A common problem in marriages

[tall73]

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 problem is if we are talking about mutual decision making on most issues no one has a problem with both sitting down and expressing their views respectfully and coming to common ground.

One-way rejection is not doing that. If you say it is obvious, alright, then she gets no credit for originality. But then if she is merely stating the obvious, then she should get credit for stating an obvious problem: that folks often approach this decision differently than other decisions in marriage. If they are mutual in most decisions, but not in this one, that is worth looking at.


Now you say there should be no manipulation, coercion, etc. Alright, so how was what the video said anything other than a call to discuss it and meet somewhere in the middle?

The person receiving the advice is under no obligation to follow it. The speaker has no authority over them. It is an online video! She can't compel them to even finish watching, let alone act on the advice. She is appealing and nothing else. She didn't claim any biblical authority, because she approached it from a secular standpoint. She said that in her experience BOTH wind up happier, and the relationship better if they try to compromise to better meet the needs of both. And she told the "rejected" partner to get over the resentment.

Why would her appeal be wrong?

 

[mkgal1]

If someone has a strong, overriding need not to have sex, before marriage, choosing celibacy is an option .

I'm not surprised that you see it as black & white, but there is an in-between where a person isn't *always* up for sex (that doesn't mean they're fit for celibacy).

 

[tall73]

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."

Just posting this again in case anyone needed to reference it that missed it the first few times:

1Co 7:2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
1Co 7:3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
1Co 7:4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
1Co 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Paul seems to indicate that both, in a usual situation, will have sexual desires, and that the spouse is the one God intends to fill that need.

 

[tall73]

I'm not surprised that you see it as black & white, but there is an in-between where a person isn't *always* up for sex (that doesn't mean they're fit for celibacy).

There can certainly be unreasonable needs from the party desiring sex as well. but if you want mutual decision making then they have to get it all out on the table and see what can work for both of them.

 

[mkgal1]

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

I'd think that was covered in 1st Corinthians 13 (for one reference). Love is truly a mystery, I suppose.

Maybe a refresher would be in order?

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1, I was talking about a specific scripture that deals with meeting a partners specific need NOT to have sex. I did mention in my post that one should consider one's partner's emotional state, health, etc. and be considerate of those things.

Refusing one's spouse unless one is in a specific mood and wants it for oneself, leaving the other spouse hurt, unfulfilled, stressed, and rejected is unloving, as well. That's the scenario described in the OP.

 

[mkgal1]

mkgal1, I was talking about a specific scripture that deals with meeting a partners specific need NOT to have sex

Like I said: "love is a mystery" (to some more than others). If 1st Corinthians 13 is too nuanced for you, I don't know what else to say.

 

[LinkH]

Like I said: "love is a mystery" (to some more than others). If 1st Corinthians 13 is too nuanced for you, I don't know what else to say.

mgal1, if you are concerned with 'us versus them' attitudes on the forum, you could try not to engage in that sort of thing yourself. I post a video on the topic, and you make a personal comment about me and my marriage.

What I have been saying throughout the thread is that a married individual should not be shut off to having sex with a partner to meet that partner's need if said individual does not want it for himself or herself.

What you keep responding with is the idea that it is unloving to force or coerce sex on the other. We aren't talking about the same thing.

Now you are trying to imply that I am unloving because of this idea that I am not even arguing in favor of.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'm tired and kinda lost in this topic but but alot of people I see believe you shouldn't have sex even if your spouse says "Just because I don't want too!". But the bible essentially says that if thats what your saying then your denying them for no legit reason. And of course this doesn't mean you tell your spouse "Well we are having sex whether you like it or not!", but it does mean you both need to see someone or talk about it because once someone starts denying sex for no real reason, they may get into the habit of wanting it less because they see you will put up with it.

Sex like many things some have stronger urges for. People need to learn only to say no to sex when its something legit. Like your having your period, your in pain, medical issues...etc. Its all a balance in marriage. Sex is one of those things that can be hard to balance. Especially if the couples have opposing sex drives. Though the person being "denied" should also not then attempt to guilt the person into sex. Sometimes its best to let it go. Its not like hours later or even a day later you can't try again. And another factor in this, at least from what I've seen talking to couples, is that sometimes the person being denied doens't realize the spouse doesn't want sex because they don't like that you are making it enjoyable for them. Wam, bam, thank you mam' isn't going to get a woman excited about sex. So its something to think about. Are you being denied because shes not enjoying it or is it something else.

In the end sex in a marriage will have its up and down and changes through the marriage. You both have to learn and figure things out with it.

 

[Dave-W]

If someone has a strong, overriding need not to have sex, before marriage, choosing celibacy is an option .

Except for the fact that if you are 100% inexperienced at sex (which is the way it us SUPPOSED to be); you may not be aware of that "need" until you actually try to have a sexual relationship. i.e. after you get married.

 

[Dave-W]

'm tired and kinda lost in this topic but but alot of people I see believe you shouldn't have sex even if your spouse says "Just because I don't want too!". But the bible essentially says that if thats what your saying then your denying them for no legit reason. And of course this doesn't mean you tell your spouse "Well we are having sex whether you like it or not!", but it does mean you both need to see someone or talk about it because once someone starts denying sex for no real reason, they may get into the habit of wanting it less because they see you will put up with it.

I see this as a lack of being accountable to anyone. Someone (outside the marriage) needs to call someone into account if they are not living up to the biblical standard of laying down your life for someone. (in this case your marriage partner)

 

[LinkH]

Except for the fact that if you are 100% inexperienced at sex (which is the way it us SUPPOSED to be); you may not be aware of that "need" until you actually try to have a sexual relationship. i.e. after you get married.

But one might be able to tell if he/she has no interest in it before marriage.

 

[mkgal1]

But the bible essentially says that if thats what your saying then your denying them for no legit reason.

I'm sure people can read the Bible to "essentially" be saying just about anything they'd wish it so be saying.

 

[mkgal1]

I just have to say that I always find it a bit humorous that once there's a mention of one spouse being gracious and patient in accepting a decline for sex (because graciousness & respect goes both directions in marriage--or *ought* to) that there's this huge leap all the way to suggesting celibacy.

 

[Dave-W]

I just have to say that I always find it a bit humorous that once there's a mention of one spouse being gracious and patient in accepting a decline for sex that there's this huge leap all the way to suggesting celibacy.

Having lived it for a number of years, I do NOT find it amusing at all.

 

[mkgal1]

Having lived it for a number of years, I do NOT find it amusing at all.

Sorry :/ I don't mean to make light of actual sexual issues in marriage. I was referring only to the conversation (and how it's typical for that gross exaggeration to happen). Abstinence isn't even close to what I'm referencing (and celibacy is a whole *other* topic).

 

[LinkH]

If anyone here thinks this is a bad video (in the OP), I challenge you to show it to your spouse to see if his/her opinion is the same. My guess is if someone does not like the video, there is a good chance their spouse will.

 

[tall73]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...re-differences-finding-sexual-frequency-works

A key quote:

Today, desire differences are a leading reason why couples consult sex therapists. Therapists typically ask, “In your relationship, who controls the sex?” Each person points to the other—and both are astonished that their partner thinks they are in control when each of them feels powerless. The one with more libido feels eviscerated by every cruel “no.” And the one with less feels emotionally battered from constantly fending off advances.

 

[tall73]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201406/what-do-when-you-feel-rejected

A key quote:
People in stable, long-term relationships and marriages often feel rejected by their partner at one time or another. While many such experiences are mild, when they recur over long periods of time, they can be extremely painful. Indeed, being repeatedly rejected by your partner can damage your self-esteem and psychological health—and endanger the entire relationship.

 

[tall73]

I admit, I am mostly posting this scholarly study to get Link's take, as he is likely to find it fascinating. It breaks the data down by religion, # of children in the house etc. as well:

http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Feb13ASRFeature.pdf


Key quotes:


Changes in the nature of marriage have spurred a debate about the consequences of shifts to more egalitarian relationships, and media interest in the debate has crystallized around claims that men who participate in housework get more sex. However, little systematic or
representative research supports the claim that women, in essence, exchange sex for men’s participation in housework. Although research and theory support the expectation that egalitarian marriages are higher quality, other studies underscore the ongoing importance of traditional gender behavior and gender display in marriage. Using data from Wave II of the
National Survey of Families and Households, this study investigates the links between men’s participation in core (traditionally female) and non-core (traditionally male) household tasks and sexual frequency. Results show that both husbands and wives in couples with more traditional housework arrangements report higher sexual frequency, suggesting the importance
of gender display rather than marital exchange for sex between heterosexual married partners.

and

First, as we mentioned in the main text,one possible concern is that households with more traditional gender divisions of labor may
have higher sexual frequency due to coercive sexual behavior. To the extent this is the case, wives in more traditional households should have lower satisfaction with their sex lives, and men in these households should have
greater satisfaction. As Tables A1 and A2 show, however, this is not what we find.