A common problem in marriages

[tall73]

There seems to be a lot of similarities between the attitudes.

If you see the situation she described, where the spouse who was doing the declining had never realized how much it hurt the other spouse, as the same as a kid getting upset over not getting candy I am not sure what to say.

After realizing how he felt she seemed to think it was important somehow in the relationship that he felt rejected and unloved again and again, and thought it worth changing.

 

[tall73]

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).

You may have missed it. There was already resentment on the part of the one who felt rejected again and again. She was calling for them to talk it through and find some way to get everyone happy again. She was weighing possible future resentment against current definite resentment and saying there is a way that she found that often makes couples happier together on the whole.

Part of that in her view was more sex. And part of it would involve both parties seeing how the other one was feeling. The one resenting the declining partner was also supposed to give up their anger over previous rejection, etc. which was poisoning the marriage.

 

[LinkH]

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).

I don't see where there is 'compulsion' in the video. Let's say there is someone who is stingy with sex, like the woman in the counseling session she told about, who rations her husband out to sex once a week-- maybe-- if she feels like it. This viewer hears the counselor tell the story, and decides it's wrong to withhold from his/her partner, and decides to stop. He/she repents. That's not having sex under compulsion. It's repentance.

If it's wrong to tell a crowd of married people to meet their partner's sexual needs, to be generous, empathetic, and non-selfish.... if that's compulsion or coersion, isn't telling men 'Husband love our wives" also compulsion or coersion? Why would it be wrong to encourage people to do what they should do?

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".

'Just do it' may not be the best attitude. But it is better than sinning by defrauding one's spouse. Of course, it's much better for the spouse who isn't wanting it for him/herself, whose having sex to please his/her partner to make love as an act of love toward the other spouse, with a real deep appreciation for what they are doing and for their spouse.

I haven't listened to Christopher West, so I can't comment on it.

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.

Moses was judging the cases of a nation of over a half a million people by himself. His father-in-law told him he was wearing himself out and needed to appoint judges. Moses good his advice. Was Moses wrong, making inferior decisions because he took someone's advice?

Moses came down from a mountain with all kinds of laws from God. The people did not hear all those laws directly from God. They heard about 10 of them. But the rest were from God, too. Were the people who wilfully decided to accept the terms of the covenant doing it against their own will, since they did not come up with the ideas for these laws by themselves?

Jesus sent the apostles to preach 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Were those who repented doing the wrong thing because they didn't just come up with the idea to repent on their own?

Paul preached Christ to the Gentiles. Did the Gentiles who responded with faith an baptism making inferior decisions because they did not come up with the idea that there must be one God and a Jewish Messiah named Yeshua without the apostles preaching it to them?

As human beings, we get an awful lot of help in knowing what is right and wrong from other human beings.

It doesn't take all that much skill or knowledge for two the become one flesh. It may require quite a bit of wisdom to understand the ramifications of that and to see the mystery of Christ and the church in it. But the Bible says there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. A lot of wisdom we gain comes through other people.

 

[LinkH]

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.

Marriages falling apart is a common problem. Divorce and remarriage is a common problem. Since I have posted on that topic quite a bit-- much more than this on-- do you assume I must have been divorced? I've never been divorced. My marriage is as stable as it has ever been, probably much more so.
If you will notice a pattern, I typically post a lot in cases where I have convictions that scripture teaches something where several posters oppose that idea. For example, a certain poster came through with an argument that divorce and remarriage is okay, just as long as the man gives the woman the proper paperwork, a re-interpretation of Matthew 19 that is contrary to that of native speakers of the actual Greek in the text. I have posted quite extensively about that.

There is another topic that is now deemed off topic from Ephesians 5, I Peter 3, and Colossians 3 regarding the role of the wife in marriage. When discussion on that was allowed, I addressed that topic quite a bit? Why? Because I perceived certain posters had a problem with it and argued against the Lord's revealed will on this matter.

The sexual issue is the same. There is the occasional comment from the posters who seem to think that you just have sex whenever both of you want it, which is a philosophy that would make marriage rather unsatisfying for a lot of folks out there. And it's contrary to scripture as well.

I have also read other forums besides this one, and based on posts in forums, particularly men's forums, this is a big problem. I wouldnt' say it's a big problem for me at this stage in my life, certainly not when I posted the message. I'll just say I was in a good mood that day, without going into too much detail.

Realistically, though, I haven't posted on that topic that much in relation to many, many other topics. You'll also notice that on threads where men have lower drives, I encourage them to meet their wive's needs.

I'm also not asking people how often they have sex on the forum. Personally, I think that's TMI on a forum like 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.[/QUOTE]

 

[mkgal1]

Moses was judging the cases of a nation of over a half a million people by himself. His father-in-law told him he was wearing himself out and needed to appoint judges. Moses good his advice. Was Moses wrong, making inferior decisions because he took someone's advice?

Moses came down from a mountain with all kinds of laws from God. The people did not hear all those laws directly from God. They heard about 10 of them. But the rest were from God, too. Were the people who wilfully decided to accept the terms of the covenant doing it against their own will, since they did not come up with the ideas for these laws by themselves?

Jesus sent the apostles to preach 'repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Were those who repented doing the wrong thing because they didn't just come up with the idea to repent on their own?

Paul preached Christ to the Gentiles. Did the Gentiles who responded with faith an baptism making inferior decisions because they did not come up with the idea that there must be one God and a Jewish Messiah named Yeshua without the apostles preaching it to them?

As human beings, we get an awful lot of help in knowing what is right and wrong from other human beings.

It doesn't take all that much skill or knowledge for two the become one flesh. It may require quite a bit of wisdom to understand the ramifications of that and to see the mystery of Christ and the church in it. But the Bible says there is wisdom in a multitude of counsel. A lot of wisdom we gain comes through other people.

What in the world does this have to do with what I posted....you quoted...and then responded to? Did you, perhaps, post in the wrong place? The only thing I can decipher is your comment about "two becoming one flesh". That's far more than two people linking bodies together (so I'd argue that it *does* take quite a bit of wisdom to understand the mystery of that).

 

[tall73]

What in the world does this have to do with what I posted....you quoted...and then responded to? Did you, perhaps, post in the wrong place? The only thing I can decipher is your comment about "two becoming one flesh". That's far more than two people linking bodies together.

Well I have to admit I couldn't figure it out at first either. I think after reading it three times what Link was saying is that having a third party give advice is not always bad.

Moses got advice from Jethro.The people who repented were told to repent, didn't think of it themselves, etc. So having a third party involved appealing to one or the other or both is not always a bad idea.

The larger point Link seemed to be making was that it is not coercion if a counselor facilitates a discussion in which one party says they feel rejected and unloved, and the other person says "I didn't know you felt that way" and wants to change what is leading to that.

 

[mkgal1]

Well I have to admit I couldn't figure it out at first either. I think after reading it three times what Link was saying is that having a third party give advice is not always bad.

Moses got advice from Jethro.The people who repented were told to repent, didn't think of it themselves, etc. So having a third party involved appealing to one or the other or both is not always a bad idea.

At least, that appeared to be what he was saying.

I don't disagree that a third party perspective can sometimes be helpful. It's just that this ladies advice seems to not be much more than "your spouse wants more---give them more, don't hurt their feelings". That just seems lazy as far as advice goes (IMO).

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree that a third party perspective can sometimes be helpful. It's just that this ladies advice seems to not be much more than "your spouse wants more---give them more, don't hurt their feelings". That just seems lazy as far as advice goes (IMO).

Mkgal, do you think that the one flesh relationship involves one party repeatedly feeling rejected and unloved? Because that is what was being described. And when the other party realized that they offered to change. She probably didn't see it as a huge relationship issue, and then she realized it was.

 

[tall73]

I don't disagree that a third party perspective can sometimes be helpful. It's just that this ladies advice seems to not be much more than "your spouse wants more---give them more, don't hurt their feelings". That just seems lazy as far as advice goes (IMO).

There are limitations to the lessons we can derive from a video relating a particular counseling experience, where we cannot ask follow up questions. Nor can we necessarily apply it to all situations, which may be part of the reason for objections in this thread.

However, from her account it sounds as though this advice did work for the couple, and they were both happier as a result, and their relationship was better. Why would that be wrong? The counselor is just saying she has seen this work multiple times.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,

I was responding to this idea

Decisions made out of guilt are *far* inferior to genuine decisions made completely of one's volition.

The counselor was encouraging those who denied sex to their partner to be considerate of the other partner's desires, need for affection expressed through sex, etc., and said 'just do it' as part of a larger message. If accepting advice from a counselor runs contrary to making decisions out of one's own volition, then were those other examples wrong? We all accept the Gospel because we hear it or read it from someone else don't just come up with the Gospel by ourselves. We respond to outside influences. Most decisions we make are from outside influences, even if it is something from the past like values we were taught as children.

Basically, I don't think your argument against this woman giving advice because her doing so violates someone's will is a valid argument. That's what I understood you to be saying, at least.

 

[Dave-W]

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.

I have to agree.
Lack of sex? You promised "for better or worse." So live with it.

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1,

I was responding to this idea


The counselor was encouraging those who denied sex to their partner to be considerate of the other partner's desires, need for affection expressed through sex, etc., and said 'just do it' as part of a larger message. If accepting advice from a counselor runs contrary to making decisions out of one's own volition, then were those other examples wrong? We all accept the Gospel because we hear it or read it from someone else don't just come up with the Gospel by ourselves. We respond to outside influences. Most decisions we make are from outside influences, even if it is something from the past like values we were taught as children.

Basically, I don't think your argument against this woman giving advice because her doing so violates someone's will is a valid argument. That's what I understood you to be saying, at least.

Influence is one thing; guilt & coercion (and enabling selfishness) is a whole other thing. You still seem to be missing my point about the difference b/w a person fully choosing something of their own volition, and a person choosing to do something b/c they feel they are supposed to do something (and are weary of the conflict).

It's difficult for me to believe that it never occurred to a person to consider how their spouse felt. It just seems utterly simplistic for a person to have to get to the point of sitting in a counselor's office and for the counselor to merely say, "let's have your spouse express how this hurts them" and for a light bulb to go off that never went off before. That's great if it happened that way.....but it's not wise (IMO) to attempt to apply this to all marriages that have this issue. Like Tall said, it's less than a 15 minute talk (IIRC that's the criteria for TED talks).....there are limitations to the lessons that can be gleaned from it and the applications that it's useful for.

 

[mkgal1]

If it's wrong to tell a crowd of married people to meet their partner's sexual needs, to be generous, empathetic, and non-selfish.... if that's compulsion or coersion, isn't telling men 'Husband love our wives" also compulsion or coersion? Why would it be wrong to encourage people to do what they should do?

This is the trouble I have with a pre-determined idea of "what people should do"......things vary from time to time, there's not one set "right thing to do" that fits. Both spouses need to be generous, empathetic and non-selfish.....and accepting a "no" is also a way to also be generous, empathetic and non-selfish.

 

[mkgal1]

If you see the situation she described, where the spouse who was doing the declining had never realized how much it hurt the other spouse, as the same as a kid getting upset over not getting candy I am not sure what to say.

That's not quite what I was drawing the comparison from.

I was responding to your point about how it's not common to perceive a "no" as one making a unilateral decision. I'd said it's not a revolutionary idea (speaking of the one hearing the "no"). This speaker is suggesting that her audience agree with that mentality (that's what I see her whole "thesis statement" to be). I'm not persuaded to agree with her. It takes two "yes" votes in order for it to be a mutual agreement, and that applies not only to sexual decisions but any that affect both spouses. I always thought that was just common sense (or that most people were of this belief).....but maybe *that* is a revolutionary idea (mutual agreement = both parties agreeing)? Maybe that's why this author (Dr. Harley) felt the need to go into this whole description?

The Policy of Joint Agreement

Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement
between you and your spouse.

In marriage, your interests and your spouses interests should be considered simultaneously. One of you should not suffer for the benefit of the other, even willingly, because when either of you suffer, one is gaining at the other's expense. If you both care about each other, you will not let the other suffer so that you can have what you want. When you are willing to let the other sacrifice for you, you are momentarily lapsing into a state of selfishness that must somehow be corrected before damage is done. The Policy of Joint Agreement provides that correction. This rule teaches couples to become thoughtful and sensitive to each other's feelings when they don't feel like it. If both spouses follow this policy, they avoid all the Love Busters because they won't mutually agree to anything that hurts one of them. ~
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3500_policy.html

 

[mkgal1]

I'm sort of doubting what I said earlier about there not being a "right thing" that applies to all situations. This may be one that *does* fit all situations in marriage: being thoughtful and sensitive to each other's feelings even when you don't feel like it. So this speaker's use of the Nike philosophy (Just Do It) could be applied to that.

 

[LinkH]

Influence is one thing; guilt & coercion (and enabling selfishness) is a whole other thing.

How is a married person only having sex to satisfy one's own cravings, but not having sex to satisfy one's partner's desires not selfish?

You still seem to be missing my point about the difference b/w a person fully choosing something of their own volition, and a person choosing to do something b/c they feel they are supposed to do something (and are weary of the conflict).

It's difficult for me to believe that it never occurred to a person to consider how their spouse felt. It just seems utterly simplistic for a person to have to get to the point of sitting in a counselor's office and for the counselor to merely say, "let's have your spouse express how this hurts them" and for a light bulb to go off that never went off before.

I don't see your point as valid. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with this video. The woman in this particular case could have, when being confronted with the effects of her behavior, decided of her own volition to satisfy her husbands needs and to stop defrauding him. What she chooses to do in her bedroom later is still up to her. It's still of her own volition. She's just been confronted, in a meaningful way, with the effects of her selfishness.

Something that bothered me in the video was the scenario where a wife says, "What part of 'no' do you not understand." That kind of conversation shouldn't be in a marriage. If your spouse has authority over your body, and you see it that way, how can you say that to your spouse. I can understand, "Honey, I'm really depressed/tired/sick." That sort of stuff makes sense. But I couldn't see myself saying something like that to my wife.

It is selfish for a spouse to only have sex when it satisfies his/her own sexual needs, but not to be willing to have sex to satisfy the other's sexual needs? I'm not talking about coersion. I'm talking about being willing to have sex with one's spouse out of love in response to the other's desire, rather than only being willing when one has desires. If we applied that to other areas of marriage, it's not healthy to only meet one's own needs. My wife would not like it if I only sat down and talked with her to meet my own emotional needs and not hers. It is important for her to sit down with me and connect emotionally. It's good for me, too, but I could skip several nights and be thinking about my work or doing something else and be content with that. If my wife and I were going out for dinner and she wants to go out for a particular kind of food, and I'm able and willing, I'd generally try to choose a restaurant that she wants. What if I were to insist on whatever I wanted and never consider what she wanted? What if couples bought houses that way? If we were buying a house, I had no desire for an island bar in the kitchen or a sliding glass door, but she did, should I not consider those things? Why should sex be the only area where we are not attentive to our spouse's desires in marriage?

If my wife didn't get a sliding glass door, that probably wouldn't tempt her to sin. The Bible doesn't say, "Get thy wife a sliding glass door." But it does specifically address rendering 'due benevolence' to a partner. And sexual activity in marriage is supposed to help prevent fornication. What good does it do in that regard if sex is a rare event from one partner's perspective? I realize some people have health issues, and marriage is for better or worse. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about choosing not to meet a partner's need.

That's great if it happened that way.....but it's not wise (IMO) to attempt to apply this to all marriages that have this issue. Like Tall said, it's less than a 15 minute talk (IIRC that's the criteria for TED talks).....there are limitations to the lessons that can be gleaned from it and the applications that it's useful for.

I don't know if sexually stingy spouses like the one is portrayed in this video ever consider the effect of the feelings of their spouse caused by their behavior. But sometimes another individual making you actually confront an issue can help. It may be the case that the husband never actually expressed his feelings. Some men don't talk about their feelings. I heard on the radio (in case Hetta wants an academic article I don't have a journal to point to) that because of how women's brains are wired, they get more pleasure from discussing issues, and men don't experience that, at least not to the same degree. This man may never have expressed his hurt over the issue. She may have perceived it as sexual selfishness and not realized his desire to connect. It sounds realistic to me that it could have happened this way.

 

[mkgal1]

it's not healthy to only meet one's own needs

I know---that's my whole point with mutual agreement. You do realize that sometimes people have a need to NOT have sex---right? In a long-term marriage, rarely is it one-sided.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Marriages falling apart is a common problem. Divorce and remarriage is a common problem. Since I have posted on that topic quite a bit-- much more than this on-- do you assume I must have been divorced? I've never been divorced. My marriage is as stable as it has ever been, probably much more so.

Actually, God's honest truth, I have for years operated under the assumption that you post about sexless marriages and the evils of divorce and remarriage because you were struggling with both issues in your marriage. Privately, I know others had assumed similarly. Honestly, I think most of us operated under the assumption that those were issues you were dealing with being... What did you call it? "Common knowledge."

If you will notice a pattern, I typically post a lot in cases where I have convictions that scripture teaches something where several posters oppose that idea. For example, a certain poster came through with an argument that divorce and remarriage is okay, just as long as the man gives the woman the proper paperwork, a re-interpretation of Matthew 19 that is contrary to that of native speakers of the actual Greek in the text. I have posted quite extensively about that.

I, like others I'm sure, have certainly spotted your apparent conviction in being argumentative with those who disagree with you, yes. Along with your passionate inability to consider that you're incorrect, bossy, overstepping, and refusing to hear all opposing thoughts against you.

There is another topic that is now deemed off topic from Ephesians 5, I Peter 3, and Colossians 3 regarding the role of the wife in marriage. When discussion on that was allowed, I addressed that topic quite a bit? Why? Because I perceived certain posters had a problem with it and argued against the Lord's revealed will on this matter.

Which brings us back to my perpetual wondering about why on earth are you so fascinated with other peoples marriage and letting them know when it doesn't meet what your vision of it is.

The sexual issue is the same. There is the occasional comment from the posters who seem to think that you just have sex whenever both of you want it, which is a philosophy that would make marriage rather unsatisfying for a lot of folks out there. And it's contrary to scripture as well.

I have also read other forums besides this one, and based on posts in forums, particularly men's forums, this is a big problem.

A big problem for some, sure. A common problem based off of the intangible "common knowledge" as you claim? Not buying it.

Realistically, though, I haven't posted on that topic that much in relation to many, many other topics. You'll also notice that on threads where men have lower drives, I encourage them to meet their wive's needs.

Yes, I've noticed your "round up" philosophy to sexual compromise vs the "round down" philosophy. You've made it perfectly clear that more sex is desirable to less sex. Trust me, we've noticed.

I wouldnt' say it's a big problem for me at this stage in my life, certainly not when I posted the message. I'll just say I was in a good mood that day, without going into too much detail.

You stay classy Link.

I'm also not asking people how often they have sex on the forum. Personally, I think that's TMI on a forum like this.

Apparently not...



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.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[LinkH]

I know---that's my whole point with mutual agreement. You do realize that sometimes people have a need to NOT have sex---right? In a long-term marriage, rarely is it one-sided.

That's not the scenario presented in the video, unless you think the women in the counseling session has a need NOT to have sex just about every day of the week.

The Bible doesn't give us any instructions about meeting a partner's need NOT to have sex. It does give us some commands about meeting a partner' sexual needs. If someone has a strong, overriding need not to have sex, before marriage, choosing celibacy is an option .

 

[LinkH]

Actually, God's honest truth, I have for years operated under the assumption that you post about sexless marriages and the evils of divorce and remarriage because you were struggling with both issues in your marriage. Privately, I know others had assumed similarly. Honestly, I think most of us operated under the assumption that those were issues you were dealing with being... What did you call it? "Common knowledge."

I call that 'projecting.' A lot of what I post is based on my beliefs from reading the Bible, rather than my own life experiences. These are 'Christainforums' and encouraging people to follow the word of God in their marriages is an appropriate to do. I get the feeling that you post from your own opinions and feelings that are shaped largely from your life experiences. I am also concerned for the state of the churches in this nation and other parts of the world, and the direction society is going in. I'm not just thinking about myself and my own personal issues all the time. Divorce is one of those things that damages churches and society, and there are a number of factors that lead to it. I've divorced relatives, so divorce effects me in that way. But my marriage is getting better and better, or at least my wife is on her end, as she is conformed more and more to the image of Christ. My marriage had improved greatly before I started posting on these forums, which is something that made me more interested in the topic of marriage.

Yes, I've noticed your "round up" philosophy to sexual compromise vs the "round down" philosophy. You've made it perfectly clear that more sex is desirable to less sex. Trust me, we've noticed.

That makes sense to me, but that may be because I'm a reasonably young male. if I get to be in my 80's or 90's, my preferences may change. If a married couple are better with it being a rare thing, and they are both cool with that, that's fine. I don't need to know other people's ideas for what is frequent enough.

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.

I don't know the religion of the woman in the video. It's not about God telling people to have sex. Her argument is based on having empathy for a partner who wants to connect sexually. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with the overall message.

There is also a difference between married Christians realizing that each one has a responsibility to meet their partners sexual needs, that it is a way to prevent fornication, and that there are benefits to doing so for the marriage, and one saying to another, "You have to have sex with me right now, because the Bible says so."

We live in a society where fornicators create the script on what sexual morality is. Secular sexual morality nowadays tells people if they have sex, to use a condom. Part of it is about not raping other people. That's because so many people, especially young drunk college students, will have sex rather freely. So the ethical discussions are about 'no means no' and whether it's rape for a man to have sex with a drunk woman or if it's rape if they are both drunk. The secular dialogue on sexual morality is fornication centric. The ethics a lot of people learn are just 'no means no.' Then rarely do some people learn about married sexual ethics, that when one marries, he/she talks on some responsibility to be generous and giving to the spouse, not only in every other area of life, but also in the area of sexuality. Some marriage counselors teach this, like the guy who wrote, "His Needs, Her Needs" or this woman on the video. Of course, the Bible teaches this as well.

I'm not saying that one should demand sex of a partner without concern for a partner's feelings or needs. The partner who wants sex could also be selfish, not considering genuine issues like emotional state, exhaustion, illnesses, e.g. I believe both partners should be loving and considerate of one another. But if one of them has the attitude of only have sex when he or she wants it, and doesn't consider whether the other one has a need, that's selfish also. Sometimes an individual will only be willing to have sex if he or she is in a certain mood, but isn't willing to be put in a certain mood, or isn't willing to set aside a hobby, watching TV, etc. to spend a little time with his or her spouse.