A common problem in marriages

[LinkH]

Tall73, thanks for the link to the article. I remember reading reports about it when it came out. I think that's a very respectable publication in sociology. I'm tempted to read it and try to sort out how they did their statistical model, but I just skimmed instead.

The results actually make sense to me, even though it's against popular wisdom.

 

[mkgal1]

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.

You find it that difficult to believe that a couple can have unity.....a satisfying sexual relationship.....and respect for one another (because that seems to be what's built into that "challenge")?

FTR......a policy of mutual agreement doesn't mean a couple has less than average to very little sex....in fact (and I see Tall's articles he recently submitted) it's the opposite for most (and quality increases, too).

 

[LinkH]

mkgal1, I don't see how what this woman says is against mutual agreement. It's about the criteria with which one joins in with mutual agreement-- if it's only when one wants to satisfy one's own needs as opposed to when one wants to meet the other's needs.

 

[mkgal1]

mkgal1, I don't see how what this woman says is against mutual agreement. It's about the criteria with which one joins in with mutual agreement-- if it's only when one wants to satisfy one's own needs as opposed to when one wants to meet the other's needs.

Her little story is one example.....but her less-than-15 minute talk doesn't leave room for a multitude of other scenarios (and I'm referring specifically to her "Just Do It" philosophy). I said earlier that I have no dispute with the couple in her example---and am happy for them. However---their example can't be applied to all "sex-starved marriages" that easily. It's just not that simplistic.

What I'm advocating isn't "one satisfying one's own need" (that is closer to what you are suggesting). I'm advocating MUTUAL satisfaction (which may take some undoing of a sense of entitlement in order for there to *be* mutual satisfaction).

Isn't it a part of sanctification to cast off our sense of entitlement? Isn't that being more Christ-like?

To follow the line of reasoning that you have alluded to-- all throughout this thread and others-- all the way to the end there's a couple of articles a person can look up (one I can't link and the other I don't want to be supporting internet traffic to). If anyone is interested.....look up John Prager's article from May 29th 2015 on "christian family values". It illustrates just how a person can use the Bible to support some pretty absurd beliefs (that--IMO--go against our natural understanding of love and compassion).

 

[LinkH]

FTR......a policy of mutual agreement doesn't mean a couple has less than average to very little sex....in fact (and I see Tall's articles he recently submitted) it's the opposite for most (and quality increases, too).

A couple who are happy with sex that is satisfying in frequency and quality are generally going to say they do so by 'mutual agreement'. One person agreeing to it out of love for the other partner who wants it is also 'mutual agreement.'

Her little story is one example.....but her less-than-15 minute talk doesn't leave room for a multitude of other scenarios (and I'm referring specifically to her "Just Do It" philosophy). I said earlier that I have no dispute with the couple in her example---and am happy for them. However---their example can't be applied to all "sex-starved marriages" that easily. It's just not that simplistic.

To be fair to the speaker, she offered her 'just do it' advice in reference the scenario she described. I don't think she or her audience would think that this simplistic advice is a cure-all for all marriages, for marriages where there are serious health problems, psychological issues from past sexual abuse, etc.

What I'm advocating isn't "one satisfying one's own need" (that is closer to what you are suggesting). I'm advocating MUTUAL satisfaction (which may take some undoing of a sense of entitlement in order for there to *be* mutual satisfaction).

Isn't it a part of sanctification to cast off our sense of entitlement? Isn't that being more Christ-like?

In some cases, maybe. If one partner is sick, stressed, sore, tired, etc., then the other partner may not try to pursue amorous activities in spite of personal preferences. I suspect a lot of us can relate to that situation. But did Christ always cast off all of his entitlements? 'Entitlements' is a bad word for it, since the word is often used to refer to giving legal entitlements to things that are not deserved or are not true rights. Rights may be a better word. In the letters to the churches in Revelation, Jesus does remind them of His rights so to speak. He had a right to be loved with that same 'first love' that one church had forgotten. He had a right for His saints not to defile themselves with sexual immorality, eating meat offered to idols, and false teaching.

Let's consider the scenario in the video or even one more extreme. Let's flip it around and say there is a wife who wants sexual intimacy with her husband a few times a week, but he is only willing once a month, maybe. He doesn't try to make it happen, and if it doesn't happen, he makes her wait another month. He is aware of her needs, but doesn't make an effort to meet them. It seems to her that he is able, but just not very interested. For her, this is a serious marital problem. Shouldn't she let him know that he's not doing right by her? Shouldn't she insist that he change? Maybe there is some simple medical or nutritional thing he could do? Maybe he could exercise? Maybe he could learn to care about her needs and then 'just do it'. He needs to figure it out.

If she decided that she were being Christ-like by giving up her rights, and decided not to confront his defrauding, is that the best way to go? In most situations like this, between two believers, I don't think so. Enabling sin by ignoring it isn't the answer. Marriage is supposed to help 'prevent fornication.' The approach of her giving up her entitlements means giving up one means through which she is to avoid fornication. So it is better for her to confront her husband on the issue.

 

[tall73]

Her little story is one example.....but her less-than-15 minute talk doesn't leave room for a multitude of other scenarios (and I'm referring specifically to her "Just Do It" philosophy). I said earlier that I have no dispute with the couple in her example---and am happy for them. However---their example can't be applied to all "sex-starved marriages" that easily. It's just not that simplistic.

I think you are a bit fixated on the "just do it" tag line. She says a lot of things beyond that. And she agrees with the articles on a number of topics.

Let's break down the talk. I will start with the three minute mark because the rest is more or less introductory. I recapped her speech in green, and then put quotes which are somewhat similar from the articles in burgandy.

3:18-44
She indicates one person wants more touch, more physical connection, more sex, other spouse thinking, what is the big deal, just sex. It is a big deal because it is about feeling wanted and connected.


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.



3:44-4:16, can result in general distance of relationship and higher risk of divorce.

One largely overlooked aspect of desire differences is that they eliminate nonsexual affection.

Today, desire differences are a leading reason why couples consult sex therapists.

Over time, of course, such rejections are extremely damaging to the relationship as a whole. In order to protect themselves from further hurt, a rejected spouse or partner is likely to become emotionally withdrawn, distant, and disengaged

5:04-6:00 discusses how person rejecting is making unilateral decision. Indicates this is different than mutual decisions.
6:14-6:37
Unilateral decision that other person has to accept, and not complain about.
6:00-6:13 some couples never discuss sex, quality, frequency, or anything else.

Now these parts of the discussion are key because you say you want mutuality. She is trying to get couples to look for mutuality, rather than one person making the decision. For this to happen there needs to be discussion. She is encouraging the person who feels rejected to say something.

Despite how risky it might feel, bringing up the topic, as clearly and as assertively as possible (which is difficult but doable), is the only way to begin a dialogue about change and make your partner aware of the emotional damage his or her behavior is causing.

State the emotional impact their rejections have on you using "I statements" (“It makes me feel extremely unattractive and undesirable,” “I feel hurt and my self-esteem has taken a real hit,” or, “It makes me feel insecure, angry, and resentful.”). Here again, it is important to give your partner space to respond; while some may be aware of the impact of their behavior, others might not be



10:18-10:11:14
building of resentment in party rejected and downward cycle.

They are also likely to develop feelings of anger and resentment toward the partner, and in some cases, become depressed.


11:14
Prescription. Person rejected needs to spend more time with spouse and put away anger.

Discuss specific steps you both can take to improve the situation. Do not assume all the changes have to come from your partner; they might have feelings of their own that are underlying their avoidance of sex and intimacy. Try to agree on one small step you can both take right away to signal your intention to work on this issue.

Despite desire differences, couples usually feel closer when they cuddle more, make social plans, and treat each other compassionately.

11:41-12:33
She needs to "just do it".
for two reasons
1. rejected partner will be happier, more likely to be present, and grateful.
2. Some folks do not get into it until they begin having sex, then they enjoy it. They wind up being happier if the increase sex.

The mutual solution assumes some increase in sex.


• Negotiate a compromise frequency. If one wants sex twice a week while the other prefers once a month, their average is four or five times a month. But averages don’t matter. The challenge is to find a frequency you can both live with long-term. There no right or wrong here, but as a point of reference, the most typical frequency for couples age 21 to 40 is three times a month to once a week. For older couples, it's two to three times a month.


• Schedule sex dates in advance. This is critical. Scheduled sex dates reassure higher-desire partners that lovemaking will actually happen, and they reassure lower-desire partners that it will happen only when scheduled. In most cases, as soon as couples schedule sex dates, relationship tensions begin to subside.


Both parties may compromise on frequency, but work together to a mutual agreement.

When couples embrace their schedules in good faith, nonsexual affection returns to the relationship. Both people can initiate hugging, kissing, and cuddling without fear of misinterpretation because both know their schedule. Couples who have resolved desire differences often feel surprised by how much they’ve missed nonsexual affection, and astonished at how important it is to the relationship and their own well-being.



14:24-15:44
Biological and chemical need for belonging. Disconnect has brain chemistry impacts. Functional MRI shows similar brain response to depression over break-up and rejection as is seen when person is having physical pain.

One reason even small rejections sting is that our brain is wired to respond to rejection similarly to the way it responds to physical pain

15:44-end
Final arguments

1. Understand how partner feels connected

2. If you are with someone who wants more connection and more sex, do not delude yourself into thinking it is just sex. Sex is a powerful way of connecting and bonding.

3. When you get your partners way of connecting you don't have to fully understand it, just do it.

Because successful relationships are based on mutual caretaking. It is an act of love. Put someone elses needs above your own.


Note the subject of the speech was sex-starved marriages, but she does appeal to each spouse to meet whatever connection needs the other spouse has, sexual or otherwise.

 

[tall73]

I'm advocating MUTUAL satisfaction

The whole issue is whether couples will discuss the issue and work together to a solution. That is in fact what Link and I have been suggesting all along.

What the talk has in common with the articles is that a common solution likely will mean more sex for the person who is declining, and may mean less sex than the one who is requesting may hope for. And both should work to meet the various needs of the other spouse, not just sexual needs.

Where that usually runs into issues in this forum is how a discussion of that type should come about between a couple. The articles and the video called for discussion of the subject, letting go of resentment, and working together. But that has to start with a discussion. And that discussion will likely start with the partner who feels they are being rejected.

And that is where some start to talk about "guilting" etc. It need not be guilting.

 

[tall73]

but her less-than-15 minute talk doesn't leave room for a multitude of other scenarios (and I'm referring specifically to her "Just Do It" philosophy).

The article also indicates, and in fact simple logic would suggest, the only mutually agreeable solution would involve "just do it" at least somewhat more. There is no compromise between a high desire and a low desire that doesn't have the low desire person upping things a bit and the high desire person bringing things down a bit.

The article and the talk also speak about how that may actually working out making the couple happier overall.

Now I think the scheduling piece in the article is actually quite helpful. It not only means there will be some improvement in frequency, but in situations where the partner who has lower desire feels pressured it means that schedule adherence helps both problems. If the situation is that far along then a definite schedule with nearly no deviation may not sound romantic, but allows the partner who wants more sex to reasonably expect they will have that need met. And it allows the partner who doesn't want to feel like every bit of attention is really pressure for more sex to be free of that concern.

The talk did not address that particular solution, but in nearly every other respect has similar thoughts. And in many cases couples may not have to go to those lengths by employing a rigidly fixed schedule to see improvement in the overall relationship.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

What about 1st Corinthians 7:
1Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

What do you all think of this? Sorry its a bit long (not by me):
Defraud ye not one the other,.... By withholding due benevolence, denying the use of the marriage bed, refusing to pay the conjugal debt, and which is called a "diminishing of her marriage duty", Exodus 21:10 where the Septuagint use the same word "defraud", as the apostle does here; it is what both have a right to, and therefore, if either party is denied, it is a piece of injustice, it is properly a defrauding; though with proper conditions, such as follow, it may be lawful for married persons to lie apart, and abstain from the use of the bed, but then it should never be done, except it be with consent:

because they have a mutual power over each other's bodies, and therefore the abstinence must be voluntary on each side; otherwise injury is done to the person that does not consent, who is deprived against will of just right; but if there is agreement, then there is no defrauding, because each give up their right; and such a voluntary abstinence is commended by the Jews (z); "everyone that lessens the use of the bed, lo, he, is praiseworthy; and he who does not make void, or, cause to cease the due benevolence, but , "by consent of his wife";'' i.e. he also is praiseworthy: another condition of this abstinence is that it be only for a time; which shall be agreed unto, and fixed by both parties; not for ever which would be contrary to the will of God; the institution and end of marriage, and of dangerous consequence to either party. The Jews allow of a vow of continency for a while; and which they limit to different persons;

thus (a), "if a man by a vow excludes, wife from the use of the bed, the school of Shammai say it is for the space of two weeks, the school of Hillell say one week; scholars go out to learn the law, without leave of their wives, thirty days, workmen one week;'' which vow, for such a limited time, they seem to allow of, without mutual consent; and herein they disagree with the rule the apostle gives; and who further observes, the end to be had in view by such a voluntary separation for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; not that this was necessary for the ordinary discharge of such service, as for private acts of devotion among themselves, and constant family prayer; but either when times of fasting and prayer on some emergent occasions were appointed by themselves, or by the church, or by the civil government on account of some extraordinary and momentous affairs; and this seems to be observed by the apostle,

in agreement with the customs and rules of the Jewish nation, which forbid the use of the bed, as on their great and annual fast, the day of atonement (b), so on their fasts appointed by the sanhedrim for obtaining of rain (c): the word "fasting" is omitted in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, and so it is in the Alexandrian copy, two of Stephens's; and others: the apostle adds, and come together again; to the same bed, and the use of it, and that for this reason, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinence; for not having the gift of continency, should they pretend to keep apart long: Satan, who knows the temperament and disposition of men and women, may tempt them not only to hatred of, and quarrels with one another, but to impure lusts and desires, to fornication, adultery, and all uncleanness;

a very good reason why, though abstinence from the marriage bed for a short time, by the consent of both parties, for religious purposes, may be lawful, yet ought not to be continued; since Satan may hereby get an advantage over them, and draw them into the commission of scandalous enormities. The Jews have a notion of Satan's being a tempter, and of his tempting men to various sins, which they should guard against, as idolatry, &c. So say they (d), "thou mayest not look after idolatry, according to Deuteronomy 4:19 and again, thou must take heed lest this be a cause of it to thee, , "and Satan tempt thee" to look after them, and do as they do:'' and again (e), frequently should a man think "upon the unity of the blessed God, lest there should be anything above or below, before him or behind him, or by him, and so, , "Satan tempt him", and he come into heresy.''

 

[mkgal1]

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

What about 1st Corinthians 7?:

Any of it can be misconstrued.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1, in the 'gatekeeper' situation described in the video where one partner's needs aren't being met, there is not 'mutual satisfaction'.

What do you think the passage in I Corinthians 7 means?

 

[tall73]

Any of it can be misconstrued.

So can psychological advice. So can your spouse's words. So can anything else. However, this is a passage in the Scriptures that have bearing on the subject. So we should not just ignore it because some could misconstrue it.

 

[mkgal1]

Mkgal1, in the 'gatekeeper' situation described in the video where one partner's needs aren't being met, there is not 'mutual satisfaction'.

What do you think the passage in I Corinthians 7 means?

Link--when there is mutual love & respect in a marriage it normally doesn't get to the point of being "sex-starved". It's sort of like a snowball effect when selfishness enters & everyone clings tightly to their "rights" and walls go up (and that's very difficult to undo things at that point).

That dissatisfaction on the one side can be altered by casting off selfishness (and---most likely---there will be a positive response to that). That's the mature and loving way. With rights there are responsibilities.

Love is patient, love is kind.....

BTW.....My complaint isn't so much with the video in the OP specifically as much as it is with the video being used as a platform to support (what I believe is) a very damaging belief in the christian circle: sex on demand. IMO....that completely goes against genuine love.

 

[mkgal1]

So can psychological advice. So can your spouse's words. So can anything else. However, this is a passage in the Scriptures that have bearing on the subject. So we should not just ignore it because some could misconstrue it.

I said nothing about ignoring verses from the Bible.

 

[LinkH]

That dissatisfaction on the one side can be altered by casting off selfishness (and---most likely---there will be a positive response to that). That's the mature and loving way. With rights there are responsibilities.

Saying stuff like that to 'the gatekeeper' can keep a marriage problem going. Marriage and sex in marriage is to help 'prevent fornication.' Telling the ex-starved spouse to be more Christ-like to be okay with rarely having sex, when the provision to help stave off sexual temptation in marriage is sex in marriage--probably isn't a solution to the marital problems. The Bible doesn't say, "Be Christlike and give up your desire for sex with your partner." Rather, it says, "Defraud ye not one another, except it be with consent for a time...". In Ephesians 5, Paul, even though he was celibate, presents a verse about two becoming one flesh (which he associates with sex in I Corinthians 6) as being about a mystery of Christ and the church. So why would recommending not having sex in this situation be the Christ-like solution?

Offering that as a solution in some marriages would leave one spouse physically and emotionally frustrated. This kind of advice could also be enabling a 'gatekeeper' in his or her sin. It's taking responsibility off of him/her to do what he/she is supposed to do, and putting it on the other spouse to tolerate one's abdication of one's marital responsibilities. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but one should not slap one's spouse in the face to teach him or her to follow that.

BTW.....My complaint isn't so much with the video in the OP specifically as much as it is with the video being used as a platform to support (what I believe is) a very damaging belief in the christian circle: sex on demand. IMO....that completely goes against genuine love.

I initially presented the video without much comment and would have let the thread rest. You responded against it. For some reason, it seems to touch on an issue with you. I don't think you are being reasonable to fixate on 'just do it' which made sense in the specific context in which she used it.

I don't see people who take a more serious, literal, direct, whatever you want to call it, interpretation of I Corinthians 7 using the phrase 'sex on demand' either. Though that sounds like it could be fun in a marriage. I could imagine a couple of gung ho newly weds might like to playfully use that phrase. But I believe a loving spouse will take his spouse's physical, emotional, mental state into consideration in this area of the marriage as well.

 

[tall73]

I said nothing about ignoring verses from the Bible.

If the only thing you can comment on it is that it can be misconstrued, that is practically ignoring it. At the least it gives the impression that you cannot safely rely on any advice in that Scripture.

 

[tall73]

BTW.....My complaint isn't so much with the video in the OP specifically as much as it is with the video being used as a platform to support (what I believe is) a very damaging belief in the christian circle: sex on demand. IMO....that completely goes against genuine love.

Please point out the specific posts you believe advocated for that in this thread.

 

[tall73]

Link--when there is mutual love & respect in a marriage it normally doesn't get to the point of being "sex-starved".

Are there stats on that? If one partner has a drastically lower drive sex may not be on their radar. That doesn't mean they don't love and respect their spouse. And if it is brought up they may in fact be quite willing to work on it. It seems any couple could run into this if communication on that particular subject is not maintained.

The point is the video, the articles, etc. all stress that at some point a conversation has to happen. How would you recommend that be done?

 

[sdmsanjose]

I do think the video has some good points but what some posters have already posted is the standard for Christians that believe the Bible trumps all; here they are reprinted again:


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.


First Corinthians 13
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.

Another scripture that is very pertinent to this discussion is Ephesians 5:22-29. However, I am not going to print all the words because this site is very weary of theses verses because it has a certain word in it that sets some people off on a hot argument marathon. I think these verses go very well with both points being made with the above scriptures. It has the solution if both partners will do their part. I cannot understand why some people have trouble with these verses and argue all day long. I do not know one woman that would have trouble with these verses when their husband tries to follow the biblical passage in verse 25 that instruct the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church. The verses are clear on the main attitudes and actions and there is no need for a lot of argument IMO.


The video seems to supplement the verses but probably could have used a better phrase than “Just do it” I have no problem with that but understand that others may and for that reason I would hope that the phrase is overlooked and we can see that the video really is trying to help with this problem.

Bottom line is that we Christians have a solution to this “A common problem in marriages” and they are in our scriptures. Others, like the video, can be a good supplement but we have all we need to get a very good start with the sex issue.

I do not think that the scriptures are that confusing but quite direct but I think that personal attitudes can get in the way of these scriptures.