women - how many of you intentionally withold??

socal04 · 05-30-2011, 02:19 PM

great point ...

Sawney Beane · 05-30-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbelievable

What could be more loving than showing tenderness, compassion, and service to someone even though you don't feel like it? To give your coat to your wife even though you're cold? To give the last bit of food to your wife even though you're hungry? Any fool can love someone who's lovable, remove their coat when it's warm, or refuse food when they aren't hungry. Love is putting someone else's needs first. If it's all dictated by giddy emotions, why the need for a promise at all? Why get the church or the law involved? If folks intend to be husband or wife only on the days they feel like it, their marriage is doomed.

I get this. But that (above) seems far away from "...a means of compelling performance when one or both parties doesn't feel like it..." THAT isn't love, unless what I have for my boss when he gives me a crap job to do is love! If it involves compulsion, it isn't love.

unbelievable · 05-30-2011, 03:06 PM

Marriage is a form of compulsion. As unromantic as it sounds, two people agree before witnesses to produce specific performances in exchange for the alleged benefits of marriage. Again, if married folks are free to do or not do, give or not give, according to the whims of their emotions, what's the purpose of having a marriage ceremony? What differentiates married couples from those who shack up? Your sexual performance is the exclusive right of your married partner. That's why adultary is grounds for divorce and that's why marriages aren't legally valid unless consummated. Anything that binds is a form of constraint, however loving. If marriage wasn't binding, one wouldn't need to jump through legal hoops to get out of one.
People withhold sex from their married partners only when and where they can get away with it. Don't fulfill your obligations at work, you get fired. Don't feed your kids, you go to jail for neglect or lose parental rights. Don't put gas in your car, you end up walking. Refuse to have sex with your husband or wife for years and (in this country) absolutely, positively nothing bad happens. Your partner just suffers. If they get tired of the abusive BS and leave, they lose half their property and almost all contact with their kids. Steal a 10.00 CD from Walmart and go to jail, rob another human being of the most basic of human needs and nothing happens. The law requires a higher level of compassion from dog owners than from husbands or wives. I suppose the law figures all adults have a remedy through divorce court, but losing everything you own and contact with your kids because you happened to marry an abuser doesn't seem like much of a remedy to me. The state even recognizes the need for convicted felons to have conjugal visits. Our sexuality is the most basic part of our identity. How absolutely friggin dare anyone for any reason force another human being into a sexless condition which would be unnatural for even birds and squirrels! In my mind, if you're married and positively refuse sex to your spouse (for an extended period) you've lost all right to complain or to seek damages over an adultary or for financial non-support.

socal04 · 05-30-2011, 04:02 PM

i think its a power thing.. they realize they can and when they are upset they use it and still expect you to uphold all your obligations while suffering.. i love her so i do uphold my end but how long... while she gets around to dealing with her resentment.. and your right about the birds and squirrels line

Sawney Beane · 05-30-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbelievable

Marriage is a form of compulsion. <<snip>>
People withhold sex from their married partners only when and where they can get away with it. Don't fulfill your obligations at work, you get fired. Don't feed your kids, you go to jail for neglect or lose parental rights. Don't put gas in your car, you end up walking. Refuse to have sex with your husband or wife for years and (in this country) absolutely, positively nothing bad happens. Your partner just suffers. <<snip>>How absolutely friggin dare anyone for any reason force another human being into a sexless condition which would be unnatural for even birds and squirrels! In my mind, if you're married and positively refuse sex to your spouse (for an extended period) you've lost all right to complain or to seek damages over an adultary or for financial non-support.

As to the last sentence, you may be right, although I suspect it should read "...you should lose..." . But, in any legal situation, sometimes it doesn't work out for you, and life isn't always fair. The alternative is go back to when "rape in marriage" was a contradiction in terms, and I don't think that would get too many votes.

unbelievable · 05-30-2011, 04:20 PM

Throughout most of the planet and, up until maybe 1960 in the United States, marriage had more to do with survival than love. The concept that a woman can't have sex unless she feels giddy happy in love must be quite a shock to the billions of women on earth who had arranged marriages. Of all the things my grandparents expected and needed from a marriage, mindblowing, perfect sex probably wasn't even on their list. Somehow we've (men and women) convinced ourselves that although we are, ourselves imperfect, we deserve perfect mates. We guys tell ourselves that a wife isn't a decent wife unless she gives great BJs and looks 20 even though she's 45 and unless a guy is strong, masculine, and wealthy but still acts as sensitive and attentive as the gayest gun on the planet, well, she's screwed up and deserves better.

Sawney Beane · 05-30-2011, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbelievable

Throughout most of the planet and, up until maybe 1960 in the United States, marriage had more to do with survival than love. The concept that a woman can't have sex unless she feels giddy happy in love must be quite a shock to the billions of women on earth who had arranged marriages. Of all the things my grandparents expected and needed from a marriage, mindblowing, perfect sex probably wasn't even on their list. Somehow we've (men and women) convinced ourselves that although we are, ourselves imperfect, we deserve perfect mates. We guys tell ourselves that a wife isn't a decent wife unless she gives great BJs and looks 20 even though she's 45 and unless a guy is strong, masculine, and wealthy but still acts as sensitive and attentive as the gayest gun on the planet, well, she's screwed up and deserves better.

And? My grandparents didn't expect a bath in their house and an indoor toilet was a novelty, but I surely want those things.

As for "...The concept that a woman can't have sex unless she feels giddy happy in love must be quite a shock to the billions of women on earth who had arranged marriages..." Your views might differ, but I want my sex life to be a bit more than my W "lying back and thinking of England".

hypatia · 05-30-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unbelievable

During the marriage ceremony, both pledged their bodies to the other, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing in that was ambiguous and nothing in that agreement included the words, "as long as I feel like it or he/she blows sufficient powder sugar up my backside." Nobody needs a marriage agreement if their obligations are dependant upon feely giddy. "I'll attend to your sexual needs as long as you look 20, stay in perfect shape, never piss me off, never disappoint me, never lose your job, never get sick, etc."

But here is the thing. A husband who starves his wife of affection, but then demands sexual service at the end of the day, is not fulfilling his wife's sexual needs either.

I agree that intentionally withholding sex sucks. I think it's a terrible tactic to use. But your idea that women have to feel "giddy" in order to have sex is a total strawman.

socal04 · 05-30-2011, 04:51 PM

the issue is when she was needy for affection we were having sex... now that im turning it around and giving her affection she said its too much and tone it down.. shes sorting thru her resentful feelings.. been 2 months.. and she feels like the only way a woman can get a mans attention is to stop sexual activity.

grizabella · 05-30-2011, 04:57 PM

Of course a woman can have sex without feeling giddy happy in love. Actualy most of the time we do. When we do get to feel that way it's great. But most of us could earn an oscar from time to time, we do that because we always believe next time will be better. And we do want you guys to come back for more. Using sex as currency is not unusual but take some finess so as not to appear too contrived. It's not bad just everyone needs to be on the same page regarding the rules. It's when one partner starts to use a different playbook that things get murky.

grizabella · 05-30-2011, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by socal04

the issue is when she was needy for affection we were having sex... now that im turning it around and giving her affection she said its too much and tone it down.. shes sorting thru her resentful feelings.. been 2 months.. and she feels like the only way a woman can get a mans attention is to stop sexual activity.

So, I assume she has your attention.

unbelievable · 05-30-2011, 05:17 PM

Not sure when "service" got to be an ugly word. It's the essence of marriage. Doesn't mean being raped or anyone's a slave, or a "Betty Crocker" or any other other lies tossed about for the past 50 years. It's just plain unselfish love and when both parties practice it regularly, problems disappear. Anyone who professes to love while simultaneously withholding a basic need is a liar and a fraud.
Naturally, it would be just as wrong for a man to deliberately withhold affection from his spouse, but realize that some pits are simply bottomless and can never be filled. All the attention and affection in the world can't make a miserable person contented. The MINIMUM standard for a person to be considered married other than the necessary legal paperwork is that they be a sexual partner. Not an outstanding or gifted sexual partner but merely present and participating. Those who withhold sex aren't meeting even the minimum standard and deserve only abandonment as a logical response. I don't water dead plants and I don't wax a car that won't run. If there are problems, we can discuss them and I'll give my absolute best to fix them. Abandoning the marital bed is the same as abandoning the marriage. If I can't trust a woman to attend to my basic needs while I'm reasonably healthy and communicative, what are the odds that she'd care for me late in my life when I can't care for myself?

socal04 · 05-30-2011, 05:41 PM

Grizabella - thats junior type sh*t.... im grown theres no other way ? . how about her fully expressing her feelings and not leaving it to " i should just know" i mean full express how u want to be held how often you want to be touched.. what kind of touch ......

theres no shame in that..
i could get her attention also.. but thats low down and i wont do that

grizabella · 05-30-2011, 05:55 PM

Takes a lot of trust to express youself that way. That actually is what intimacy is, the ability to ask for what you need, the belief that you will get it.

I wasn't saying withholding is the right way to get attention, it just seems to have worked.

There is an age old question: What do women want? We have been confounding men for ages. Songs and poems have been written about it. You must go back to the most elemental point...which is...do you want her. Then focus on it, you must know something of what she needs to respond.

unbelievable · 05-30-2011, 06:22 PM

Socal. See, your basic problem is that you just don't adore her enough 'cause if you did, even without her using any language known to mankind, you'd just "know" what she was feeling. If she told you her feelings like the rest of us mere mortals, she'd miss out on watching you crawl through broken glass daily trying to figure it out. There are no more dragons left to slay so you get to combat endless drama to prove your worth.