Sex in MarriageSexual problems are common in many relationships. This section is for discussions about sexuality. Please limit discussions to those asking for help with a problem and those offering advice. Any other threads may be deleted.
Over the last four-five decades, marriage rates have drastically declined. Women and kids in poverty have increased greatly. Juvenile delinquency has increased dramatically while educational achievement has taken a nosedive. This "modern" marriage concept may have no obligations but it certainly has plenty of consequences. Y'all can have it. I'll stay in the stone age.
Over the last four-five decades, marriage rates have drastically declined. Women and kids in poverty have increased greatly. Juvenile delinquency has increased dramatically while educational achievement has taken a nosedive. This "modern" marriage concept may have no obligations but it certainly has plenty of consequences. Y'all can have it. I'll stay in the stone age.
If you wanted a life that was all about rules, obligations and duty, you screwed up. You ought to have joined the army. The army will provide exactly what you want. Marriage, where people have different goals, expectations, aspirations and motivations and where no one gets beasted around the square if they fail to comply with the sergeant-major's rules seems a bit too free-form for you.
For the record, I don't think the stone age would suit you. Probably the eighteenth / nineteenth century, when wives were still considered property seems more appropriate.
__________________
Can you rokker Romani chib, pal? Aye, aye, brother!
What's Weshenjuggalslomomengreskeytemskeytudlogueri? I don't know what you say, brother.
Then you don't jin Romani chib...
Over the last four-five decades, marriage rates have drastically declined. Women and kids in poverty have increased greatly. Juvenile delinquency has increased dramatically while educational achievement has taken a nosedive. This "modern" marriage concept may have no obligations but it certainly has plenty of consequences. Y'all can have it. I'll stay in the stone age.
This reminds me of the marriage license "laugh" that we share sometimes. In order to get a civil marriage license in our province, we both had to read a little paragraph and "swear" upon it, and it had a sentence in there that you had to say you understood that you did not own the other person. We thought that was kind of funny at the time, and wondered why it was even there! Like someone had legally challenged it at one point so now the disclaimer was added ha ha.
Also, where I live... you must be separated for at least one year before you can get a divorce, and if you have kids, you must go to counselling as well. I think the courts acknowledge it, a bit. At least where I live. You will get told "try to work out your differences" by a judge first. Yes, there are uncontested divorces here too. If both parties agree to everything with or without a lawyer, and a simple signature in front of a judge. Not sure that happens very often.
unbelieveable, I'm not aware of your whole story, but I'm not one to judge. At least you know what you want. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just not a common theory. But out of curiousity... do you have an obligation marriage, and does it work for you? Or is this something you want?
I don't believe one can have a real marriage without obligations and responsibilities. An arrangement where both parties are free to do whatever they want wouldn't require a ceremony and wouldn't mean anything. I have obligations to my kids, to my dogs, to my employer, too. I don't see them as restrictive but as indications that people depend on me.
I don't see them as restrictive but as indications that people depend on me.
So the bottom line is partners should have sex with one another to demonstrate they depend on one another?
So one partner should accept something they don't want from the other to demonstrate they are dependent on the other partner for something they aren't interested in?
__________________
Can you rokker Romani chib, pal? Aye, aye, brother!
What's Weshenjuggalslomomengreskeytemskeytudlogueri? I don't know what you say, brother.
Then you don't jin Romani chib...
The bottom line is a spouse should want to have sex with there parten because it makes them happy to make the other spouse happy.
Anything where you depend on expecting someone else to do something they can't be bothered with just because you do has a very short shelf life.
Most people don't get a kick out of doing something they don't like simply because it makes someone else happy. They put up with it, but it gradually become more and more forced, more and more grudging. You can (just about) obligate or guilt someone into doing it, but if their heart isn't in it, if they don't enjoy it, you can't make them like it.
__________________
Can you rokker Romani chib, pal? Aye, aye, brother!
What's Weshenjuggalslomomengreskeytemskeytudlogueri? I don't know what you say, brother.
Then you don't jin Romani chib...
I think many people are quick to jump on Unbelievable for what they see as his backwards views but consider some of the reasoning behind it...
In general, 2 people who love each other are "supposed to" get married. That is an age old concept in all cultures that still hasn't changed to this day. Sure there are people who disagree and don't follow that, but overall as a society that is still the norm. In the old days, there were expectations and obligations with marriage. Minimally, the man was expected and obligated to work to provide for his wife and kids as well as protect them from dangers, and the woman was expected and obligated to bear kids, raise them, and keep the husband satisfied with sex. As archaic and ass-backwards as that sounds it was recognized that sex was and is a primal urge and need for men and needed to be fulfilled. Regardless of the woman's feelings or take at that time, and regardless of how wrong you may feel that is now, women and society as a whole accepted that during those times without much question. As society has evolved these roles have changed drastically and with it the obligations. As women gained more liberties, rights, and opportunities to do the same things that men did, this age-old norm of obligations of marriage started shifting. Women weren't obligated to do anything anymore because, outside of bearing kids, the fine line between the roles of men and women have blurred. Nowadays women are just as busy and powerful and can be equal or even greater providers. Things like day care and nannies even took away much of the obligation of raising kids for those that choose to use them. Society also doesn't need men to be protectors in the same way they used to. The advent of all these changes took away the obligations of marriage, however many expectations remained. For example, even though it is not necessary anymore (and not an obligation), overall men are still expected to be the "breadwinner" and because of this, men feel that there should be some expectations in return. Any man viewing marriage in a way that even remotely resembles the old days is immediately chastised even though the view of modern marriage has been around a fraction of the time of the archaic view of marriage and the woman's role has shifted far more drastically than the man's. You can't take thousands of years of thinking out a man's brain in a relatively minuscule amount of time. That is like asking many woman to change the view of "2 people who love each other are 'supposed to' get married" which is a similarly old-fashioned paradigm. In modern marriage where obligation has been completely removed, is it unreasonable to still have some expectations? Is it wrong for Unbelievable or myself to have an expectation of sex from our wives in the absence of obligation? Is it wrong for our wives to have some expectations of us back? If expectations should be removed from marriage along with obligation, marriage as an institution ceases to become much more than 2 people living together to share resources and possibly reproduce.
Cheers! It is NOT wrong, and you guys are right!
Depends on how you read it, though.
Expectations that differences will not be held in the bedroom.
I do not believe it is right to with-hold sex because of an unspoken grudge or resentment.
And I will get blasted for this... but maybe some women should take the women's lib aspect a tiny bit further. And admit that putting your resentments for the day aside and just getting physcially intimate does make a difference. In your mentality. In your outlook. It helps to relieve stress. It is an act of affection.
3 hours after dinner... You would not deny your child a bedtime story and a hug because they didn't eat their dinner? Would you refuse to talk to them if you were mad at them? No, the appropriate discipline is not refusing affection. (okay, maybe you do... but not something I would agree is productive)
"You should never go to bed mad". And you should never refuse affection. It's not a punishment. It's a prvilege.
Have sex when you are full of resentment? Gawd no.
Speak up and give your spouse the chance to correct the action.
Spouse asks for sex and you are "not in the mood" because of resentment? Then say why you are not in the mood.
If he gets tired of the constant reasons why you are not happy, at least he's not left in the dark. Then it's his choice. Make you happy and you will be in the mood, or go without.
If men are expected to be the provider and the woman is expected to give sex in return, that isn't marriage. That's prostitution.
I have no issue with sex whatsoever but if my husband had the mindset that because he earns 5 times what I do he is "expecting" sex from me due to that, no way would I want sex with him and no way would I NOT view that as money for sex.
Change your mindset, change your sex life.
So the bottom line is partners should have sex with one another to demonstrate they depend on one another?
So one partner should accept something they don't want from the other to demonstrate they are dependent on the other partner for something they aren't interested in?
A bizarre concept, I'm sure, but spouses should attend to each others' needs because they value the success of their marriage and their family above their own immediate, selfish concerns.
Re: Wife Avoiding Sex, Any Ideas Why? 
