A common problem in marriages

[mkgal1]

Some here think that if there are different drives it is ok for one spouse to agree to sex, even if they are not initially "in the mood" because they often get in the mood as things get going.

Others say that is coercion, or force, or some call it just rape.

Just to clarify: that isn't the argument. What a person agrees to, on their own, I have NO issue with (especially if they know their body well & know that desire follows response). Their decision is *none* of my business. I don't believe there'd be any argument to that from anyone, and that's certainly not what I'd consider rape.

The issue is....one person lecturing others to "just do it" and then having Bible verses used to try to support that philosophy (and having the subtle implication added that if one isn't following that then they are in violation of what's good). That's getting rather close to (or possibly is) spiritual abuse. Rape is a whole other subject.

 

[LinkH]

The lady in the video is some kind of therapist. I don't know that she's a Christian. I don't see a problem with her 'Just do it' advice. I don't see why it would be objectionable in the context of the conversation.

 

[tall73]

Just to clarify: that isn't the argument. What a person agrees to, on their own, I have NO issue with (especially if they know their body well & know that desire follows response). Their decision is *none* of my business. I don't believe there'd be any argument to that from anyone, and that's certainly not what I'd consider rape.

I am glad to know you would have no issue with that. My post referred to the danger of the topic in general in this forum.

The issue is....one person lecturing others to "just do it" and then having Bible verses used to try to support that philosophy (and having the subtle implication added that if one isn't following that then they are in violation of what's good). That's getting rather close to (or possibly is) spiritual abuse. Rape is a whole other subject.

Here is where things start to get problematic. Saying what the Scriptures say is good. It needs to be said. As for applying Nike phrases, or the video's approach in general, to me that is up for debate.


However, even when I started a discussion particularly on I Corinthians 7, apart from any video or reference to Nike slogans, things got pretty heated. And it unfortunately has not been "a whole other subject". I just returned to review some of the posts and it was definitely called a "form of rape". And another poster talked the discussion being on the verge of justifying spousal rape.

My point was just to let the poster who has not been here for some of the discussions, and who seemed taken aback by the fairly negative tone on the question of whether it was a common problem, that there is some history here on this topic. Since she was asking for advice on this topic in the other thread I wanted to warn her so she did not get in the middle of any fights on things in this thread before she knew how this topic is sometimes discussed in this forum.

 

[tall73]

I grew up in the Pentecostal movement. I can't remember a Pentecostal or Charismatic preacher that I heard who taught against satisfying one's sexual needs. But I've rarely heard the topic taught on in those churches.

By the way I am not at all saying that would be normally be taught in charismatic churches. I was only referencing that I talked to some from very, for lack of a better term, legalistic charismatic churches who had a similar experience. I fortunately got the impression it is rare there as well to have such teaching. Glad to hear you didn't run into such!

My point was, there can be different reasons folks get interested in the topic, including desire to discuss theological implications of the subject.

 

[tall73]

That's the focus I mean (and it's not overlooked that by "some posters" that means female posters).

Debates have been had here about the role of the Scriptures, approach to Scriptures etc. at times, and they are not always along gender lines. Since this area is open to Christians, and non-Christians both, and since views may differ in regards to how the Scriptures are to be interpreted even among different denominations and traditions, some discussions are bound to happen where some folks think something is a Scriptural principle, and others do not.

 

[tall73]

One more thing (for now): I disagree with her idea of "mutuality". What she's advocating is one-way decisions ("adopt Nike's philosophy and Just Do It". That's *not* mutuality---that's one person giving in under compulsion.

I'm glad that my husband and I have a policy of mutual agreement (for all decisions). We've been recently going through a remodel and that's been put to use a LOT. What I love is that the outcome has been better than if either of us were solely making the choices (you know the phrase, "two minds are better than one"? It's true).

I just know I wouldn't pay this "counselor" anything if that's her solution for conflict and dissatisfaction. If it were the wife wanting to buy a bigger & more expensive house, and the husband was reluctant and unsure and that had the couple at a standstill (and the wife was feeling rejected and unloved....dismissed)...I doubt she'd say, "Just Do It". But it's the same thing....isn't it? With her reasoning, she's saying the husband is "making the decision unilaterally" by holding them back from buying. Resolving that by expecting him to just give in is not what "two becoming one" means (IMO). There's a step in between---where the two actually listen to one another and arrive at a decision that *only* the two of them can.

Her point is that it is already a one-way decision. The person not in the mood is saying no, and that is that.

She did seem to be suggesting that the two listen to one another. She said she recommended for the person who was not feeling like having sex that they should consider doing it for their own benefit, as well as the spouse. But it is still the person's choice. And she recommended the other person to put aside their anger, etc. She was encouraging listening, and softening of one heart to another. Her point was that it is usually not recognized as a unilateral decision with huge impact on the relationship by the person saying no. And when they realize that to be the case sometimes they change the way they approach it. That is a start to mutual agreement.

The "just do it" thing seemed to be more marketing than anything, but yes, she seems to think they would be better off doing it.

 

[mkgal1]

I am glad to know you would have no issue with that. My post referred to the danger of the topic in general in this forum.

I realize that. I was just expressing that the way you framed the argument isn't a true representation.

 

[tall73]

I had a friend that expressed the principle she mentioned more generally years ago in relation to his own dating. His view was that the person that cared least about the relationship had the most control. He generally made sure that was him. How that works mentally, I have no idea.

At the time I couldn't argue with the insight, but it sure seemed a backwards way to make both sides happy. And I couldn't imagine pursuing a relationship figuring out how I could have the most control by caring less. Why pursue a relationship if you didn't care a great deal to start with?

 

[tall73]

I realize that. I was just expressing that the way you framed the argument isn't a true representation.

Of your views, or any person's views here? In my view, some folks do think that any attempt to talk to someone not in the mood about considering how it might go if they started is coercion, abuse etc.

However, anyone who wants to decide whether it is or is not a position of some here can search the old threads and decide. No point in debating it further. I was simply not wanting a new poster to get waylaid.

 

[Hetta]

I mean... not to beat a dead horse... but... why would this be a Ted X talk if it weren't a common topic? LOL.

Have you ever spent some time on the TED Talks website? I have the TT app on my Apple tv and there are thousands of talks. You can't even begin to scratch the surface of the multitude of topics. Basically, if you can spin a good idea for TT, you can have an audience. You don't have to have a degree, or be famous, and particularly on this topic, you don't need to quote any research. That's very handy. Standing up there and saying "my experience is ..." has no relation to actual science or facts or research. So, I will question that, because my education and training has taught me to verify as actual fact what others are stating to be a fact.

 

[Hetta]

I had a friend that expressed the principle she mentioned more generally years ago in relation to his own dating. His view was that the person that cared least about the relationship had the most control. He generally made sure that was him. How that works mentally, I have no idea.

At the time I couldn't argue with the insight, but it sure seemed a backwards way to make both sides happy. And I couldn't imagine pursuing a relationship figuring out how I could have the most control by caring less. Why pursue a relationship if you didn't care a great deal to start with?

This person made sure he had less invested in a relationship than the person he was dating? How horribly cynical. I guess that's why he was "dating" all the time. Nobody would stay with a person like that.

 

[mkgal1]

Of your views, or any person's views here? In my view, some folks do think that any attempt to talk to someone not in the mood about considering how it might go if they started is coercion, abuse etc.

However, anyone who wants to decide whether it is or is not a position of some here can search the old threads and decide. No point in debating it further. I was simply not wanting a new poster to get waylaid.

That's not how you framed the argument though. You'd posted:

Some here think that if there are different drives it is ok for one spouse to agree to sex, even if they are not initially "in the mood" because they often get in the mood as things get going.

Others say that is coercion, or force, or some call it just rape.

...do you not see the difference?

 

[mkgal1]

One more thing (for now): I disagree with her idea of "mutuality". What she's advocating is one-way decisions ("adopt Nike's philosophy and Just Do It"). That's *not* mutuality---that's one person giving in under compulsion.

This post illustrates why the problem the speaker in the video addresses is a common problem in marriages.

I disagree. She's adding *more* to the problem (IMO). What she's doing is building in a sense of entitlement on one side and imposing guilt on the other. Decisions made out of guilt are *far* inferior to genuine decisions made completely of one's volition. A couple that adheres to her philosophy aren't going to achieve the "two becoming one" that God desires for us; they will have a superficial relationship.

 

[mkgal1]

Let me think. Is buying a $300,000 home the same thing as having sex? No. One costs $300,000 and the other costs just a little time and effort. (It could cost a child, or up to $2 in birth control, but still not the same thing.) Moving house can take weeks or months of effort and near-sleepless nights. If having sex is as tiresome as moving house, someone may be doing it wrong.

You missed my point. I wasn't inferring that buying a home is the same as having sex---I was applying her reasoning to a different situation to illustrate that it's not an example of mutual agreement. Mutual agreement is everyone in agreement (genuinely.....not out of guilt or coercion). Her reasoning is applied as a third person (that's positioning herself as an "authority") swaying the reluctant party into agreeing with the other. That doesn't reap intimacy (it often will result in resentment).

If a person thinks so little of sex that their attitude is "just do it.....it's just a little time and effort" perhaps *they* may be doing it wrong. There's a reason we have tough laws on sexual assault and rape. Misapplying God's gift of marital sex (I believe) is--at minimum--going to cause that couple to miss out on all the beauty He intended. I do like how Christopher West describes genuine marital intimacy (not just the physical---but mind, body, soul connections) as a "banquet" and anything less as "junk food or dumpster eating".

 

[mkgal1]

Her point was that it is usually not recognized as a unilateral decision with huge impact on the relationship by the person saying no

I disagree. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to consider a person saying "no" to something a person wants as unilateral...in fact, I recall my two year-old nephew pitching a fit when his mother told him "no" and he called her a "meanie mom". There seems to be a lot of similarities between the attitudes.

 

[tall73]

This person made sure he had less invested in a relationship than the person he was dating? How horribly cynical. I guess that's why he was "dating" all the time. Nobody would stay with a person like that.

I don't disagree with your assessment, seemed quite a weird way to approach things. But he did eventually get married.

I guess I was just surprised to hear something so manipulative said openly. Most of our friends were surprised too, especially when it was in the context of him dating one of our other friends, which made it awkward for all of us after the break up.

But on that cynical level, I guess it is true. The other friend who he was dating was quite invested, and quite hurt. But he did have more control over how it went.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Mkgal1,
That's a tacky assumption, not something I'd expect of you. No, I'm not going through this, and definitely not today.

That's kind of a tacky statement...

But if it's a "common problem" as you state, why so insulted that the assumption is out there that this is something you struggle with in your marriage. TBH, since you post about it overly much, I just assumed it was a problem in your marriage but never mentioned it as you seem to take the topic of female sexual unavailability in their marriage so stinking personally. MKgal just said what I bet, if you ask, most of us have been assuming for awhile.

Since it's apparently not an issue for you, as you kind of crudely pointed out, now I'm really curious about the fascination you've had for years on the topic of sexual availability in a marriage and why it's all our moral and Christian duties to drop trou 100% of the time one is asked.

But I have read enough online posts and interacted with enough people to know that this is a problem in a lot of marriages. Why would you think I wouldn't care about other people's marriages?

While the "it's common knowledge" statement seems to be the 2015 version of "I know a guy" and "I heard it somewhere," I think the assumption that it's a huge problem that is "common" because you see people post about it a lot is a bit... Well... Presumptuous.

There are, optimistically, 20 or so regular people who post on this subforum, very few of which have mentioned this as an issue. And the reality is that, aside from the 20 or so of us who post on and off because we enjoy it here (or are gluttons for punishment), the rest of the people aren't coming through to post about how awesome their marriage is... They're posting because they have an issue. Meanwhile, a majority of people on CF as a whole don't seem to be coming on here and complaining this is an issue.

So to say this is a "common knowledge" and "common problem" because 12-25ish people a year wander through and gripe about this issue and projecting that to mean it's something that most people deal with is a little inaccurate.

I also think that asking about why you have this utter fascination with how much sex people are or aren't having is a valid one. If somebody says "hey, this is a problem, what do I do" and you post the video... Ok, I get it. But opening up a new post to remind people that you think it's everybody's job to have sex is just bizarre. Why do you care how much we are or are not having sex? Unless somebody asks, the reminder on your viewpoint on the issue is unnecessary.

Btw, I think the video is good even for people that don't have a specific problem with this.

I thought the video was baloney, but that's just me. I have no patience for the "God says you need to have sex with your spouse and be available regardless of how you feel" viewpoint to be tantamount to spiritual and emotional blackmail. One would think if this was an issue, they'd explore with their partner why, not use God as the excuse to get what you want without having to deal with the pesky issues your partner may be having.

 

[tall73]

There are, optimistically, 20 or so regular people who post on this subforum, very few of which have mentioned this as an issue. And the reality is that, aside from the 20 or so of us who post on and off because we enjoy it here (or are gluttons for punishment), the rest of the people aren't coming through to post about how awesome their marriage is... They're posting because they have an issue. Meanwhile, a majority of people on CF as a whole don't seem to be coming on here and complaining this is an issue.

We do have two people recently asking about advice on this topic, in this forum, right now. So whether you think it is common or not, there are some folks looking for advice on the topic.

LinkH told you his reason for posting such things. He views it as a Biblical issue. If he sees I Corinthians 7 as speaking to the issue (and he clearly does because he quoted it here and other places), then he is likely to keep pushing it. Even if you disagree. Even if others disagree.

I do not perceive that Link takes it so "stinking" personal. He takes it as a Biblical principle.

Of course, he also seemed to indicate he is most likely to post on things that he perceives are Biblical principles that are not well received in this forum. So he does have an agenda. It is a stated one. His agenda is to provide discussion on Biblical principles, relating to marriage, that come up on this forum. And he apparently intends to defend those principles if they are opposed. Given that it is a Christian forum, I don't find that at all unusual.

 

[tall73]

I disagree. It's hardly a revolutionary idea to consider a person saying "no" to something a person wants as unilateral...in fact, I recall my two year-old nephew pitching a fit when his mother told him "no" and he called her a "meanie mom". There seems to be a lot of similarities between the attitudes.

When the video talked about the couple who had the counseling session and the one who had been turning down the other party realized how much the rejection hurt, that is an example that what should be obvious, is not always obvious. The spouse doing the declining saw it as an optional activity that they were not in the mood for. The person asking saw it as a rejection of them and their love.

Most times when we talk about mutual decisions it may be something that both parties weigh, have opinions on then come to an agreement. Her point was simply that in some relationships that is not happening with sex.

 

[tall73]

That's not how you framed the argument though. You'd posted:



...do you not see the difference?

Perhaps it is my lack of precision. Please spell out what you see as the difference and I will see if I just typed something wrong. I may just be missing the obvious.

Are you drawing a distinction in that in one case the person who would like more sex initiates the discussion, where in the other case that point is left open-ended?