So anyone who is not married could not know it's good unless they themselves try it?
Like I said, there are more successful open marriages than many people realize. Perhaps you thought that was just theoretical speculation on my part. No, I know of two such cases in my extended family. One of them has lasted for decades. But each case is different. The public myth of them is probably that they are wild orgies on the side. Rather, what typically happens is that one or both partners finds someone else as a close friend and long-term lover, but the marriage remains for friendship, family, legal, health-insurance, property, and other reasons. And when everyone is happy about it, they tend to keep it very low-key because many Americans somehow think it's a horrible tragedy or something.
So yes, I've seen it work, and work very well for the long term. But it's not for everyone.
Honestly, I don't get it. What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing.
The fact that she won't do this has nothing to do with sex. It is about control and resentment, or some past baggage that she won't let go. Seriously, we are not talking about the real issue.
"What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing."
Wow. Haven't heard such an offensive and sexist remark like that in long time.
You really don't understand much about relationships. There are some women AND men who just don't see the need for sex. You can tell them that it's their biblical duty or whatever to take care of your needs as you interpret obedience but it's not going to make them want to drop their pants for you.
Oh and I do understand the Christian or other religious POVs on marriage duty and obedience quite thoroughly. I'm pretty sure this isn't what is meant to happen.
TBH, if that is the tone which you took things with your W in the past, I don't know why you're so surprised she's still angry at you.
If any of your 3 daughters told you that they just didn't feel like having sex for their H's (and they have no past hangups or anything) that they need to get on their backs and satisfy their men? I don't think that's what M in a spiritual sense is all about.
JMHO.
M-43 W-40 2D - 9 and 5
Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet a new life.
There is nothing sexist, or offensive about my comment. It is simply a fact. For a healthy adult, the physical act of sex is a trivial thing. The emotional aspect of it is not. I am saying that it is more complicated than "I just don't want to have sex".
Is she angry at you? Does she have issues with her body? Are there issues from childhood? Is there a physical condition which makes sex painful? Is she punishing you for something? Is it a test to see if you will stay and love her without sex?
What is really going on?
//I don't think that's what M in a spiritual sense is all about.// It is not what it is "All" about, but it is a component of it. When the time comes, I will talk to my daughters about the importance of loving your spouse enough to sacrifice your wants for theirs.
In the future Mr. Bond, can you comment on my posts without the personal attacks? Thank you.
One more comment. I am NOT saying it is the wifes biblical "Duty" to take care of a mans sexual needs. It is not a question of "Duty". I am saying that when you express a deeply felt need to someone who loves you that they will "Want" to take care of your need.
Taking care of your need will bring them Joy. They will desire to do it. It will be no "Duty" at all.
If taking care of your needs is viewed by your spouse as a "Duty" that brings her no Joy, then there is a bigger issue.
"What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing."
Wow. Haven't heard such an offensive and sexist remark like that in long time.
You really don't understand much about relationships. There are some women AND men who just don't see the need for sex. You can tell them that it's their biblical duty or whatever to take care of your needs as you interpret obedience but it's not going to make them want to drop their pants for you.
Oh and I do understand the Christian or other religious POVs on marriage duty and obedience quite thoroughly. I'm pretty sure this isn't what is meant to happen.
TBH, if that is the tone which you took things with your W in the past, I don't know why you're so surprised she's still angry at you.
If any of your 3 daughters told you that they just didn't feel like having sex for their H's (and they have no past hangups or anything) that they need to get on their backs and satisfy their men? I don't think that's what M in a spiritual sense is all about.
JMHO.
I don't expect my daughters to satisfy every kink of their man, but I really don't expect them to have a loyal husband in a sexless position. It's WRONG!
I would not be too happy, and If she wanted to keep a man in a sexless position, I would ask her to find a man who doesn't care about sex, or if she wants to keep her man in a sexless position, that she should understand when he satisfy himself outside the relation.
Honestly, I don't get it. What does sex really take? You are asking her to lie on her back for less than 10 minutes and let you have her to show you that she cares for you? it is nothing.
The fact that she won't do this has nothing to do with sex. It is about control and resentment, or some past baggage that she won't let go. Seriously, we are not talking about the real issue.
What is the real issue?
Would you entertain that it may be a couples issue, not just the woman's "lack" of something or another? In other words, if this is the situation, the man might have a lot to do with the problem too.
I'm going to have to tell you that your first paragraph above would offend a lot of women, including Christian loving women. Perhaps it doesn't have all the context it should, but if you were a politician, in many areas of the country your career would be over with that paragraph alone.
This is not a man/woman discussion, or about sex for that matter.
You have a spouse who has the ability to meet a deeply held need of the other spouse, with minimal effort and the spouse refuses to.
Why?
There must be a reason. Why is the act of sex so unappealing that it would create such resistance? Why is she so unwilling to meet her spouses needs? Why is she willing to lose a relationship over this issue?
Personally, I just believe there has to be something deeper; Some resentment toward her husband, something physical or some self esteem issue which creates such a conflict.
