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.
There is a lot of general sex-negativity, not solely directed at men or male sexuality. ****-shaming is rife, you don't have to look very far on this board alone to find plenty of threads with men uncomfortable with their wives sexual pasts.
Historically, men have been frightened of female sexuality, and used all kinds of societal restraints to control in and avoid the possibility of the ambiguous baby. Marriage itself is one way to control female sexuality. Clitoradectamies, burqas and threats of violence are others.
The whole "lady in the streets, ***** in the sheets" phrase that gets thrown around here all the time is a good example of men basically saying,"I want you to be sexual, but only so far as it suits me.". Well, shut a woman's sexuality down long enough and you're going to get some undesirable outcomes.
The fact that females have a long, well documented history of sexual stigmatization by men doesn't really nullify discussion of changing, negative perceptions of male sexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyris
And it's pretty arrogant to make sweeping statements about the entirety of human society and history with regards it hierarchical structures and leaderships. Do your friendship groups really have leaders? That seems strange to me.
It's "arrogant" to mention what is widely considered to be an anthropological fact?
I wonder what you think i am missing out on though.
What? I don't have any opinion about what you might be missing out on. You decided what you wanted, you talked to your husband and you are happy with your relationship dynamic. Awesome.
I don't want to live feeling that someone else has the final say over what happens in my life. That's not appealing in any way to me. But I have no expectation that everyone live like me, or that the way I live is somehow better than they way you do. As long as you're happy, great.
The fact that females have a long, well documented history of sexual stigmatization by men doesn't really nullify discussion of changing, negative perceptions of male sexuality.
It's "arrogant" to mention what is widely considered to be an anthropological fact?
OK.
I wasn't trying to nullify it. I am of the opinion that sex, liking sex, is often viewed negatively whether you are male or female. It takes the form of ****-shaming for women and contempt along the lines of "is that all you think about?" for men. Two sides of the same coin.
And yeah, I think it's arrogant to assume that what you personally think, believe and experience is true for every person, in every place at every time. I am telling you there is no one leader in my marriage. There is no leader in my family or origin. There is no hierarchy of leadership in my group of friends. If you dismiss my experience as untrue or fantastical because it doesn't jibe with your own world view, then that's an arrogant way of thinking.
I wasn't trying to nullify it. I am of the opinion that sex, liking sex, is often viewed negatively whether you are male or female. It takes the form of ****-shaming for women and contempt along the lines of "is that all you think about?" for men. Two sides of the same coin.
And yeah, I think it's arrogant to assume that what you personally think, believe and experience is true for every person, in every place at every time. I am telling you there is no one leader in my marriage. There is no leader in my family or origin. There is no hierarchy of leadership in my group of friends. If you dismiss my experience as untrue or fantastical because it doesn't jibe with your own world view, then that's an arrogant way of thinking.
Missymrs, I'm glad your relationship works for you, but there are millions of women around the world who live in male-dominated marriages where they are not allowed to work, study, handle money or achieve any personal ambitions. From the tenor of some of the replies in this thread, it sounds like some men here would be all for that.
I think there is dominance, which is the tendency to lead rather than follow, with the intention of guiding the group to the most beneficial outcome.
And there is abuse or oppression, which is the tendency to use one's dominance to benefit at the expense of the other members of the group.
I think these definitions correspond roughly to what we call alpha and beta. alpha = the tendency to lead. beta = tendency to make the unselfish decisions. The tendency to make good decisions is fairly useless if you do not actually step up to the plate and make decisions.
There was a good post on MMSL about how alpha and beta are not really points on a line, more like two different dimensions entirely.
If you're really low in alpha and really high in beta we call you a pu$$y. If you are really high in alpha and really low in beta then we call you an a$$hole. If you are low in both then you're that guy no one really knows. And if you're high in both then we call you boss.
I missed this one before. I have a good command of the English language and am well aware of the difference in definition between dominance and inequality. Dominance can very easily lead to inequality if it is generally accepted as a natural or desirable state for all people.
I suppose you could argue that neither dominance nor submission are inherently superior, but in practice, those who are dominant are more likely to have a better time. They're more likely to be educated, have better employment opportunities, less likely to be killed or injured by their spouse.
A dominant person who doesn't like a situation has more ability to change it. A person who has been put and kept in a subordinate position has less ability to make changes. They are at the mercy of the goodwill of those in power.
LOL, your assumptions are interesting but greatly blankets the dominated based on a single assumption of accepting the dominant. So why do revolutions happen and why do dominated spouses in many cases snap and reverse positions in the extreme? For example she freaks out one day and stabd him 56 times to the death or slowly kills him softly with poison or wakes up one day and divorce him taking everything and leaving him destitute? Now who's the "dominator"? lol
Never assume a dominated person has less or no ability to change their situation.
I think there is dominance, which is the tendency to lead rather than follow, with the intention of guiding the group to the most beneficial outcome.
And there is abuse or oppression, which is the tendency to use one's dominance to benefit at the expense of the other members of the group.
I think these definitions correspond roughly to what we call alpha and beta. alpha = the tendency to lead. beta = tendency to make the unselfish decisions. The tendency to make good decisions is fairly useless if you do not actually step up to the plate and make decisions.
There was a good post on MMSL about how alpha and beta are not really points on a line, more like two different dimensions entirely.
If you're really low in alpha and really high in beta we call you a pu$$y. If you are really high in alpha and really low in beta then we call you an a$$hole. If you are low in both then you're that guy no one really knows. And if you're high in both then we call you boss.
LOL, your assumptions are interesting but greatly blankets the dominated based on a single assumption of accepting the dominant. So why do revolutions happen and why do dominated spouses in many cases snap and reverse positions in the extreme? For example she freaks out one day and stabd him 56 times to the death or slowly kills him softly with poison or wakes up one day and divorce him taking everything and leaving him destitute? Now who's the "dominator"? lol
Never assume a dominated person has less or no ability to change their situation.
I didn't use any absolutes in my post, as I don't believe they exist. If you read it again you'll see I used 'more likely' and 'less likely', both qualifying terms.
Of course a dominated person has less ability to change their situation. Less doesn't mean none.
I didn't use any absolutes in my post, as I don't believe they exist. If you read it again you'll see I used 'more likely' and 'less likely', both qualifying terms.
Of course a dominated person has less ability to change their situation. Less doesn't mean none.
I totally have the ability to change anything and everything. I am not married to an *******.
He does what is in the best interest of me and our future family unit. And i trust that he knows what that is.
I totally have the ability to change anything and everything. I am not married to an *******.
He does what is in the best interest of me and our future family unit. And i trust that he knows what that is.
I have this strong fantasy which i often put to good use as foreplay to prepare myself for our intimacy and during our actual lovemaking ........ i guage her mood to involve or not involve my thoughts while making love.
Since being on TAM i realized that it is best to leave it where it is now ............ for the best interest of our relationship and our family being a whole. As exciting as it is ...... it's not worth risking our family life that we love so much !!!
No, I have never had that fantasy. When you truly respect and cherish someone you don't share them. You don't fanticise about it, you don't think about it, you don't plan to share them and you do not execute a plan to share them. It's just wrong. Sex is an intimate act that secures the bond between two people in love. To step outside of that just denegrates the whole sanctity of a loving, respectful committed relationship. Being a sl_t or a man-wh0re is not an acceptable part of being married. Married means "having only unto you and foresaking all others."
If all you want is sex, do not get married and hire a hooker.
No, I have never had that fantasy. When you truly respect and cherish someone you don't share them. You don't fanticise about it, you don't think about it, you don't plan to share them and you do not execute a plan to share them. It's just wrong. Sex is an intimate act that secures the bond between two people in love. To step outside of that just denegrates the whole sanctity of a loving, respectful committed relationship. Being a sl_t or a man-wh0re is not an acceptable part of being married. Married means "having only unto you and foresaking all others."
If all you want is sex, do not get married and hire a hooker.
Your opinion and glad it works for you. But you don't define what other people think about (thought police anyone?), or do. Relationship dynamics can be different and what works for yours may be different for others. Having a fantasy and sharing it with your partner is different than actually doing it. Not that I pass judgement on that either.
Oh and in answer to the OP, yep I do fantasize about it.
To the OP: Be very careful. My DH had this fantasy and shared it with me. Then eventually he worked to make it a reality and I went along w/ it.
The reality was something else entirely. Now there is just a lot of suffering. Posted via Mobile Device
407Likes
Re: Ever fantasized about sharing your wife? 
