obedience, something else needs to replace it or its just a parasite living off a man.

[Cranky]

SAHM= Stay At Home Mother

That depends on the two people in that relationship, imo, whether or not there is a power imbalance. That the one who stays home and brings in no income ends up being financially dependent on the breadwinning spouse is without question, but as far as straight up equality? Heck no, that doesn't matter a bit.

My husband consults me on all purchases over $50 bucks, unless it's a gift, and vice versa. It's not "his" money, it's "ours". Of course, he did a stint as a stay-at-home dad and hated it, (not the kids, just not working outside the house), so perhaps that makes a difference. Or when the breadwinner can acknowledge the contributions of the non-wage earning spouse, which are considerable, kids aside. Do you know how much it costs to have a cleaning service come in and clean every single day? It adds up quickly...so there is definitely a material cost to that labor if it's outsourced beyond the home. Taking care of the kids is the most important thing I do, but it's not the most labor intensive thing.

*shrug*

I guess I just take issue with the idea that it's automatically an unequal set up, because that simply isn't always the case, and I'd say that more and more often, it would be the exception rather than the rule, when this arrangement is entered into voluntarily and with wide-open eyes.

ETA: about bitching about the housework...yeah, I guess I'd have to agree with that. And it's always better to have some means of supporting yourself. You may not end up divorced (and if you've been a homemaker for a good long while, sacrificing a career, you'd get alimony for at least a while), but your spouse could die. Then what? That's one reason why I'm going to school and prepping to go back to work. If the unthinkable happens, at least I don't have to worry about how I'm going to support my children once the life insurance is gone.

[Kateri]

Contemplative says "You pose, I'll masturbate" is degrading and humiliating for the woman, unfulfilling for the man and likely to induce guilt and anger in both parties.'"

Contemplative, I agree with you on some points but on this particular one, if you are respectful and willing to experience something different AND it is fine with each partner, it adds to the relationship. If you do anything, especially sexually, that you really don't want to it induces guilt and anger.

If a man initiates this and its new, perhaps its his way of experiencing you at that moment. If you want to act horrified or demeaned then he will feel shame.

I guess that puts me in Icerose's category. If you love them and know they respect and love you, everything seems wonderful! I don't feel degraded or humiliated.

The statements made by John Paton earlier ring true for me. If you have this connection it truly is a celebration and irresistible. It is also a connection that makes you want to stay exclusive and be together without others.

[Monkey]

I think Monkey's using a very warped lens when she says, "telling women that they should spread whether they want to or not because otherwise they risk damaging their marriage, is wrong".

How, exactly, is that lense warped?

I've been there, done that, seen the damage done to a relationship where there is unwanted sex.

I'm saying that sex shouldn't be withheld as a punishment or as a manipulation...and also that if someone's not in the mood for sex, there's nothing wrong with trying to get them in the mood... but that if the partner really can't bring themselves to have sex right then, then alternative arrangements should be made. Those arrangements could be an open marriage, they could be oral sex, they could be a "you pose, I'll masturbate" sort of thing. Whatever those alternative agreements, they should be satisfying to both partners.


I do think that untimately, if a married woman isn't "providing", it is damaging the marriage, and the man has a right to say that. I think that if its clear the woman doesn't want sex, she should end the marriage. If she doesn't, he should.

This is a really strange view of what a marriage is all about. If two people's sex drives are more or less matched, then it doesn't ever really become an issue, so long as everyone acts with love. If one person has a much higher drive than another, that's still no reason to call it quits. There are lots of ways to be intimate other than coitus. Those other methods can bridge the gap between one partner's lust and the other's.


"You pose, I'll masturbate" is degrading and humiliating for the woman, unfulfilling for the man and likely to induce guilt and anger in both parties.

Says who? It makes me feel sexy, and satisfies my husband while leaving a little tease about what he's going to get later. There's no shame or humiliation in that at all...for us.

By all means, if you'd feel dirty about it--or if your lover would--then don't do it. The point was that with communication, alternative ways of satisfying sexual needs can be easily devised. Then they can bridge the gap between one partner's desire and the other's, so that everyone is satisfied and no one is forced.

Besides...these "alternative arrangements", done right, can set up a very sexy vibe that can often lead right back to something less "alternative". :D


But here's what I think: I think it's YOUR lense that's skewed. You state that you aren't a fan of monogamy, that you see no reason to preserve marriage for its own sake, that if a woman's not fulfilling her husband sexually, then the marriage should be terminated.

You don't seem to be looking at a marriage as a life-long bond of love and trust (which by just about anyone's calculation is worthy of saving for its own sake); you seem to be seeing it as an agreement regarding the limitations of sex. No sex, no marriage. Charming. :Shrug:


As for me, I've been in two marriages. One did not last, due largely to sexual issues. The other has lasted eight years (plus another several where we lived together before making it official) and will last, I have no doubt in my mind, for the rest of our lives. We are both extremely sexual people with intense needs, but we are similar to IceRose and her husband in that we also have three kids and also make time for each other every single day. People describe us as more lovey-dovey than newlyweds. And we are. :)

But there's a whole 'nother level to our relationship. Were he to be in an accident and get paralized from the waist down, our marriage would survive. Hell, it would THRIVE if that meant that we had more time to be together. And we'd still find ways to satisfy one another sexually. There are always ways.

Sometimes marriage is about finding a way to love. That life-long, hell-or-highwater, best-friends-and-lovers sort of thing is worth putting effort into, and it would be idiocy to lose it over a difference in sex drive.

ETA: Kateri says If you do anything, especially sexually, that you really don't want to it induces guilt and anger.

Which is largely my point. Sex when you don't want it makes you not want that person NEAR you. There's guilt, anger, and/or a just plain yucky feeling that often goes along with it. THAT'S what's damaging to a relationship. It's not nearly so damaging to say, "Hey, I'm just not in the mood for that right now, but how about we __________________ and _____________? I'll get the whipped cream..." :D

[kuwisdelu]

Contemplative says "You pose, I'll masturbate" is degrading and humiliating for the woman, unfulfilling for the man and likely to induce guilt and anger in both parties.'"

I'll agree it's unfulfilling. But how exactly is it degrading or humiliating?

The tables turned, I'd certainly feel much better knowing the image of my body aids my girl in such activities. Quite the opposite of degrading and humiliating, IMO.

[Contemplative]

I'm talking in the abstract here, because I like talking. I'm certainly not trying to pass judgment on anyone on the forum.

I was thinking of the pose/masturbate thing in the context of not having actual sex for a long (like, 6+ months) time, because one partner was unwilling - so there is no "what he gets later".

Speaking as a man, here, I would be really deeply uncomfortable masturbating to another person because I knew they didn't want me, or didn't want sex. Even if they were totally good with it, it still wouldn't replace the desire for actual sex.

Other men, of course, may differ.

I have a very strange view of marriage. I think sex, affection and child-rearing are far too intertwined in our society, and it causes a lot of emotional damage to all parties involved. I know it's not a mainstream view.

I have lifelong bonds of love and trust with my friends and parents. I don't have a monogamous sexual relationship with them.

I guess I often sound really cold in my posts, but that's because I think romanticizing things like the politics of marriage is really destructive. It is a contract. It has to fulfill both people in all the areas it covers, or it becomes an exploitative contract.

I also don't see any reason the marriage -- the monogamy contract -- can't end while still preserving the bond of love and trust between the original participants. But I know that many people can't separate the two elements in their mind.

But then again, I'm the guy who think "love" means "friendship, except I really mean it", so I guess I'm not really a romantic at heart.

[kuwisdelu]

I'm talking in the abstract here, because I like talking. I'm certainly not trying to pass judgment on anyone on the forum.

I was thinking of the pose/masturbate thing in the context of not having actual sex for a long (like, 6+ months) time, because one partner was unwilling - so there is no "what he gets later".

Speaking as a man, here, I would be really deeply uncomfortable masturbating to another person because I knew they didn't want me, or didn't want sex. Even if they were totally good with it, it still wouldn't replace the desire for actual sex.

Well in that case, absolutely. I was speaking to the case of "not tonight."

I have a very strange view of marriage. I think sex, affection and child-rearing are far too intertwined in our society, and it causes a lot of emotional damage to all parties involved. I know it's not a mainstream view.

Agreed.

I guess I often sound really cold in my posts, but that's because I think romanticizing things like the politics of marriage is really destructive. It is a contract. It has to fulfill both people in all the areas it covers, or it becomes an exploitative contract.

I also don't see any reason the marriage -- the monogamy contract -- can't end while still preserving the bond of love and trust between the original participants. But I know that many people can't separate the two elements in their mind.

I agree.

I also wonder why people see something important in preserving a marriage for the sake of the marriage, other than when kids are involved. If both partners wish to make things better, that's more than enough reason to preserve it--but if they're only trying "because they're married"...why bother?

[Contemplative]

I agree that people should not do anything sexually they don't want to do. I believe that strongly, in fact. But I do think that holding a partner to a monogamy contract you can no longer fulfill is as exploitative as trying to force and unwilling or unable partner to fulfill it.

There's just, to me, a tremendous sense of waste, of sacrifice that doesn't serve anyone, of two people upholding monogamy for the sake of social tradition when they're not sexually excited by each other anymore.

I would say that a life-long bond which does not change in the face of changing conditions is a very destructive tradition, and not worth preserving.

I also think male adulterers are seen as much worse people in our culture than female adulterers, and I'm poking around about the sexual dynamics of marriage because I feel that's an unfair assumption.

Edit: I'm offline for the weekend, and frequently for multi-day periods in general. Don't assume I'm shunning people; I'm not.

[Monkey]

I have a very strange view of marriage. I think sex, affection and child-rearing are far too intertwined in our society,

Err...usually they go something like this: affection leads to sex leads to child-rearing. That's not so much a "society" thing as it is a "natural order of the world" sort of thing.

Also, sex often strengthens affection. Child-rearing is best done with a large helping of affection, preferably from both parents, who are united in this goal at least partly because it was their sex that brought the kids into the world.

There are other agreements, sure. And there is certainly sex without affection. But when we're talking marriage, we assume some level of affection for one another.

So no, I don't agree that our society is uneccessarily intertwining these concepts.


But then again, I'm the guy who think "love" means "friendship, except I really mean it", so I guess I'm not really a romantic at heart.

Guess not. :D To me, love is friendship AND a whole hell of a lot more. It goes far above and beyond friendship. (Although you can love a friend, and sex may or may not be a part of it.)

[Monkey]

I would say that a life-long bond which does not change in the face of changing conditions is a very destructive tradition, and not worth preserving.

A strong relationship has to incorporate change. When you're young and childless, you lead one kind of life under a certain set of conditions; have that first baby and BAMMO, CHANGE, buster! :D Your financial situation may go up and down, your health may do the same. Your sexual preferences can change, too, and not just to "more" or "less". You might want to experiment, try some things out. Your life is going to have unexpected ups and downs, and to me, there's real comfort and value in knowing that no matter what, the person you love will be by your side.

So a relationship must adapt to change, yes. But love doesn't have to end over something as simple as an imbalance in sexual desire.

[James81]

So a relationship must adapt to change, yes. But love doesn't have to end over something as simple as an imbalance in sexual desire.

This is one of those things that sounds really nice to say, but in reality it's not really true.

When you have on party who is witholding sex and the other party not getting sex, it's a surefire recipe for infidelity.

[kuwisdelu]

Of course, it's perfectly possible to be in an open, non-monogamous relationship or marriage and still be in love.

[Monkey]

When you have on party who is witholding sex and the other party not getting sex, it's a surefire recipe for infidelity.

Withholding why? For how long?

Is she withholding because she's eight months pregnant and the AC is broke?

If sex is being used as a weapon, then yes. If one partner is going months without giving the other a satisfying sexual situation (and there's not an obvious physical cause), then probably so.

But in your average, working relationship, a partner shouldn't feel obligated to have sex when they don't want it. As long as the level of sexual contact is at least close to what each party desires, OR the break is temporary, OR so long as both partners are being sexually gratified in one way or another, it doesn't have to be a deal breaker.

Sex when you don't want it, especially repeated instances over time, can become a deal breaker.