Naturally

Virgin Therapists: Withholding. Not manipulative, just angry.

99 posts in this topic

On 11/3/2016 at 10:45 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

Obviously the conflict has not been properly resolved. Sad. Sounds like he's got an apprehension/taste of the control dynamics to come/continue and probably resents that on top of the job opportunity loss. As far as initiating, I think for (dominant) males at least it is closely linked with leadership and a sense of masculinity. She has undermined his leadership and demonstrated how much control she can and will wield by denying sexual intimacy "until she gets her way" (although the background issues are still unresolved, she is sexually available again; only the initial conflict is "resolved" in her favour....hmmm). This would be particularly damaging if she expects him to be "the head of the household" generally. He might also be resenting himself for giving in. 

One of them had to endure the job opportunity loss, it had to be her or him, It's not a worse loss just because it was him.

She didn't withhold because she was being manipulative and wanted to get her way, she withheld because she was perturbed about the issue that hadn't been resolved between them. Although I do realise that even though it may not have been her intention to manipulate by withholding, it can have that effect by default.

"resenting himself for giving in" - again, what is your solution to this situation? You seem to be contemptuous of how this situation turned out, what is harbouring this feeling - is it because she withheld from him or because she didn't uproot her life for him?

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2016 at 5:23 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

[From what I read] They didn't "make up", they didn't "resolve". He gave in and he isn't happy about it. Whether or not she was withholding out of manipulation or not is, at this point, a secondary issue to the husband's view of what she did. She may not have lost her respect for him but he may feel she has not respected him as a leader or indeed as a partner in refusing intimacy over a non-sexual issue, in which case has his role in the relationship changed? Rather than raising whatever is bothering him and creating more marital strife and more withholding (whether manipulative or not) he may have resigned himself to the current state of the relationship and lowered his expectations and investment. 

A leader considers what's best for the unit. This may be why he agreed to stay, I don't know. 

True, It may be because he still feels "betrayed" by her refusing intimacy over a non-sexual issue, but do guys really not understand that women can't separate the physical from the emotional?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2016 at 5:23 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

She was withholding because of her feelings. The husband still wanted to be intimate. If she is only withholding sex when their intimacy is impaired why isn't she doing so now - their intimacy is clearly impaired...

You assume everything she's done up until now has been destructive to intimacy. She was eager to resolve their problem so they could both return to being satisfied with their intimacy and is also now eager to restore their intimacy to how it was prior to the problem arising.

What's happening now is the same paradigm only in reverse. Now the wife wants to be intimate but he doesn't want to be because of his feelings.

On 11/4/2016 at 5:23 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

Not initiating does not mean withholding or does the wife have a right to great sex whenever they have sex and anything less is effectively withholding? You've made no mention of him rejecting her advances, but even if he did it wouldn't make much of a difference: as far as we know he could simply be following his feelings in not desiring to be intimate. Sounds a little familiar....

Why do you ask if he is not now the manipulator? All we know is that he is "withholding" when the wife wants to be intimate and their is no dispute in play where withholding could give him a manipulative advantage. So far, it seems to be the same scenario as previously except now the genders are switched. Yet the presumption seems to now exists that he is now a manipulator.....

Is he? He may very well be. He may be wanting to practically demonstrate how he felt when she rejected his desires (two people can play this game!) to be sexually intimate earlier using his resentment to suppress his libido and desire for reconnection. Or he may be simply following his feelings, her conduct over the course of the argument may have lowered his sexual desire for her. Or he may be suppressing his desires for intimacy because he doesn't want to be so vulnerable to the pain of rejection and withholding in the future.

It may not be actively withholding but it's implicitly communicating a reduced interest which also affects their intimacy by distancing her for a reason unbeknownst to her.

As you said previously, the issue may have been settled but the conflict is not yet resolved. The presumption of manipulation is relevant inasmuch as the effect of the unresolved conflict can reverberate into other areas of their relationship. By accentuating his disappointment through his lack of interest in sex, can manipulate her into compensating for "winning" the issue resulting in his disappointment by being especially attentive and willing to make more compromises and sacrifices at this time. Ergo, his manipulative advantage.

You've given vaiable reasons as to why his interest has diminished, whether they're warranted is a different discussion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2016 at 11:49 PM, Dave1985 said:

Agreed 100%. Whether is was out of manipulation or not,  he didn't like the way she went about it, feels undervalued, and quite possibly is angry and disappointed in himself that he caved in. I think that most guys have this expectation that their wives will, at some point, refuse sex because of an argument. What he wasn't expecting was for it to happen that soon, or that he would be that disappointed in himself for admitting defeat.

He might have this sinking feeling in his stomach now... Chapter read and lesson learned. Because withholding sex got her her way, this will now become her standard behavior every time she wants something.

The guys on this thread have made it abundantly clear that withholding sex during their time of disagreement was unacceptable (I don't think I agree but let's just run with it). Given this, why do you think the husband's disappointment is stemming from "giving in" and not just because she rejected his intimacy during a time when he needed it? Do you really think it was withholding that "got her her way"? Is the male decision-making process that precarious and susceptible to the availability of sex?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 0:09 AM, Dave1985 said:

If the husband would have got his way, would she still be refusing sex?

Good question. I don't think so because if the decision to move was the decision they mutually agreed upon, well, then, that's the decision deemed best for the couple and she would need to accept that.

On 11/5/2016 at 0:09 AM, Dave1985 said:

I honestly don't know what a woman's needs in marriage are... They'd all default the the politically correct. Love, respect, affection.... And yet these are all the qualities they are most likely to sacrifice when they don't get their way... But what if the man had been ignoring whatever her needs were every time a disagreement came up?

What if they were to have a disagreement, and the husband would maliciously avoid helping her with anything? What if he would take to drinking heavily and watching huge amounts of porn every time there was a disagreement? What if he were to quit his job and leave his wife to pay the bills out of spite? Both the men and the women on this forum would agree that was wrong. And it would be wrong. 

I know you have a strong fear of the concept of withholding sex in a marriage, Dave, but when I tell you that women have a colossally difficult time separating the physical from the emotional, are you able to understand why a wife might have an aversion to sex when she is emotionally afflicted? (That came off as really patronizing, but I don't mean it to be).

Using myself as an example, I would like to think that I would never withhold sex from my husband for the purposes of manipulation. BUT, I know myself, I am highly emotionally driven when it comes to personal aspects of my life, I can only imagine if it involved my body and another person sharing it... I'd be highly vigilant and aggressively protective. Is it not reasonable for my spouse to be reasonably tuned in with me emotionally for me to want to be intimate physically? I'm not being manipulative, malicious or nefarious, I just want to be at a minimal level of non-sexual connection first.

I can't deny though that a double standard exists. Some men do ignore their wives needs when a disagreement arises by ignoring her, going out and partying with mates, not calling or texting back, and yes, watching porn. Although this seems to be less acceptable than a wife withholding sex due to a lack of an emotional connection. @Invincible and I have discussed this issue in the past, where he asked why should the husband meet the wife's needs first (emotional) before she's willing to meet the husband's needs (physical)? I still don't have an answer to this other than it's socially conditioned as well as biologically ingrained for a woman to want to first be connected emotionally. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2016 at 0:09 AM, Dave1985 said:

I will freely admit that I am biased and have a hard time seeing the women's sides in these kind of conflicts. But she chose to withhold sex for whatever reason (even if it is only anger, and not manipulation), and now he is distancing himself because of how it played out. One refuses sex because she's throwing a tantrum, and the other is distancing himself.

I'd really appreciate an answer to the following question from every male here because I think this is the little thing bugging me that I need blatantly clarified: 

Do you think a wife who claims to love her husband, should have sex with her husband even though she is emotionally unsatisfied? (mildly, or otherwise)

No judgement. I'm not even sure how to answer this question, so I'm willing to learn from your responses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Naturally said:

I'd really appreciate an answer to the following question from every male here because I think this is the little thing bugging me that I need blatantly clarified: 

Do you think a wife who claims to love her husband, should have sex with her husband even though she is emotionally unsatisfied? (mildly, or otherwise)

 

I would say no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Naturally said:

The guys on this thread have made it abundantly clear that withholding sex during their time of disagreement was unacceptable (I don't think I agree but let's just run with it). Given this, why do you think the husband's disappointment is stemming from "giving in" and not just because she rejected his intimacy during a time when he needed it? Do you really think it was withholding that "got her her way"? Is the male decision-making process that precarious and susceptible to the availability of sex?

To the bold part, I would say that that is exactly the kind of response I'd be expecting from a female... I would expect any female to say that withholding sex is always justifiable on the woman's part. :P

But as to the question... Whether or not he thought he was "giving in" is a secondary issue. Withholding sex contributed to her getting her way. And he sees that now. He is now disappointed in his wife for how she handled it, and disappointed in himself for falling for her scheme. 

6 hours ago, Naturally said:

You assume everything she's done up until now has been destructive to intimacy. She was eager to resolve their problem so they could both return to being satisfied with their intimacy and is also now eager to restore their intimacy to how it was prior to the problem arising.

What's happening now is the same paradigm only in reverse. Now the wife wants to be intimate but he doesn't want to be because of his feelings.

It may not be actively withholding but it's implicitly communicating a reduced interest which also affects their intimacy by distancing her for a reason unbeknownst to her.

As you said previously, the issue may have been settled but the conflict is not yet resolved. The presumption of manipulation is relevant inasmuch as the effect of the unresolved conflict can reverberate into other areas of their relationship. By accentuating his disappointment through his lack of interest in sex, can manipulate her into compensating for "winning" the issue resulting in his disappointment by being especially attentive and willing to make more compromises and sacrifices at this time. Ergo, his manipulative advantage.

You've given vaiable reasons as to why his interest has diminished, whether they're warranted is a different discussion.

If the reason really is unbeknownst to her, then she has more issues than I can begin to comprehend. Are all women like that? Do they all fail to realize that men get hurt by the woman's refusals to have sex? Just because they don't agree on something, it is ok to become a sexless nag?

I don't think he has any particular "manipulative advantage" at this time. The conflict is still ongoing. She has proven that she can thrive during sexless periods of conflict. But yes. He is essentially doing the same thing she was doing. Maybe they are made for each other. :wub:

5 hours ago, Naturally said:

Good question. I don't think so because if the decision to move was the decision they mutually agreed upon, well, then, that's the decision deemed best for the couple and she would need to accept that.

I know you have a strong fear of the concept of withholding sex in a marriage, Dave, but when I tell you that women have a colossally difficult time separating the physical from the emotional, are you able to understand why a wife might have an aversion to sex when she is emotionally afflicted? (That came off as really patronizing, but I don't mean it to be).

Using myself as an example, I would like to think that I would never withhold sex from my husband for the purposes of manipulation. BUT, I know myself, I am highly emotionally driven when it comes to personal aspects of my life, I can only imagine if it involved my body and another person sharing it... I'd be highly vigilant and aggressively protective. Is it not reasonable for my spouse to be reasonably tuned in with me emotionally for me to want to be intimate physically? I'm not being manipulative, malicious or nefarious, I just want to be at a minimal level of non-sexual connection first.

I can't deny though that a double standard exists. Some men do ignore their wives needs when a disagreement arises by ignoring her, going out and partying with mates, not calling or texting back, and yes, watching porn. Although this seems to be less acceptable than a wife withholding sex due to a lack of an emotional connection. @Invincible and I have discussed this issue in the past, where he asked why should the husband meet the wife's needs first (emotional) before she's willing to meet the husband's needs (physical)? I still don't have an answer to this other than it's socially conditioned as well as biologically ingrained for a woman to want to first be connected emotionally. 

But would the decision to move ever be "mutually agreed upon" if she didn't get her way?

And of course it is a double standard. "You're not having sex with your husband out of spite?" That's your issue. "You're watching porn, hanging out with your friends, drinking beer, and not paying her bills?" You monster... grow up and be a man. 

As to your conversation with @Invincible as to who should put in the effort first... Well, who contributes the most to the relationship? Who makes the most sacrifices? Are they really both such egomaniacs that neither one of them will say what they need, or that the other one won't care?

5 hours ago, Naturally said:

I'd really appreciate an answer to the following question from every male here because I think this is the little thing bugging me that I need blatantly clarified: 

Do you think a wife who claims to love her husband, should have sex with her husband even though she is emotionally unsatisfied? (mildly, or otherwise)

No judgement. I'm not even sure how to answer this question, so I'm willing to learn from your responses.

I think she should explain why she's emotionally unsatisfied and work to resolve the issue. And I think the husband should be caring enough to not push it if she is really unsatisfied.

But what if I were to answer your question with another question? 

Do you think a husband who claims to love his wife should invest his time and money into the relationship if he is sexually unsatisfied? (mildly or otherwise)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Naturally said:

I understand what you mean now, but what would be your solution in this situation? Should she be intimate with him even though there's an unresolved issue looming?

Also, isn't it simply biology that the male is more sexually dependent on the female (because he generally wants it more), so she doesn't need him sexually as much as he needs her sexually... that shouldn't be a revelation to him.

Looks like you're back in full force! I'll get to my position on the issue eventually. *such a tease :P*  I'll try and address your bits first.

While it seems that in general women's sex drive is lower or better saying more fluid (I thought that it had been disproved but this article is very interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/ and it reflects some of my learning from elsewhere on how women seem more adaptive in their desires - as in it seems to be more active when used and desired but can become somewhat switched off/dormant) there are many marriages where the woman has a higher sex drive than the man. Perhaps this guy thought their sex drives were the same or maybe even that her's was higher. Even so if we accept that he knew her sexual needs weren't as great as his it's another step to realising that she will choose not to meet his needs. But regardless, it's a fairly basic desire to be wanted and needed by your loved one, regardless of how realistic this is in fact. Maybe he's been caught off guard by how fluid the female sex drive is in comparison to the male's. We can only experience what our biology allows us to...

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dave1985 said:

But as to the question... Whether or not he thought he was "giving in" is a secondary issue. Withholding sex contributed to her getting her way. And he sees that now. He is now disappointed in his wife for how she handled it, and disappointed in himself for falling for her scheme.

So you're saying the source of his disappointment is her behaviour of withholding sex during their turbulent time NOT that they didn't end up getting to move as he hoped?

I must ask again, it may be my naiveté but does a wife withholding sex REALLY have that much sway on his decision-making? it seems like such a long shot...
 

7 hours ago, Dave1985 said:

If the reason really is unbeknownst to her, then she has more issues than I can begin to comprehend. Are all women like that? Do they all fail to realize that men get hurt by the woman's refusals to have sex? Just because they don't agree on something, it is ok to become a sexless nag?

The reason he is distancing himself from her is as unbeknownst to her as it is to me. Prior to you stating above that her withholding is the reason for his disappointment @'tis the Bearded One stated a myriad of reasons for what it could be:

On 11/4/2016 at 5:23 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

He may be wanting to practically demonstrate how he felt when she rejected his desires (two people can play this game!) to be sexually intimate earlier using his resentment to suppress his libido and desire for reconnection. Or he may be simply following his feelings, her conduct over the course of the argument may have lowered his sexual desire for her. Or he may be suppressing his desires for intimacy because he doesn't want to be so vulnerable to the pain of rejection and withholding in the future.

Regarding the second part of your statement, In the spirit of total honesty, I am only just starting to understand the astronomical significance husbands place on sex in marriage. But just as you have trouble understanding how the emotional and physical side are often inextricably linked for women, I have trouble understanding how refusing your husband sex is so viscerally damaging to his manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love, and almost every aspect of life.

I think this right here is the existential difference between men and women being embodied. Perhaps this example here is just one of the things we will never fully understand about the other. On paper, I understand that sex is important to men in a loving relationship, I can even rationalise it with supporting arguments but deep deep down I don't completely understand. And perhaps this is the same with men trying to understand the emotional/physical intertwining for women.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Naturally said:

A leader considers what's best for the unit. This may be why he agreed to stay, I don't know. 

True, It may be because he still feels "betrayed" by her refusing intimacy over a non-sexual issue, but do guys really not understand that women can't separate the physical from the emotional?

Certainly, a leader considers what is best for the marriage. I would expect a different outcome if he genuinely believes he made the right choice. Unless he is weirdly mature and immature in knowing that it was the better decision but being sulky that he didn't have his way either way...

Not to get on a tangent here but....How sure can we be that he made the right decision? She would lose an entry level job, entry level. His job prospect was better than entry level (how much better I don't know) which in a way means it would have furthered his career and his ability to provide for the family. Now depending on how they plan to execute their "roles", in general for which partner is it more important to have a better (paying/secure) job? I'd say the male. Purely because he is likely to fulfill the role of primary breadwinner. If they have kids and don't want to throw them into the daycare hole, the woman will be out of the workforce for every child - will be in any case unless she is working up to labour and soon after (not all countries/jobs have paid maternity leave etc). Unless he has a crap job that is (or would be) paying less than her entry level teaching position, she is not the breadwinner currently nor could she continue to be even if she takes time out for procreation (which could be possible if she had a highly paid job). Even if it his job offer was worse paying, maybe (maybe!) her sacrificing her job could have still been the smarter move simply because it could help speed his career up and thus improve the chances of him being the sole breadwinner when she takes time out for the kids. Anyway, that is really off topic....

Plenty of women separate the two; shown by female one night stands etc. Surely you aren't saying that a woman who isn't in a favourable emotional/psychological state CANNOT have sexual intimacy. We are responsible for our emotions and even more so for the behavioural responses to those emotions. If someone slaps me, I can flip into a rage and beat the person and say "You made me angry and when I'm angry I have to hit someone. It's your fault for making me hit you" or I can first consider why they slapped me (maybe there was a mosquito) which can change the emotional response but even if I become angry I can still choose my behaviour actions be that hitting or not hitting them. Certainly women are more susceptible to emotions but that doesn't mean they have a free pass to the ensuing behavioural responses. It's something that everyone needs to work on. I'm sure there are many breadwinning men who hate their jobs and find it soul sapping yet still get 'er done because they realise it is necessary for the moment. I'm sure no-one here would suggest the man should follow his feelings and abandon the job without another job secured.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Naturally said:

What's happening now is the same paradigm only in reverse. Now the wife wants to be intimate but he doesn't want to be because of his feelings.

I realise that. I was merely intending to point out that the argument for withholding isn't "the relationship is impaired because of either my or my partner's position" but rather a "the relationship is impaired because of my position". Not much of a point I'll admit, but if we want to pursue the first then she would be expected to withhold even when she and he wants to because their is still a looming issue. 

 

8 hours ago, Naturally said:

By accentuating his disappointment through his lack of interest in sex, can manipulate her into compensating for "winning" the issue resulting in his disappointment by being especially attentive and willing to make more compromises and sacrifices at this time. Ergo, his manipulative advantage.

Good observation. I have no idea why I said their's nothing to win. Perhaps not explicitly, but as you point out, certainly indirectly.

 

8 hours ago, Naturally said:

You've given vaiable reasons as to why his interest has diminished, whether they're warranted is a different discussion.

Which is precisely the same for the female scenario....We know why she want to/does withhold - the question is are they warranted reasons. If, as you say (?), her merely having those feelings is enough to warrant her withholding actions, why can't the male's feelings be enough in an of themselves?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave1985 said:

But would the decision to move ever be "mutually agreed upon" if she didn't get her way?

And of course it is a double standard. "You're not having sex with your husband out of spite?" That's your issue. "You're watching porn, hanging out with your friends, drinking beer, and not paying her bills?" You monster... grow up and be a man. 

All women aren't completely selfish and focused only on serving their interests, Dave. I can't speak with certainty on behalf of my friend, but I do believe if it were determined that moving would be the best option for the couple she'd be sufficiently reasonable to support that decision.

Yes, double standards between men and women exist. If I were to list the ones women have the short end of the stick of, this site would crash.

1 hour ago, Dave1985 said:

Do you think a wife who claims to love her husband, should have sex with her husband even though she is emotionally unsatisfied? (mildly, or otherwise)

I think she should explain why she's emotionally unsatisfied and work to resolve the issue. And I think the husband should be caring enough to not push it if she is really unsatisfied.

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!

1 hour ago, Dave1985 said:

But what if I were to answer your question with another question? 

Do you think a husband who claims to love his wife should invest his time and money into the relationship if he is sexually unsatisfied? (mildly or otherwise)

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Naturally said:

Given this, why do you think the husband's disappointment is stemming from "giving in" and not just because she rejected his intimacy during a time when he needed it? Do you really think it was withholding that "got her her way"? Is the male decision-making process that precarious and susceptible to the availability of sex?

If he saw her actions as manipulative then sure, who wouldn't be disappointed for not being able to effectively disarm the manipulation? That is if he saw his actions as giving in (or being influenced by the manipulation) and not as a realisation of the best choice. I think it is definitely something that factored into the decision. And it doesn't have to be a "I'll give in this time to have sex again" it could be a "If this decision-making process is causing such a rift already, what if I choose the decision she doesn't like? What will our relationship look like afterwards in sexual and non-sexual ways? Do I want to risk such an upheaval this early in our marriage?" Does he believe that had he chosen to enforce his job-change she would try to overcome the rift as quickly and happily as she did when he chose her option? Maybe he believes his job change would have been the better choice but for his wife's potential response and resentment. Similar to how a compromise because of someone's immaturity wouldn't have been the best decision but it may be the best option only because of the immaturity - but it still sucks taking that option because it shouldn't be the best option. Considering the ensuing issue of the wife complaining he doesn't want/is giving enough sex, I'd suspect that having sex again wasn't the primary reason for making the decision....

Sex is generally essential to male intimacy, how precarious would the wife decision-making process be to the husband's withholding of non-sexual intimacy/affection/support? And that is an intimacy she can (and probably does) get to some degree from her girlfriends. The wife is (should be) the only source for sex....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Naturally said:

Is it not reasonable for my spouse to be reasonably tuned in with me emotionally for me to want to be intimate physically? I'm not being manipulative, malicious or nefarious, I just want to be at a minimal level of non-sexual connection first.

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 :mellow: 

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naturally said:

In the spirit of total honestly

Thank you for being so open :) I'm enjoying this thread. I hope I can reciprocate :) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 'tis the Bearded One said:

If he saw her actions as manipulative then sure, who wouldn't be disappointed for not being able to effectively disarm the manipulation? That is if he saw his actions as giving in (or being influenced by the manipulation) and not as a realisation of the best choice. I think it is definitely something that factored into the decision. And it doesn't have to be a "I'll give in this time to have sex again" it could be a "If this decision-making process is causing such a rift already, what if I choose the decision she doesn't like? What will our relationship look like afterwards in sexual and non-sexual ways? Do I want to risk such an upheaval this early in our marriage?" Does he believe that had he chosen to enforce his job-change she would try to overcome the rift as quickly and happily as she did when he chose her option? Maybe he believes his job change would have been the better choice but for his wife's potential response and resentment. Similar to how a compromise because of someone's immaturity wouldn't have been the best decision but it may be the best option only because of the immaturity - but it still sucks taking that option because it shouldn't be the best option. Considering the ensuing issue of the wife complaining he doesn't want/is giving enough sex, I'd suspect that having sex again wasn't the primary reason for making the decision....

Sex is generally essential to male intimacy, how precarious would the wife decision-making process be to the husband's withholding of non-sexual intimacy/affection/support? And that is an intimacy she can (and probably does) get to some degree from her girlfriends. The wife is (should be) the only source for sex....

Agreed 100%.

1 hour ago, Naturally said:

So you're saying the source of his disappointment is her behaviour of withholding sex during their turbulent time NOT that they didn't end up getting to move as he hoped?

I must ask again, it may be my naiveté but does a wife withholding sex REALLY have that much sway on his decision-making? it seems like such a long shot...
 

The reason he is distancing himself from her is as unbeknownst to her as it is to me. Prior to you stating above that her withholding is the reason for his disappointment @'tis the Bearded One stated a myriad of reasons for what it could be:

Regarding the second part of your statement, In the spirit of total honestly, I am only just starting to understand the astronomical significance husbands place on sex in marriage. But just as you have trouble understanding how the emotional and physical side are often inextricably linked for women, I have trouble understanding how refusing your husband sex is so viscerally damaging to his manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love, and almost every aspect of life.

I think this right here is the existential difference between men and women being embodied. Perhaps this example here is just one of the things we will never fully understand about the other. On paper, I understand that sex is important to men in a loving relationship, I can even rationalise it with supporting arguments but deep deep down I don't completely understand. And perhaps this is the same with men trying to understand the emotional/physical intertwining for women.

I would say that he is probably somewhat upset that things didn't go his way. But I will say that the most damaging thing here was the fact that she would stoop to the low level of being a sexless nag just because there was a disagreement. I don't think the issue is that he lost the argument. I think the issue is that she proved how ruthless she would be in getting her way, and just how little value she placed on sex with her husband in relation to losing an argument. That PC "love, commitment, respect, affection" thing that women claim to want just went out the door when winning an argument took priority over the relationship. He might feel a bit betrayed by her actions, and he probably lost respect for himself in the process.

And the fact that you even admit that women can't understand why sex is so important to the husbands puts the concept of a "loving, sexually active wife" further into the "implausible" category. Just the way it is being talked about here ("not manipulative, just angry") shows that the wife puts little to no value on it. Even the very attitude that "he should go out of his way to provide for his wife and family, and be thankful for whatever "scraps" she rarely throws his way" shows a belief system that men are required to fulfill their obligations at all times, while women can do whatever they please without caring about the man at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naturally said:
3 hours ago, Dave1985 said:

Do you think a wife who claims to love her husband, should have sex with her husband even though she is emotionally unsatisfied? (mildly, or otherwise)

I think she should explain why she's emotionally unsatisfied and work to resolve the issue. And I think the husband should be caring enough to not push it if she is really unsatisfied.

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 :D 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Naturally said:
3 hours ago, Dave1985 said:

But what if I were to answer your question with another question? 

Do you think a husband who claims to love his wife should invest his time and money into the relationship if he is sexually unsatisfied? (mildly or otherwise)

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"...

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 'tis the Bearded One said:

 

 

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"...

 

That was meant to be a rhetorical question. I was using it as an example of even men being able to see that neglecting their wife was wrong. Whereas it seems that none of the women consider neglecting the husband to be wrong.

"Financial Abuse"???? What are the politicians smoking? It must be good stuff...

Is it domestic abuse if the wife uses the credit card without permission? This might make sense if we were to get nagging reclassified to a war crime, but we've just gone further and further into full insanity. Did I mention I don't trust divorce courts for reasons such as this? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dave1985 said:

And the fact that you even admit that women can't understand why sex is so important to the husbands puts the concept of a "loving, sexually active wife" further into the "implausible" category. Just the way it is being talked about here ("not manipulative, just angry") shows that the wife puts little to no value on it. 

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 :( 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dave1985 said:

"Financial Abuse"???? What are the politicians smoking? It must be good stuff...

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting discussion!

I have two concerns:

1. @Naturally Did this couple wait until marriage to have sex? Just asking out of curiosity and I couldn´t find an answer to that in this thread. Sorry, if you have mentioned it somewhere already.

 

2. I know this discussion only encompasses some opinions and is partly highly subjective (like most discussions are), but this statement here stirred up a question for me:

 

5 hours ago, Naturally said:

I am only just starting to understand the astronomical significance husbands place on sex in marriage. But just as you have trouble understanding how the emotional and physical side are often inextricably linked for women, I have trouble understanding how refusing your husband sex is so viscerally damaging to his manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love, and almost every aspect of life.

 

To the men: I know not every man is the same and I am not a fan of generalizations, but do you consider this more or less true?

And if it is true, how can men wait until marriage to have sex then? Don´t you consider it way too risky if you marry a woman FOR LIFE and you don´t even know how she is going to act in such situations that could have an impact on your "manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love and almost every aspect of life"?

And  how do you keep your manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love and almost every aspect of life healthy and intact, in the dating phase with no sex (which might last a couple of years)?

Wherefrom do you obtain positive feelings in regard to the above mentioned aspects of your life during the "pre-marriage-phase"? 

I know this topic is about refusing sex in marriage. But if sex is so intertwined in almost every aspect of your life and emotions and well-being, how can you wait until after marriage to find out if she can make you happy in that area?

If the above statement rings true for, let´s say the majority of men on this earth, then that is probably the reason why waiters and non-waiters are never going to work, especially if the woman wants to wait and the man doesn´t want to. Because then the man will feel rejected, which in return will lead to above said damage "to his manhood, self-esteem, mental health, feelings of love, and almost every aspect of life". This is horrible. Although this is nothing new per se for me, I somehow felt discouraged when reading this, because it showed the whole scope of the implications sex (or lack thereof) has for men.

I guess, I am discouraged again, ´cos I actually think I will never find a waiter-guy where I am living and a WTM-woman probably could never make a regular, non-waiting guy happy, because of the damage she will do with not having sex with him...(I actually think that a waiter and a non-waiter would not be the best fit anyway, but as time goes on, you need to see what options you still have and I read some stories where a non-waiter waited for a waiter.....this is not my ideal scenario, though, but sometimes it seems like I don´t have another choice).

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WakeUp&BeAwesome said:

I guess, I am discouraged again, ´cos I actually think I will never find a waiter-guy where I am living and a WTM-woman probably could never make a regular, non-waiting guy happy, because of the damage she will do with not having sex with him...(I actually think that a waiter and a non-waiter would not be the best fit anyway, but as time goes on, you need to see what options you still have and I read some stories where a non-waiter waited for a waiter.....this is not my ideal scenario, though, but sometimes it seems like I don´t have another choice).

Hey, don't say that. That makes me sad to read. :( Reading these sort of comments from men can be a real downer, and I've been having the same worries as you about finding a waiter. I do not want to marry a non-waiter. I would always feel insecure and cheated almost. I know that sounds crazy but I don't think it's fair (for me). I feel like I deserve someone who actually understands me in that regard, and I could never imagine being with someone who I know has shared those same experiences with other women. I would probably be okay if he was not waiting originally, but still a virgin. But I do believe it is possible for a non-waiter to wait happily with you if 1.) he truly loves you, and 2.) he now believes that waiting is the right thing to do for whatever reason (besides loving you).

Anyway, I couldn't imagine having sex with someone I'm upset with. I would feel disgusted. I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend. I would never do it just to get what I want. And I would expect that if my husband was upset with me, he wouldn't want to have sex with me either. I guess I was wrong about that though. I suppose I have to get used to it, but there is something about this that gives me the creeps :blink:.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Faeries

Sorry. It makes me sad, too :( I can definitely relate to what you are saying!

The comment was by a female, though. So I am interested to hear what the men think about this and my associated questions I asked above.

Sometimes I have very hard days in regards to WTM. I don´t know anyone who waits or supports WTM in my personal environment. Relationships just don´t work that way here...I guess, many on this site can relate to that.

Sure, my ideal scenario would also be that he is a virgin and a waiter. But by now, I don´t believe anymore that I will find a man like this. So I guess, it would be fine if he was a waiter and a non-virgin (meaning he later found out that WTM is best for him and waits for his own reasons now).But I never met or heard about those kind of men in real life (except for men on this site).

Then there is the possibility that you are going to find someone who is willing to wait for you (but wouldn´t wait otherwise). I don´t really like that scenario, but I might better get comfortable with this...I don´t know....I guess, WTM isn´t worth a life alone for me. But if I wouldn´t wait, well...then I guess, I would not be happy either. Great :superwaiter:

Oh, sure! If he loves you, he probably/hopefully is willing to wait. But first, you need to get to this level in the relationship. If no man wants to date you longer than a few weeks or months because of WTM, it is hard to get to a level of  true love, I suppose. 

But you know what! Thank you so much for your comment. I felt a bit better after that and it is for sure good to know that you are not alone with your thoughts and struggles and that people can relate to you (even if its just over the Internet).Thank you! ^_^

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2016 at 10:45 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

As far as initiating, I think for (dominant) males at least it is closely linked with leadership and a sense of masculinity. She has undermined his leadership and demonstrated how much control she can and will wield by denying sexual intimacy "until she gets her way" (although the background issues are still unresolved, she is sexually available again; only the initial conflict is "resolved" in her favour....hmmm). This would be particularly damaging if she expects him to be "the head of the household" generally. He might also be resenting himself for giving in. 

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?

On 11/4/2016 at 5:23 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

He may be wanting to practically demonstrate how he felt when she rejected his desires (two people can play this game!) to be sexually intimate earlier using his resentment to suppress his libido and desire for reconnection. 

Unrelated to this scenario, but I've read about husbands (HL) doing this to their wives (LL) in the Reddit deadbedroom forum but it doesn't work when the wife is the lower libido. The LL simply doesn't need/value sex as much as the HL does so it doesn't hurt her as it did him.

On 2/20/2017 at 5:56 PM, 'tis the Bearded One said:

While it seems that in general women's sex drive is lower or better saying more fluid (I thought that it had been disproved but this article is very interesting: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/ and it reflects some of my learning from elsewhere on how women seem more adaptive in their desires - as in it seems to be more active when used and desired but can become somewhat switched off/dormant) there are many marriages where the woman has a higher sex drive than the man. Perhaps this guy thought their sex drives were the same or maybe even that her's was higher. Even so if we accept that he knew her sexual needs weren't as great as his it's another step to realising that she will choose not to meet his needs. But regardless, it's a fairly basic desire to be wanted and needed by your loved one, regardless of how realistic this is in fact. Maybe he's been caught off guard by how fluid the female sex drive is in comparison to the male's. We can only experience what our biology allows us to...

It certainly is an interesting article. I was surprised to learn that female sexuality could be considered more flexible, adaptable and uninhibited, for example being aroused by non-conventional images and feeling less guilty about thinking about sex and masturbation etc. Although this paints a rather bleak picture for monogamous married women whose libido may never be satisfied...although does offer up another theory as to why women lose their libido after marriage.

On 2/20/2017 at 5:05 PM, Dave1985 said:

Are all women like that? Do they all fail to realize that men get hurt by the woman's refusals to have sex? 

Think of it this way, imagine the pain a man might feel when his wife refuses him sex. That's the same pain a woman feels when she's having sex with her husband at a time when they're not emotionally engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now