I think MWD wrote a book about it because it's not acceptable to deny sex to your spouse assuming that they are meeting your needs in the marriage. I don't know what information you're assuming I haven't read.
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
That part wasn't the initial offensive part. It was the initial statement of... " 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."
It seemed to trivialize the act on the part of the spouse. Sounded more like a hooker than a spouse.
I took his point to be that the act is not particularly time consuming or physically arduous and in that context I did not find it offensive.
If you are reading into it that sex is a trivial obligation then I would agree that's offensive but that's not how I took it.
WRT people posting here saying they misunderstood the importance of sex, yes I've seen that but it's usually not in the context of a completely sexless marriage. What I read more often is that people withhold sex because they are resentful, angry, feel unappreciated or otherwise are not having their needs met. I understand that -- in the context of a failing relationship sex is not owed as an obligation.
Reading SSMguy and The Captain, they report that their wives are satisfied in the marriage and their needs are being met, but they still choose to *completely* deny any sex. Not just constrain it, unilaterally declare that there will be no more ever no matter what.
In what way can that be justified?
To me it's the same as unilaterally declaring there will be no more conversation in the relationship ever again for any reason but still expecting to have your needs met by the other person.
Doesn't that seem profoundly selfish and completely unacceptable?
Married 18, Together 20, Now Divorced M: 48, W: 50, D: 18, S: 16, D: 12 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 7/13/11 Start Reconcile: 8/15/11 Bomb Dropped (EA, D): 5/1/2014 (Divorced) In a New Relationship: 3/2015
"I think MWD wrote a book about it because it's not acceptable to deny sex to your spouse assuming that they are meeting your needs in the marriage. I don't know what information you're assuming I haven't read."
I was wondering if you hadn't read SSM as well as other books on the subject.
When you say that it's "not acceptable to deny sex", you're seeing it from one POV. To the other's POV, it's perfectly acceptable. And just to clarify, there is a difference between DENIAL of sex and just not wanting sex. Couples who argue with one another DENY sex to each other. In a SSM, oftentimes the LD spouse or the one who doesn't want sex just doesn't see the importance of it. Again, go through the other peoples' posts. You'll see many of those stories there. And if you asked them if they felt that they were denying their spouse sex, they'll probably tell you that they weren't "denying" it to them. They just didn't see that as important.
It doesn't mean that there is something mentally wrong with them. They just don't feel like it. But it doesn't mean that they don't love their spouses. They just choose to exhibit it in other ways. So it isn't just as simple as lying down and taking it. Might as well get a hooker to do that for you.
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.
"I am curious. What exactly do you find offensive about this commment? What is the substance behind your offense?"
What I found offensive was how you seemed to trivialize the act of sex in a SSM as being as simple as the woman lying on her back and taking it. Yes, I didn't miss that part about how you said that's how she should "express" her love for you, but in a SSM it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
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.
"WRT people posting here saying they misunderstood the importance of sex, yes I've seen that but it's usually not in the context of a completely sexless marriage. What I read more often is that people withhold sex because they are resentful, angry, feel unappreciated or otherwise are not having their needs met. I understand that -- in the context of a failing relationship sex is not owed as an obligation."
In the 5 years I've been here, I've seen many stories where the LBS just didn't see sex as being a big thing. And again, you're confusing "withholding" with just not seeing it as a priority. Withholding is done on purpose and yes, in those cases, it's due to some past resentment. However, there are quite a few cases where the spouse just doesn't see sex as a priority and then they're surprised when their spouses leave them. Sometimes it's because the LBS is LD and the other is HD and sometimes its for other reasons.
How many times have you heard married people (especially men) think that they would get more sex after they get married, and are surprised when it doesn't happen? That's just the way some things are. Of course those things can change, but these scenarios as well as the other stories on here won't change until the person decides to make a change.
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.
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?
Well, let me weigh in on this. I'll do it thought by thought.
Honestly, I don't get it. What does sex really take?
Really? To paraphrase a rather direct observation as it could be applied to your comment, you have such a stunningly superficial understanding of what is involved that it is almost embarrassing to read what you write.
First, in this case it takes the consent of two adults. The "consent" of only one adult, the one determined to "have sex," without the consent of the other is at least "assault with the intent to please." It also has a criminal definition...it is called "rape."
So, if you really are and have been concerned about potential custody issues, it probably is not terribly wise to admit that you really don't get it and then propose what sex really takes. Anything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law.
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.
Well, there are so many problems with this statement. First, this is a real "cave-painter" and "knuckle-dragger" POV. It shows a great deal of disrespect for another person, but it is consistent with my comment above that you think you have the right to "assault with the intent to please." And it reveals two things about you: 1) not that she "is" obligated to lay there (as you've unsuccessfully tried to defend yourself from your own words), but that she certainly "should be" obligated to lay there; 2) that you are entitled to show her lay there as proof that she cares for you.
My wife does have a point with these words. "No means no! Not yes, not maybe. Isn't that what we teach our children!"
On a somewhat lighter side, I see your problem. Somewhere, I estimated the number of times I have engaged in sex over my lifetime and it is well over two thousand times. I can count on one hand the number of times when it took less than 10 minutes. There was the time when my first wife and I were out tromping through the woods in 12 inches of snow. Everything was snowed in and so we got dressed in our thermals and down jackets and went for a hike in the woods near where we lived. We climbed this hill and emerged into this clearing amongst the pines to overlook the snow-covered area taking pictures of the snow. And then we stripped ourselves naked and made love in the snow. It was "hot" and quick in those low temperatures and this powder quality snow. And when we got home we spent the rest of the afternoon in bed together.
On and then there was this time on a golf course one warm spring evening. And the other time I can remember with my current wife was when we were pressed for time to get ready for dinner when we were on our honeymoon. We came out of the shower and dropped down on the floor right outside the bathroom.
It has always been an investment of time, the set aside of at least an hour and usually much more. If it was just 10 minutes or less and then my orgasm, I probably wouldn't miss it as much. But I do miss those long, slow lovemaking sessions. I have no sense of whether my current wife misses them at all. My ex-wife does as she has told me so, many years after our divorce.
Oh, and one other thing. Although these women might start out or seem like they are "in the mood," or even somewhat interested, it might not be something that they can sustain no matter what I did. Sometimes she could get more involved, sometimes not. And when it was a time when it was not working (for her), here is the difference between you and me: I didn't expect her to just lay there either on her back or on her stomach and take the stroking or the pounding just so I can have an orgasm while being inside her. I was willing to stop. Just stop.
No anger, no guilt, no retribution.
Maybe later.
When that happens frequently, just as the outright "no" then its indicative of something else going on. But I have enough self-respect (and respect for my wife) to be willing to stop. You can make sex strictly about you and what you want and maybe you might get intimacy out of that. My POV has always been that in lovemaking, the sex part is about her, about what makes her feel good and curl her toes and out of that the closeness/intimacy grows.
When nothing curls her toes, for me that is a real problem.
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.
In my own life, the cases I have cited where this has occurred, there is always an issue of hormones and a changing situation/body. I know this. It may not be the only thing but it is a partial synergistic effect. The dramatic dropoff of the sex-life between my first wife and I after our child was born can be an "expected" side effect. But it dragged on and on. And in the end it turned into her having an affair. It wasn't until she got pregnant again, after our divorce and after she remarried where those same feelings arose again that she realized it was a post-partum hormone issue that brought on those feelings. And she got treatment for that. And she apologized to me. As she said, she just didn't know where that came from and the second time those feelings showed up she realized that it had very little to do with me.
My current wife's going through menopause and then her ultimate hysterectomy is a factor in how all this went down. Statistically, 30% women who go through a radical hysterectomy lose all sexual desire. So, for me, one way of looking at this is that all the stuff that led up to this was driven by hormones. Now the lack of desire may entirely have been driven by a surgery carried out in 1999. Everything else before that led to a reinforcement of feelings that have no way out.
Finally, if you've never expressed these opinions before your church experience, or you've had them but as a result of your involvement in your church you've started expressing them, then for your wife, this can very much look like a cult-experience...that you've been captured or caught up in a cult.
I may complain that I miss my sex life, but I don't have so little respect for my wife that I think that she should be obligated to perform sex acts just so that she could show me that she cares for me. If you think that you are living a lie. I am not willing to live that particular lie.
The Captain
Last sex: 04/06/1997 Last attempt: 11/11/1997 W Issues "No Means No" Declaration: 11/11/1997 W chooses to terminate sex 05/1998 I gained 60, then lost 85 pounds. Start running again (marathons)
//Aren't you even curious why three people would find it offensive?//
I am curious. What exactly do you find offensive about this commment? What is the substance behind your offense?
You can't even guess why others would find it offensive, even if you don't?
I think the others here have answered it pretty well already. But I'll add a few statements.
Originally Posted By: RockJC
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
You are aware, aren't you, that intercourse can be painful for a woman if she is not properly aroused? And arousal is not simply a matter of lying back, and it is certainly not "nothing". I mean, your seeming ignorance on that point alone is astounding for someone who has already been in a marriage. As the others said, you seem to be describing a hooker performance in this sense.
Also, your statement says nothing about her orgasm. I mean, just lying back for intercourse alone, which, even for women who are fully participating, the majority won't experience an orgasm. So what more would you do? Or are you just happy with a woman who doesn't have an orgasm and you are satisfied?
What if she said that she can show her love for you in other ways instead? And that she would be fine with you going into the bathroom to pleasure yourself. What's really the difference if she's not enjoying it physically and is not turned on?
I'm also curious about your idea of eroticism. Is arousal and orgasm only to be accompanied by thoughts of devotion and love? Any naughty fantasies and shared acceptance?
I wrote one sentence expressing a simple idea. I think Accuracy has done a very good job of re-iterating the intent of my post, so I would just refer you to his explanation. The post is very clear.
My comment had nothing to do with Rape, or sexual obligation, or pain during sex, or vaginal dryness, or female orgasm or male sexual selfishness, or cults or any of the other nonsense you guys are writing about.
You are inferring things into my comment that were never stated, or implied. I suggest you re-read it for context and intent, because these statements are way off base.
