'tis the Bearded One

Active Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 'tis the Bearded One

  1. As others have pointed out. It is generally reversible. And even if a particular vasectomy wasn't you can still harvest sperm through "sperm aspiration". If the wife is in constant pain or physical/emotional damage from birth control, the risk of lasting pain for the husband from a vasectomy doesn't exactly rule out the option. I think you might need to take a step back and calm down a little. After all, this thread has had a relatively high emotional load... We have women mass murderers, sociopaths, baby killers, and psychopaths and it took you a lovely girl waiting till marriage to have sex to figure this out? Women can be as bad as men. Men as bad as women. I didn't think this was an issue.... Woah, mate. Take it easy. Some of these accusatory questions are quite out of line. I realise you have a very strong negative view of the whole situation but you are frankly sounding quite paranoid and prejudicially hostile. If you treat women who have given no indication that they would find such actions acceptable as if they would do them, I think your chances of scaring away the best of girls is pretty high. No one wants to tackle that level of hostile projection. Unless you're betting on God sending you a saint....I suggest you familiarise yourself with the term "self-fulfilling prophecy". If you are happy to be single. Great! Not everyone is cut out for marriage. But if you are blaming women for not being happily married, it won't do your well being any good! If this is the messages that are being received. Really, what are your chances of a decent, balanced, level-headed girl telling herself, "I'm sure years of my life won't be wasted trying to prove him wrong! I can change him!" May I suggest seeing a professional to work through some of these things? Again, not permanent. Lost income, potential cost of reversal, cost of storing sperm before procedure are all going to play towards balancing the options. No one is saying they are inherently irrelevant factors. Ah...I was (at least intending to) explore the emotional side of sex for males not make some comment on how this isn't the case for females. I'd say unless/until (it still wouldn't hurt...) there was the whole "freedom of no" understanding (in which case "B)" would be covered in their sufficiently frequent sex life), I would explain in more detail A) why she feels the need to turn it down (stress, headache, pains, emotions) and "B)" the reason that she isn't using to turn it down (e.g. I don't love you, I don't value our sexual connection/your sexual aspects, I don't get enough pleasure from our sexual intimacy). The last could be done with an expression of how much she appreciates his sexual affections and how much she is looking forward to it when the pains are gone, when she has an expected moment of de-stress, whatever. If she can give a concrete instance of when that will be would be even better. If she initiates at the soonest possibility, it would also be a good communication via action sort off a "Yes, now we can finally have sex again! I've been looking forward to it as much as you and just couldn't wait until you felt the need to initiate again. Come here you sexy beast!" Just because conflict is resolved doesn't mean emotional intimacy is restored. Sure. I was picturing a (potentially unrealistic?) situation where the conflict has been resolved, the husband has done all that he could do to heal whatever harm he may have caused - and she has accepted this but she might just need some time to flush her system of the emotions involved? "I accept your apology/whatever etc there isn't anything else I expect you to do, but I need some more time to process". Kind of like waiting a little after a car-crash to let the adrenaline etc ease out.
  2. No "wedding dress" for your wedding??!

    Hello ladies, I've been wondering for a while.... In the west most wedding dresses are white, partly to represent the bride's purity though that tradition is (mostly) not followed and isn't the original reason for the white dress either (see http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/2670-white-wedding-dress/#comment-38301 & ) and are specifically designed for weddings. Don't get me wrong, some of them are gorgeous though I'd like a bit of colour.... My query is: why not spend the money on a nonetheless beautiful dress (not classified as a wedding dress) that you could reasonable wear for special times after the wedding, say a wedding anniversary date-night? Would you want to be able to add more memories to the dress (assuming you aren't renting it)? Many wedding dresses don't allow comfortably for even ballroom dancing so would you simply have it modified post-wedding if you wanted to reuse it? I have little insight but I would suspect wedding dresses have that added "sucker" price-tag so you might even be able to get a prettier one for the same price. Bonus question: do any of you fancy the idea of making your own wedding dress? Came across this (http://restlessgrace.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/10-things-to-know-about-making-my-own.html). I kind of liked the idea of using one's wedding dress material leftovers for lingerie.... I eagerly await your thoughts
  3. Your pleasure = Spouse's responsibility?

    Oh no! Bonding hormones are still released (norepinephrine, oxytocin, vasopressin)! The problem is that the bonding doesn't occur with one's marital partner but to other things.... Here is the reference I was referring to, even found the original journal (which with your medical background I'm sure you'll feel right at home with). Prolactin is 4x greater after orgasm from intercourse than masturbation and suggest greater satiety: http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Brody-2006-prolactin-bp.pdf Just one example of how masturbation and partner sex are different....
  4. I'm sure your wife will love to hear this. In which case, you could practice communicating issues with obstinate people....It's a good skill to have. If anything you could give us the opportunity to debate with someone who thinks they are right. So if I'm smart, then I need to usually agree with you. "Hey wifey! Usually only stupid people disagree with me. But your smart right? Right?"
  5. Totally agree. Well put I tend to get the sense that women tend to be the more self-sacrificing. You can "reject" someone emotionally - say a husband bulldozes through his wife's feelings and insists on having sex regardless of her emotional state kind of a "I want your body but I don't care about your emotions". But I'm not sure we can separate physical [sexual?] rejection from emotional rejection. Wouldn't you feel emotionally hurt if your partner says "Your body disgusts me, but I love everything else about you!" [that may be a bit extreme...] or "I don't want to have sex with you right now; I don't want you or me to feel that love connection"? Simply because men have a stronger physical need for sex [just on a purely physical level sperm is being produced 24/7 and needs to be gotten rid of in some way] doesn't mean that there are (or can be, particularly in relationships) strong emotional and psychological factors linked with it. Sex has a deep emotional impact for us. Our sexuality is a core part of our identity. If a wife is aware of these factors when turning down sex and reaffirms/validates them, I think the sexual rejection will be easier to take - however, too much rejection and you will likely make your words sound hollow. I've copied out an article below from http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/sex-and-intimacy/understanding-your-husbands-sexual-needs/sex-is-an-emotional-need [it seems to be a part of a series of articles] Sex Is an Emotional Need By Juli Slattery Shaunti Feldhahn's best-selling book For Women Only underscores the fact that sex has a deep emotional impact on men. Feldhahn interviewed several hundred married men about different aspects of marriage. Not surprisingly, sex dominated their expressed needs and desires. Perhaps the unexpected twist to Feldhahn's findings was the men's feelings behind their sexuality. The vast majority of men indicated that being sexually fulfilled in marriage significantly impacted their confidence and their masculinity. Seventy-seven percent agreed with this statement: "If my wife was an interested and motivated sex partner, it would give me a greater sense of well-being and satisfaction with life."1 A man's ability to perform sexually, to arouse and please his wife, is central to his confidence as a man. The impact ripples into practically every other area of his life. Think of the word impotent. Although we use it as a term to describe the inability of a man to achieve an erection, the broader meaning speaks volumes. Impotent literally means "unable to take effective action; helpless or powerless." A man who feels like a failure sexually, feels impotent — helpless and powerless — in all areas of his life. Dr. Archibald Hart, in his extensive work regarding male sexuality, has concluded that a man's sexual prowess and the need to perform sexually is a fundamental emotional need. While some men become obsessed with proving their masculinity through sexual conquests, others avoid sexual interactions because they fear failure.2 As I mentioned earlier, men are extremely sensitive to sexual rejection and take it very personally. In Feldhahn's research, men confided that when their wives say, "Not tonight," men really hear, "I'm not interested in you."3 A man can have sex with his wife every day of the week and still feel emotionally rejected by her. Having his wife just go through the motions isn't enough. Again, he longs to know that he is pleasing her and that she is sexually interested in him. This partly explains the lure of sexual outlets like porn and fantasy. Think (briefly!) about sexual images you've seen of provocative women. While their body parts are exposed (and airbrushed!), the most sexual thing about them is their availability. Their eyes and pose scream, "I want you, and I won't reject you!" Read Solomon's description of a woman trying to entice a man into adultery: She threw her arms around him and kissed him, boldly took his arm and said, "I've got all the makings for a feast — today I made my offerings, my vows are all paid, so now I've come to find you, hoping to catch sight of your face — and here you are! I've spread fresh, clean sheets on my bed, colorful imported linens. My bed is aromatic with spices and exotic fragrances. Come, let's make love all night, spend the night in ecstatic lovemaking! My husband's not home; he's away on business, and he won't be back for a month. (Proverbs 7:13–20, The Message) Notice that Solomon doesn't mention anything about the physical attributes of the woman. She is attractive because she wants him. She is taking advantage not only of his physical desire but of his emotional need to be desired. Translation: You cannot compartmentalize your husband's sexuality. You cannot love him as a husband but reject him sexually. From his perspective, his sexuality is a central part of who he is as both a man and a husband. Shaunti Feldhahn, For Women Only: What You Need to Know About the Inner Lives of Men (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004), 98. ↩ Hart, The Sexual Man, 72–73. ↩ Feldhahn, For Women Only, 100. ↩ I can understand that. What I'm curious about, and I touched on it before but not so directly. So far we've been largely equating the conflict/[a decision that needs to be made] with the emotional disconnection that is strong enough for a wife to withhold. Do the two need to be inextricably entwined? Does the conflict have to be resolved before the emotion improves or can we work on the reconnection first? Does the decision have to be made before there can be a reconnection? Obviously, it will depend partly on the conflict e.g. if I beat my wife [God forbid] I wouldn't expect a reconnection without first a resolution. But what in the case of a decision of say, moving cities, or what school the kids go to? Or will there not be any emotional disconnection unless the husband somehow hurt his wife in how he approached it? Like @Steadfast Madcap mentioned with going behind the wife's back and expecting her to uproot her life for him without input/query? Sure, as long as we are properly weighing up the risks of a vasectomy... If the conflict was resolved, can you give a ballpark figure of how long it might take for the emotions to settle down to discontinue withholding?
  6. Virgin Therapists: What would you do?

    I prefer the term "innocent" fyi Certainly, though I don't remember there being anything on her accepting her part in the neglect....[something that my last reply brushed over too...] Que shutdown response from him: "And why weren't you fighting for the last two months!? Why wasn't it worth fighting for before today!? Where were you when I was fighting for our happiness over the last two months!? You didn't care about our happiness then, why should I care now!?!" You are so right! I wrote this response with only the last 3 days in mind...[don't ask me why] But as I mentioned above, does she see the last two months "her" problem? Or does she treat it like it shouldn't be a bit issue that he's blowing it out of proportion, but the 3 days of ignoring each other are...sounds a little unlikely even to naive ol' me! haha This is where she breaks down crying, saying she's so sorry for not listening to him, and thanking him for fighting for their happiness over the last two months even though she wouldn't listen, and promising to be more attentive and a better listener in the future....And they lived happily ever after *cough cough*
  7. I have never actually had that levied against me. Maybe its because I don't have that many relationships where it would be appropriate to be nosy or where I have the opportunity to contribute or I'm just too respected in my circle I think we do know a lot. However, knowledge doesn't equate with an understanding just how hard putting certain things into action are. I can read about how emotional a woman can be but until I'm presented with that in marriage (or at least in a significant relationship) I can't be sure how I will handle it. Haha this reminds me: my brother went to visit a female friend's family some time ago [she has 3 younger sisters all still in school] and he was shocked that for the vast majority of days there would be some girl crying in her room over something. I think the emotional volatility scared him....granted their young but...yeah He hasn't been exposed to things like that and neither have I. These case scenarios are awesome! Keep 'em coming. I've learnt a lot out of them, even if its just being aware of possible communication gabs between us therapists. To be honest, I'm not sure if a separate forum would be beneficial. I don't know how others browse the forum but I rarely browse by forum but rather by the unread content stream. If there is a forum people may be less likely to start the thread with "Virgin Therapists:" [though this could be specified in the forum's sticky! in which case, yes, I'm for it] thus the case scenarios would be less obvious in the "new/unread content" streams. Maybe ensuring the title starts with "Virgin Therapists:" and has a Virgin Therapists tag [as @Naturallyhas done] is the better option?? The existence of this tag could be mentioned in some Introduction to the Forum sticky. Actually does such a sticky exist?....
  8. Virgin Therapists: What would you do?

    You are right. If she started the day of suddenly being nice it could raise suspicions of manipulation. This however, raises another issue, how much do we have to ensure our actions couldn't be interpreted as manipulative? If she has a history, then certainly, but I'd like to think that if she has a good history then Adam could accept that she has come to the realisation today to restore the relationship (enough is enough) regardless of whether he comes to the event or not. I guess only past similar instances and belief in her non-manipulativeness would influence that. If she tries to restore the relationship the day of, Adam rejects, but she still continues to try and restore the relationship he may not think it was intended to be manipulative and he may not treat it as being manipulative should such a coincidence occur in the future. However, there have been 2-3 days before the day of the event where Jane could have raised the issue of needing to restore the relationship and perhaps explicitly state at that point that it has nothing to do with whether he comes to the event or not. Sure, even then he could suspect an ulterior motive but that is the best she can do, I think. Otherwise they potentially go to the event, privately unreconciled and hostile yet publicly "fine". Or if she doesn't even try and reconcile the day of, he might not go. They reconcile shortly after and he regrets not going. I think her best option is to aim for restoration of the relationship as soon as can regardless of coincidences. If she has a good history, I'd think there are good chances that Adam will accept it as non-manipulative. Which is why I didn't phrase it as a question. If you phrase it as a question, he needs to give a response: yes [great], no [what do you do now? you've asked so obviously you should respect his response...but you've been prevented from demonstrating affection], silence [what do you do now? you've been blocked by non-engagement to go ahead and do it anyway might seem patronising?? Like he can't choose the right answer so you just do it like a mother...? I'm not sure]. I'd say just state "Please let me tie your tie" and go for it, ignore his anger/reticence. If he tries to block you or push your hands away, get physical "YOU WILL LET ME LOVE YOU! I love you and this marriage too much to let your or my stubbornness get in the way. It's gone on too long already. If you don't want to come tonight, so be it. But I will fight for our happiness whether you like it or not because it's worth it!" *calming breath* kiss him somewhere if he is sufficiently shocked and still frozen and walk away [better yet, hand him his packed lunch!]. Geez sometimes I scare myself! How controlling and manipulative am I?! haha....*sigh*
  9. I'm new and FINALLY got signed up!!

    I remember before the site upgrade, it was a bit more tricky but I just checked the settings and its fairly straight forward. Maybe @Invincible can help cause I can't look behind the scenes....sorry
  10. Hi All

  11. Hi Everyone!!

  12. Your pleasure = Spouse's responsibility?

    I don't think for the purposes of preventing porn/lust intrusion is entirely valid. Certainly, the Bible in 1 Corinthians 7:5 has an element of ensuring sufficient sex to ward of sinful temptation but I'd be careful (and I don't think you intended this) of framing it in a way where porn/lust is only not okay because you have been "taking care" of it; it isn't okay regardless. Though a healthy sexual marriage will help. To answer the question, yes, I would welcome the option. But then, who wouldn't? some masochist perhaps... I'd feel the same way. Scientifically/bio-chemically masturbation is different from sex. If you're interested to know more I can find the reference. I hope I don't want to masturbate or feel the need to when married. Wouldn't it be terrible to think I'd rather masturbate than be intimate with my spouse? However, I can see myself not initiating even if I felt like it in some circumstances, say, if I know she is terribly stressed/burdened and I don't want to lay this on her (or having to reject me if she feels bad about it). As admirable as this is, I would be concerned that this would turn it into a chore. How long will you be able to gain satisfaction out of this and see it as an act of love? Particularly when you may not be getting direct pleasure/orgasm out of it? I'm assuming since the focus is on taking care of his need, even if you were to have full sex you wouldn't continue it till you orgasmed too?? Then there is the issue of concerns over an imbalance of taking and giving that can crop up: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201210/when-your-partner-gives-more-you-can-return And unless he has an extremely high sex drive that drives him crazy without daily release (in which case he might need to check that out..) how might this level of servicing make sex "less special"? There would be no joyful waiting and anticipating even till the next day....all that, absence makes the heart grow fonder stuff....Women are recommended to wait 6 weeks after childbirth to have sex. Certainly, she could be giving handjobs and oral sex to tie the husband over but maybe, maybe, I wouldn't mind waiting in anticipation till we can come together in full union again.....it would certainly remind me how much I value it.... This is one reason I generally don't see masturbation as a good thing. You can become desensitised or too programmed to orgasming the specific way that you do it. Communication becomes important but if he sees this situation as a bad thing he should stop masturbating completely. His body/mind should eventually reset. @Invincible has made a strong point against solo sex in marriage. Allow me to explore why even if married, some [male or female] may still value it. Whether these are good reasons is another thing. If you've masturbated for years you've become used to your style of stimulation and you also know what to do for how you want it. If you want a different area touched, pressure, speed, whatever, you do it - you don't need to try and communicate it and hope it is done right. It will probably take an attentive mate and quite some time for them to be able to read you like a book sexually. You also only have to consider yourself and your own needs; you don't need to be concerned with responding physically or otherwise to your partner or their emotions etc. And of course there is absolutely no pressure or opportunity to reciprocate if you wouldn't want to. Solo-ing may be one way for a spouse to decrease the imbalance between giving and taking (see the link above). Yes. I would like to know why and hope to resolve those reasons. Does she have trouble reaching orgasm with me and doesn't want to tell me? Does she have trouble reaching orgasm in general and having me there hoping and trying to get her there is just creating some kind of guilt of not getting there which is making it even harder for her to get there [is masturbation more relaxing than the pressure of sex]? Does she feel guilty for needing so much attention to reach orgasm in comparison to me? Is she not comfortable giving directions? Am I not taking them? Is she sexually unfulfilled? So many questions that I'd like to have answered.... Interesting statistic: 40% of "taken" men masturbate compared to 30% for women. (http://www.yourtango.com/2015276231/real-reason-women-prefer-masturbation-over-sex-with-men) Sounds quite erotic. But as immature as it might sound, I think I'd be too embarrassed to ever do that in front of my husband! If there was a legitimate reason for her needing to masturbate, and isn't comfortable doing it infront of her husband (as this might also defeat the reason for masturbating in the first place) there are other ways to incorporate it into a mutual sex life if they introduce some D/s elements. He could give her some things she needs to complete within a certain time frame - could be anything really, run 2 kilometers, prepare dinner naked, and in that could be the task of pleasuring herself "for the maintenance of her health". If they want to get more specific he could specify a location (shower, bath, bedroom), maybe she gets access to special toys/food/candle whatever, maybe she needs to report/confess after the act or ask for permission in the first place. Just some thoughts...
  13. Certainly a wise decision. Not sure how far your going back here but sure, they used to make the family's clothes, help run the farm, run little businesses out of the home, mill the grain etc. Look at Proverbs 31. That is a highly industrious lady. My issue is not with where that takes place but that it takes place. If we are living on a farm, likely there will be enough work for one person to stay at home and not be wasting time. But if we live in a city [which I don't want to but for arguments sake] if she's not running a home business, or renovating, or spending a lot of time in ministry [or other valid, charitable work], or studying at home or working part time. I honestly think there would be a fair amount of time wasted. But I'm open to enlightenment. I just don't subscribe to the idea that the husband needs to be the sole breadwinner and the wife has to be free to pursue whatever she fancies (besides taking care of necessities) until the children come along. My boss worked ungodly hours during the workweek and then worked on his farm fencing and spraying and clearing on the weekends. Certainly, the wife helped run the farm but she also pursued a hobby home business that hardly, if ever broke even. Granted, by his own confession, he preferred being in the office since there were problems at home . But if both want to be together, why can't the wife earn a bit of income so the husband can work fewer hours and they can spend more time together? Also, thought I'd mention, that while some men can't stand the idea of being househusbands and I don't think that is ideal. If my wife sooo intent on pursuing her career, I'd stay home with the kids. Or maybe we could both work part-time but so that at least one of us is always at home with the kids.
  14. If we didn't have kids, I would expect her to be contributing to the household income. But certainly when we have kids I very very very much prefer her to stay at home and take care of the kids. Hopefully, my income and a frugal lifestyle will be enough to permit that. I think its better to live frugally anyway and better for the kids too. If there weren't kids to take care of, I would agree. You can only cook and clean so much. And I see no point to my wife sitting alone at home rather than out in the world learning and/or working. Kids however take a lot of energy!
  15. Agreed. Kind of like you have a "duty" to provide but not a right to receive? Though that falls within the definition of financial abuse.... It seems that while you don't call neglect abuse, you consider it grounds for divorce. I didn't realise it was "behind her back"....and it did occur before they were married. Though you'd think she should still be made aware when engaged.... As an example, I was thinking of infidelity. Which certainly is a grounds for divorce. But I was thinking of past the point where I might accept her reform as genuine and I want to continue the marital relationship. There is still going to be a fair bit of hurt and rebuilding of trust and issues to work through. While couples can have a better relationship post-infidelity than pre-infidelity, it's a lot of work and time to get to that point. Found this: According to the Kinsey Institute, 18- to 29-year-olds have sex an average of 112 times per year, 30- to 39-year-olds an average of 86 times per year, and 40- to 49-year-olds an average of 69 times per year. Thirteen percent of married couples have sex a few times per year, 45 percent a few times per month, 34 percent two to three times per week, and 7 percent four or more times per week. http://www.yourtango.com/experts/lissa-rankin/sexual-frequency-how-much-sex-enough
  16. Facial Hair

  17. No longer fun..... (?)

    There's gossip?!
  18. Well, [and I think I mentioned it somewhere else?] he could still believe the right decision was made but begrudge the decision-making process. Certainly! I remember there was a thing on many women preferring their husbands would spend less time at work (thus earn less) and have more relational time even though their lifestyle will be more frugal. This is something that needs to be clearly communicated by the wife. This is similar to the point I want to bring out. I don't like conflict. I wasn't raised with particularly good conflict resolution skills being instilled in me. I am quite sensitive to criticism and conflict. I realise I will have a lot of learning and growing to do when it comes to handling conflict in a productive and healthy manner. Conflict with someone you are married to has far greater implications than for any other person in your life. (Unless you're very loose on the divorce and remarriage standards) And thus it will be different from any conflicts you've had with other individuals. I've stated that sexual related issues can be reasonable grounds for withholding. Let me add to that if partner's abuse each other e.g. one beats up the other. It would be highly unreasonable for the abuser to expect intimacy (sexual or otherwise [okay well some non-sexual vulnerability will be needed to resolve the issue obviously]) from the victim before healing has occurred. How much time is reasonably for reconciliation depends on the type and level of conflict. When it comes to conflicts over say decisions [rather than hurt] I think it would be best to try and treat it as @Dave1985 described: an issue/conflict arises, it needs to be resolved, but in the meantime we still love each other and should act like it. If the marriage is not under threat, why should we enable the discontinuance of aspects important to a healthy marriage? If my partner were to commit adultery, I would withhold sex until things are sufficiently resolved because if they aren't I won't be having sex with her anyway. But if it's a decision over which town to move to regardless of which town I will be moving to I still intend to have sex with my wife so why stop during the decision-making process? Can't we still aim towards loving each other during the process? If I committed adultery and my wife complained but still acted wifely and still had sex, for me it would be like "Okay, so she doesn't like my adultery (duh) but it doesn't seem threaten the marital relationship at this point". If I committed adultery, I'd expect the default to be "this relationship is over" and the only hope is shaping up and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation. So why should the default for a conflict that does not threaten the existence of the marriage(/relationship) be one that questions the continuance of our intimacy? You may say, that conflicts with my addition of withholding after abuse since I don't believe abuse (short of infidelity) is grounds for divorce. It is however, grounds for separation and a severe discontinuance of intimacy (deterioration of the relationship) until things are restored. Which town we move to or which school our kids go to or where we holiday etc do should not have relationship destroying capabilities so why treat them like they would be during the decision-making process? I realise that it may be difficult having a conflict and yet maintaining respect, love, and affection (in all its forms) as if (or close to) the conflict wasn't occurring. I don't want our conflict to be a me against you; I want us to be able to tackle it as partners for the good of the marriage which will be the good of us both. If the default response to a conflict is withholding of sexual intimacy until some unknown point in the future, I think it will make it harder for me (and anyone who desires reasonably available sexual intimacy) to bring up conflicts in a timely manner. There is also a bad relational "game" that a person who doesn't want to have sex can start playing to avoid the situation. I think it is beneficial to avoid the elements of such a dynamic even in its innocent stages. Here's the an excerpt from Berne's book Games People Play: TLDR: whoever wants to avoid expected intimacy creates a conflict which gives them a "justified reason" to either reject an initiation or preclude the initiation altogether. ****** 1 · CORNER Thesis: Corner illustrates more clearly than most games their manipulative aspect and their function as barriers to intimacy. Paradoxically, it consists of a disingenuous refusal to play the game of another. 1. Mrs White suggests to her husband that they go to a movie. Mr White agrees. 2a. Mrs White makes an ‘unconscious’ slip. She mentions quite naturally in the course of conversation that the house needs painting. This is an expensive project, and White has recently told her that their finances are strained; he requested her not to embarrass or annoy him by suggesting unusual expenditures, at least until the beginning of the new month. This is therefore an ill-chosen moment to bring up the condition of the house, and White responds rudely. 2b. Alternatively: White steers the conversation around to the house, making it difficult for Mrs White to resist the temptation to say that it needs painting. As in the previous case, White responds rudely. 3. Mrs White takes offence and says that if he is in one of his bad moods, she will not go to the movie with him, and he had best go by himself. He says if that is the way she feels about it, he will go alone. 4. White goes to the movie (or out with the boys), leaving Mrs White at home to nurse her injured feelings. There are two possible gimmicks in this game: A. Mrs White knows very well from past experience that she is not supposed to take his annoyance seriously. What he really wants is for her to show some appreciation of how hard he works to earn their living; then they could go off happily together. But she refuses to play, and he feels badly let down. He leaves filled with disappointment and resentment, while she stays at home looking abused, but with a secret feeling of triumph. B. White knows very well from past experience that he is not supposed to take her pique seriously. What she really wants is to be honeyed out of it; then they would go off happily together. But he refuses to play, knowing that his refusal is dishonest: he knows she wants to be coaxed, but pretends he doesn’t. He leaves the house, feeling cheerful and relieved, but looking wronged. She is left feeling disappointed and resentful. In each of these cases the winner’s position is, from a naïve standpoint, irreproachable; all he or she has done is take the other literally. This is clearer in (B), where White takes Mrs White’s refusal to go at face value. They both know that this is cheating, but since she said it, she is cornered. The most obvious gain here is the external psychological. Both of them find movies sexually stimulating, and it is more or less anticipated that after they return from the theatre, they will make love. Hence whichever one of them wants to avoid intimacy sets up the game in move (2a) or (2b). This is a particularly exasperating variety of ‘Uproar’ (see Chapter 9 ). The ‘wronged’ party can, of course, make a good case for not wanting to make love in a state of justifiable indignation, and the cornered spouse has no recourse. Antithesis. This is simple for Mrs White. All she has to do is change her mind, take her husband by the arm, smile and go along with him (a shift from Child to Adult ego state). It is more difficult for Mr White, since she now has the initiative; but if he reviews the whole situation, he may be able to coax her into going along with him, either as a sulky Child who has been placated or, better, as an Adult. ****** Haha I like how we are thinking along the same lines. I pretty much asked this question above (I hadn't read this part). Let me put it this way: can I accept that a partner [either gender but female for me...] could validly reject sex on the basis of psycho-emotional factors? Yes, along with serious marital problems, headaches, menstrual cramps, health issues, job stress, physical/mental exhaustion etc etc. But if she has as a UTI (for which it is entirely reasonable to pass on sex) but refuses to treat it which leads to the prevention of sexual intimacy for an unreasonable period then yes, I'd find that unacceptable. That is abusive. Likewise, if she takes an unreasonable amount of time to process the emotional upheaval of a conflict [resolved or not], I'd expect her to work on that. Some people have a harder time with emotional volatility (don't think that's the right term...) but it is something that everyone should be able to work on. And as long as she is willing, working on it, and making reasonable progress that's okay. Similarly, if I am so chronically stressed out from work that I have an insufficient interest in sex for the health of the marriage then that is something I need to address. To me, withholding has connotations of being manipulative, abusive, and/or over extended periods. Here's a little infographic: When is Withholding Sex Abusive? ABUSIVE NOT ABUSIVE She doesn't feel like it because of an argument that just ended. X She rejects sex after an argument that took place a week ago. X She refuses sex because of a medical condition. X She refuses to seek treatment for a condition that prevents sex. X She refuses to offer alternate means of pleasure when she can't have sex. X Source: https://pairedlife.com/problems/Withholding-Sex-What-to-Do-About-It I'll try and get to this eventually as this is an important but tangent issue; I'm trying to catch up with the rest! This thread has taken off! In general, not referring to this specific case here, I imagine it could take a lot for a man to ignore his wife's immature tantrums. Why? Because society is more likely to side with her unless the unfavourable decision he enforced is obviously the right choice. [Even then he might have some feminist attack of "Who made you boss to make the right decision", who knows] He'll also need the wherewithal and confidence to be sure he has actually made the right decision. She'll probably have all her girlfriends on her side and females tending to be better in covert putdowns, backstabbing [or is that just stereotypical?] and the like she can easily try and slice him to ribbons in front of other people and if she doesn't do it in public it can be in private. A marriage partner has an extraordinary power to hurt their spouse because of the intimacy and knowledge of each other. Certainly, immaturity doesn't mean maliciousness but it can be a fine line particularly if she becomes overly critical. If he has the wisdom to know which decision is right, the confidence to enforce it, and the endurance to whether a potential storm he can take a take-no-prisoners approach and hope his wife matures up. Or he might let the issue slide and try and work on it less confrontationally. The term emasculating is frequently bound to the male role and identity. If we premise that the male should have at least an equal amount of power or more in decision-making, be the leader, then yes, it could be considered emasculating. There's also the definition of generally making weaker though it tends to be tied to males ie ever heard the term used towards females ie she felt emasculated....? haha The thought of this concept as a solitary "no" hadn't crossed my mind to that extent. I see it more in relation to requests of favours. As in if you ask something of me, why should a simple "no" be insufficient? Why do I have to try and justify it with "I don't have the time" "I have plans already to couchpotato" etc. I might have to look it up again.... Precisely, if we applied it to duties and obligations and partner needs it starts breaking down if overused though it shouldn't be used for some at all. What also works well to address that fear is scheduling who initiates on what days/sections of the week so that on their non-initiating days they can extend physical intimacy without making the partner apprehensive of an initiation. I'm actually more interested in your view on the reverse psychology paragraph of mine below the one's you replied to. If I may ask: do you consider spouses to have any sort of entitlement/expectation to sex? Amen! I'm aware of it but have haven't really read anything from there yet. Its as yet an untapped resource thanks for pointing it out anyway. ...does that include me?? I didn't think anyone was advocating this....Unless you're an abusive guy who has some sort of tear fetish, you'd feel like a rapist... I think there might be a big disconnect over the type and level of the disagreements/conflicts (and the level of emotion involved) the "opposing" sides are considering, which was why I asked the question in my previous post. Are you suggesting the relationship has to be "perfect" before this ultimate expression of love? There are issues that can take years to heal and reach a pre-hurt level. Due you make an allowance for progress towards "fixed"? Oh, my goodness, this takes so much time ! hahaaaa
  19. While we've been discussing it as mainly a female issue this isn't necessarily the case. How might your perspective change if you consider yourself the one yearning for sexual intimacy but your husband is withholding for the reasons discussed here? Men can withhold for the same reason as women: Another myth-buster revealed by the survey was what women said were the causes for their husbands’ lack of desire. Contrary to popular belief that the only reason a man would turn down sex is because “his machinery isn’t working properly,” or their wives are extremely unattractive, this just isn’t so. Men, it seems, turn off to sex for many of the same reasons that their wives do- emotional disconnection, underlying resentment or unresolved problems, depression, stress and so on. In fact, one of the most common reasons men reject their wives’ advances is that they feel their wives are critical or bossy. Nagging simply isn’t an aphrodisiac. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/divorce-busting/200804/sex-starved-wives Based on this, do you think a husband would feel happier and more secure, and a marriage more likely to thrive if the husband (assuming he's the higher libido spouse) held more power of when sex is had? I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain that they have too much "power" [except see below]. Too much responsibility, yes. Why wouldn't a spouse be happier if he/she knew he/she could get sex when they wanted sex and avoid it when they wanted to? Just because he might be happier (or think he is) doesn't mean that the relationship is better and that the character transformation and growth that should come out of a marriage will come. Half the issue resides with the wife. If she hates it, then it is highly doubtful that he will be "happier" for long. I think the true happiness of such a scenario would arise out of knowing that the wife is happy about that dynamic too. You haven't addressed this, but just in case: while initiating sex is sometimes seen the dominant role (and usually associated with the masculine) there are "feminine" ways to initiate and even if initiating was done in a masculine/dominant way, I personally wouldn't mind it. I don't think any husband (unless he is uber controlling) would have a problem with the wife initiating - it shows she wants sex in an active, premeditated way. Indeed, one of the most common complaints of husbands is that their wives don't initiate sex enough. HOWEVER, that is taken from my more dominant mindset (though I have submissive tendencies too). So if you have a submissive husband, he probably won't enjoy the "power" as much as a dominant. Indeed, he may prefer the wife to exercise the majority of power. Yet, I imagine, even within such a dynamic, withholding because of not wanting to have sex [rather than as part of their sexual play] would still be hurtful. Unless there is some kind of she-genuinely-doesn't-want-to-have-sex-with-me fetish....I don't know....haha Do you have any articles that explores this? Even if we accept this premise, it is one thing to say "This conflict has created enough of a rift between us that I won't have sex with you until the conflict is resolved" or "This emotional disconnect is high enough for me not to want sex with you but I'm willing to work on it even if the conflict remains unresolved". If the husband should work on handling not having sex every time he initiates then surely shouldn't the wife work on her attitudes towards sex when she doesn't feel emotionally engaged? Otherwise, if we accept that at any one time rejection pain = unwanted sex pain there won't ever be a win-win situation. And if it is equal, why should the husband always bear it? Out of interest, what type or level of conflict/disagreement do you women consider sufficient to withhold sex in marriage? What about general disconnection that isn't caused by an identifiable/explicit conflict i.e. not being caused by something done wrong but rather a lack of doing things right? What about factors that are outside of your partner's control, such as work stress?
  20. Without answering your question, do you not think that there are aspects in the control of a husband which impact on a wife's "womanhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love and almost every aspect of life"? In which case, we can ask the exact same question, except that it might not be related to sex. So why is it so "bad" when it's sex instead of something else? Do we here have some upcroppings of overly prudish culture saying sex is bad or that the man is an "animal" if he wants/needs sex? Bearing in mind that women can crave sex just as much as males. There is a difference between being refused sex and choosing not to have it. In my current state I'm not supposed to have sex according with my beliefs; I am in marriage. Having sex for me right now is not even an option, even if it was offered (which has occurred). I don't entertain any hope of having sex tomorrow or next week or next month which may be dashed by a wife's rejection. If I ask someone on a date, or am in a non-marital romantic relationship with someone and they would refuse to have sex with me I'd see that as a good thing and not as a rejection because I'm not expecting or hoping to have it at that point. UNLESS they really wouldn't want to have sex with me even if we were married. Even then, the connection, and hence the strength of the rejection, would be nowhere near as strong as with my wife. The whole aspect of hope, anticipation, raking up the courage (which depending on how bad it is can take a lot, particularly when your wife thinks your an animal for wanting "so much" sex) and then rejection is a big part of the problem - which is why in counseling in order to assist matching unmatched sex drives scheduling sex can help. This sex schedule as to when sex will happen can help the higher sex drive person cope with a less than desired frequency because he has certainty. These can be quite flexible. The book Sex, Men and God explores some. Certainly, if the non-waiter feels rejected because of your moral code that can be an issue but it is different from the situation where there is no moral code preventing you and you choosing on the basis of your feelings to neglect your partner's sexual needs. When a waiter is refusing sex because they aren't married, I'd suggest they want sex but won't choose to because of their morals. When married and withholding they can choose to but they don't want to.
  21. Includes: Forbidding the victim to work Sabotaging work or employment opportunities by stalking or harassing the victim at the workplace or causing the victim to lose her job by physically battering prior to important meetings or interviews Controlling how all of the money is spent Not allowing the victim access to bank accounts Withholding money or giving “an allowance” Not including the victim in investment or banking decisions Forbidding the victim from attending job training or advancement opportunities Forcing the victim to write bad checks or file fraudulent tax returns Running up large amounts of debt on joint accounts, taking bad credit loans Refusing to work or contribute to the family income Withholding funds for the victim or children to obtain basic needs such as food and medicine Hiding assets Stealing the victim’s identity, property or inheritance Forcing the victim to work in a family business without pay Refusing to pay bills and ruining the victims’ credit score Forcing the victim to turn over public benefits or threatening to turn the victim in for “cheating or misusing benefits” Filing false insurance claims Refusing to pay or evading child support or manipulating the divorce process by drawing it out by hiding or not disclosing assets http://nnedv.org/resources/ejresources/about-financial-abuse.html Sounds legit enough to me.
  22. Not all women don't understand. Similarly, it can be difficult for us to understand how their sex drive works. There are women who crave sex from their husbands as much as husbands crave it from their wives. I'd consider the suffering they go through to be just as bad as for males. I read a blog from such a woman for a while (unfortunately she switched it to private and I haven't requested access) she was quite open and it was harrowing to read at times. I wanted to punch and shake that husband something fierce! Terrible... As husband we will have the most ability to influence our wives towards mutual understanding and a mutually satisfying intimacy - sexual and non-sexual. As much as feminism may have destroyed traditional femininity, quality male leadership probably isn't that much better off. That is something very important to bear in mind. You can't just look at the wives out there without looking at the husbands. Just look at some of the husbands/boyfriends out there....poor ladies
  23. Hooooly hell I think the inhabitants of Mars and Venus might share an understanding about something! That is an opinion I can get behind. I would even go one step further and suggest that even if the issue hasn't been resolved but the husband is taking steps to address the issue, as his loving wife, she should show gratitude, humility, and continued commitment to their marriage and make love with him. So how 'bout that! We have lift-off As per your question, Naturally. Yes. Why not? If she loves her husband and knows sex is one of her husband's deeply treasured love language? Certainly as @Dave1985 mentioned, the issue must be addressed. It is not for the wife's OR FOR THE HUSBAND's benefit that the issue isn't addressed. It will cripple the relationship in some way at some point. And both partners should realise that if either of them is having heaps of sex when they don't want to it's not going to be good in the long run. The husband might be unaware of her lack of satisfaction or he may not have the skills (yet) to do anything about it in which case the wife can help. AND this needs to be addressed relatively soon. Frequently the issue isn't brought up until the sufferer "I CAN'T take it any more!!!!" blows up, expects the partner to get the f*** in line overnight and the partner is "Woa whut?". The partner's reform timeline needs to start from when they are made aware of the issue, not the months or years the other has been suffering it undeclared. Can I accept that a loving wife could feel so abused by having (consensual) sex when she didn't want to that she needs to withhold sex until some issues are resolved? Absolutely. Its at a pretty extreme point and the husband has a lot of shaping up to do. At this point the wife's declarations that she does love her husband and would love to be sexually intimate with him under what would likely be very reasonably conditions would be a boon and make all the difference. Being willing to make the effort to improve the situation is the key attribute. In marriage in general, because there will be so much growth and change occurring (or should) that needs to be accommodated. But this is in-line with my argumentation: at this point it has become a sexual/intimacy issue and withholding is more easily considered acceptable. For instance, if there is/was infidelity that needs to be worked through or a husband is not providing a safe sexual intimacy space by blabbering to his mates about what happens in the sack or her physical intimacies or whatever for which he has received no permission to share from his wife. Touché. - Yes. But again, I can appreciate the double standard where with my scenario, sex is conditional on the husband taking steps to address the issue affecting her emotionally. Your scenario holds no such condition that the wife address the sexual intimacy problem in the marriage for the husband to invest his resources. As per your question, @Dave1985. Yes. Even if there is currently no "reformation" from the wife in progress. I don't consider sexual dissatisfaction a reason for bailing out of a marriage in such a way, certainly he may have to adapt his investments to maintain physical, mental etc health if his investments in the marriage is not providing sufficient returns on their own. Also, domestic violence includes "financial abuse"...
  24. Thank you for being so open I'm enjoying this thread. I hope I can reciprocate
  25. Certainly, the problem for me is more its explicit connection with a non-intimacy related conflict. I'm trying to remember the book but it eludes me at the moment. It had the concept of giving each other the freedom to say no. Ah, found it; I posted elsewhere in regard to it: http://forums.waitingtillmarriage.org/topic/5673-the-freedom-of-no/ The idea that by giving someone the freedom to say no (typically to a request to do something) without guilty they are more likely to say yes and be genuinely committed to it. And it also shows that the request is a genuine request and not an order or expectation. From one angle, yes, this supports your withholding position. [[Though whether we can extend that concept to such an important issue as sex (or at least the extent to which it applies; I'm not advocating marital rape...) is another question. We wouldn't apply this concept to other marital elements]] Certainly, to an extent a partner should be able to reject sexual advances without guilt and ideally the rejected partner not feeling unloved etc. At a point however, this becomes unsustainable. I'm wonder whether the reverse psychology could be useful in this case. Personally, I'd find it far easier to respect and make the effort and take the time to reconnect non-sexually if my wife provided the option of being sexual intimate in circumstances which we're discussing here ie withholding due to emotions/disconnect. I would be far happier forgoing sex knowing that it is available but that my wife preferred not to. She shows her willingness to make a sacrifice for the sake of reconnection and further removes the possibility of manipulative withholding. In a way she is submitting and making herself vulnerable. It makes me want to execute my leadership role in caring for her and reciprocate in the sacrifice. In a way it avoids the potential mexican standoff in regard to which is harder: the wife having sex when not feeling like it or the husband connecting without sexual intimacy. Of course, this places the woman in the more vulnerable position (which depending on beliefs you may disagree with in principle) and opens her to potential abuse but here's to hoping the ladies on the forum don't get married to idiots or exploitative narcissists. In which case different strategies are in order for basically...well everything I'm curious as to your thoughts on this.