Lou: I don't think that my W's watching of "Cinderalla" gave her a sense of entitlement. I just think that she gets in these moods sometimes where she wants to make me feel stupid, and it always catches me by surprise. I don't think there's anything particularly playful about it, either. Sometimes I think she gets in a mood where she's mad at men, and I'm the closest one to take it out on.
GEL: Sometimes I can do that, but sometimes, as noted above, it just takes me by surprise and I just tell myself to stop asking her for anything at all. It's hard to be a smart azz in my sitch, sometimes.
However, I did get an opportunity last week. We were sitting down to dinner at our campsite, and, behind me, was a beautiful view of the Rocky Mountains. W said something like, "We (she and our DD5, sitting on the opposite side of the picnic table) sure have a beautiful view." I held my arms out wide and said, "take it all in, baby!" (BF would have been proud of me). She actually smiled.
That's a great one! At least it got a smile out of her. I know it's sometimes difficult to take opportunity of those moments, believe me...I don't always think fast enough to myself...and sometimes I just don't feel like it....although, I'll admit that's rare LOL.
Camping in the Rockies sounds wonderful! My H and I were discussing going camping this fall around Grand Lake here in OK, or perhaps in the Ozarks. We'll definitely do more of that as our S gets older, we'll take our horses along too.
There is Christian material on this subject, but it's awfully hard to come by. (No puns intended).
Of course there is the Biblical discussion in 1 Cornithians 7. Genesis 2:24 even sums up the physical act as a DEFINING part of marriage. And there is Proverbs 5:18 and the following verses, which state a husband is to be satisfied with the wife of his youth for all of his life - but what gets overlooked is that that also implies an obligation on the part of the wife to help provide that satisfaction.
The Christian literary / relationship advice world is extremely biased against the husband on the point of sex, and there's just no way of getting around it or denying it. The eptiome of this anti-sex bias is this book:
This book consists of a writing/devotional for every day of the year. 365 of them.
364 of the pages are about the "relationship" sort of things that a good husband needs to do for his wife. You know, the kind of advice that we get anywhere and everywhere else. And I don't mean to dismiss this. Yes, I know it's important and yes a husband has the obligation to do all those things (anybody who's read a book on relationships or romance knows what they are because he's read them ad infinitum, yada, yada, yada - you know what I'm talking about too).
Like I said, 364 pages telling husbands how to behave themselves and what's required of them in a Christian marriage.
All except one. March 15. The ONE page that says boo in the way of acknowledging that - oh yeah - it might be a good idea if the wife could be so kind as to taking time out of her busy life to make a point of putting out for her poor husband once in a while.
I know that sounds as bad as some of the posts of YOURS that the women here get up in arms about. But a Christian man - especially a HUMAN Christian man and CERTAINLY a human Christian man who happens to have been cursed with a sexless marriage - would understandably be just a little testy after having read material such as this.
This is probably the next best book to Dr. Laura's Care and Feeding of Husbands, which itself isn't a "Christian" book. But I doubt you'll find a Christian book that comes any closer, because this guy lays it right on the line and identifies "sexual fulfillment" as being at the TOP of the list of things that a husband can't live without.
Don't bother showing it to a wife, though, because even that book is still stacked 90-t0-10 percent with the list of things the husband has to do to keep his wife happy. Which of course a husband is perfectly happy to do if he's getting what he needs, but when he's sex starved, sorry, but he's really no longer in a mood to read, let alone do, it. And that unfortunately is the point to which I've gotten.
Bah. I just get into moods at times and this is one of those times. And then I read my "Christian" New Man magazine which features regular articles by Dr. Douglas Weiss. He's a Christian "sex authority" - NOT. To steal a quote from an Everybody Loves Raymond rerun I just watched tonight, he "should have his male organ revoked." He's not a real man. He can't possibly be. To read his articles, you'd believe we not only should not masturbate, but we should be grateful for what little we ever do get, and accept as a given that we're obligated to accept far less sex than we want because we're not entitled to it. Oh, yeah, if and when I get into moods like this it's very likely to be shortly after I've read some of that "so-called Christian" anti-husband CRAP.
Oh well. Romans 8:28. God takes everything bad and works it for good. Somehow. Eventually.
What I'm saying here but I guess never got down to directly saying is this: While it's arguably not the BIBLICAL view (1 Cor. 7 goes both ways equally), the prevailing HUMAN view by marriage-book writers who purport their works to be "Christian" tends to be this: "The things a husband is expected to do for his wife are OBLIGATIONS to which a wife is ENTITLED, and it's wrong, even sinful, for him not to provide them. On the other hand, if and when she provides sex for him, it's to be considered only a cherished GIFT and PRIVILEGE which it's perfectly understandable and OK for her to withhold or make a low priority of at any time for any reason for however long a period of time she choses...and she is guiltless before God. But if the husband objects or pouts about this in any way, if he responds to this situation with anything short of unconditional love and unlimited patience, he's sinning big time.
Yes, my friend, that is the "Christian" attitude about sexual relations in marriage, as told by Christian sex book writers.
But it's not the Bible's viewpoint. I would argue that a person who isn't interested in sex - regardless of gender - has no business, and no Biblical right - to even dare consider getting married. To cheat another person out of their once in a lifetime opportunity to have the sex life God intends for the married person should be recognized as the MAJOR sin that it absolutely is, again, based on 1 Corinthians 7.
This is not the Catholic viewpoint at all. Read Christopher West's "the Good news about sex and marriage" for a lay person's discussion of Pope John Paul's discourse on the role of sex in marriage. It is quite different than what the fundamentalists preach. Sex is a gift from God to married couples, and it is a sin for either to withhold it from their mate. Not only that, but it is not strictly for procreation as many believe the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church, rather, says it is a sin to deny sex to your mate, and it is a sin to use artificial means to block conception. I should add, that sex is also not an entitlement for either spouse, rather it is a gift to be shared.
What I did find in my own M is that lack of sex was only a symptom, not the underlying problem in my M. Open communication has made a huge difference in my marriage, as well as in our sex life. If you haven't already, you might try going to a marriage encounter weekend. The dialog techniques they taught there turned around our relationship, and while it has been a rocky road, we've made definite progress. I'm finally getting around to reading "How to Stay Married & Love It: Solving the Puzzle of a SoulMate Marriage (Paperback)" by Nancy Landrum, and was pleasantly surprised that they highly recommend a dialog technique called mirroring that is effectively the same thing as the WWME dialog, except without the formality. Folks, as hokey as this mirroring feels when you start out with it, this stuff really works. The book might be the way to approach it for those of you who are turned off by the religious bent of the WWME weekend. Hairdog and Cemar, I'm thinking especially of you two, might be worth a shot getting this book and trying it out. They say it can work even if only one of the partners embraces it (something they didn't tell us with WWME).
I guess my point is, try to take your focus off the sex, focus on intimate communication, especially the listening. Grow your closeness that way, and the sex will likely follow. Mrs NOP, I think that is the message you've been saying all along too, right?
Oh, I was raised Catholic. I know all about the Catholic viewpoint, and it's a good part of the reason I'm no longer Catholic. And my wife definitely isn't Catholic either.
Quote: Try to take your focus off the sex, focus on intimate communication, especially the listening. Grow your closeness that way, and the sex will likely follow.
That's exactly what all the books say. Been there, done that. For 12 years. And (at least as far as sex goes) have nothing to show for it. Next suggestion, please. That one's had far more than an adequate trial and has shown itself to be nothing but an utter failure and a bald-faced lie.
Funny, MrsGGB and I were both raised Catholic, but in different archdiocese. Comparing notes on what we carried away we both came to the conclusion that the Church does a pretty piss poor job teaching the doctrine. MrsGGB was adamant that sex was just for procreation. I even bought into it, and it wasn't until someone here directed me to the Chris West book that I knew anything different. I've learned more about my religion in the past two years than I did in the previous 42. The point is, just because you were raised Catholic doesn't mean you really know the Catholic viewpoint. I've been pleasantly surprised on a number of occasions as I've dug into what the church really says and the reasons behind the teachings.
As far as the communication goes, it isn't just talking, it is a sharing of feelings to the point that you let down your defenses and commit to understanding what your partner is feeling. Those are key ingredients, and without them I know we wouldn't have made any progress at all. It was the key to getting our R back on track, and I doubt any thing else would have had much effect....nothing else worked including talking in the 18 years of marriage before this breakthrough. Look back over my threads if you want a history. You'll find that when I joined this board I had one foot out the door. I went to WWME as one last shot so that I could say that I'd tried everything, and doggone it, it worked! It is coming up on 2 years now since the WWME weekend, and the difference in our R is night and day. Still plenty of room to improve, mind you, but light years better than what it had been.
Quote: F I've learned more about my religion in the past two years than I did in the previous 42. The point is, just because you were raised Catholic doesn't mean you really know the Catholic viewpoint.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. I know you would have no way of knowing me well enough yet, but don't underestimate me. I did the same thing while in college. Researched the full gamut of my (Catholic) university library's Roman Catholic theology books, making sure they bore the official stamps of approval (nihil obstat, imprimatur). And concurrently studying a Catholic translation of the Bible. I learned the "official" Catholic teachings very well. And the more I learned them and compared them to what Jesus and the Bible really taught, the less I believed them! Of course, inherent in the Catholic faith is the faith that the Church is above Scripture and has the authority to interpret and define what it means. But that's a faith I no longer have.
