Wife getting massages

[rambot]

Your wife is receiving a medical procedure to help with pain.

Is this an issue of not trusting your wife? Do you not believe she is in pain? Do you not believe her health treatments help her?

 

[marycherry3]

I would agree, would you be bothered if it was a woman she was seeing?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"It makes me uncomfortable" isn't what I'm talking about there.

Right...it's going to be subjective, from person to person.

The OP made it pretty clear this bothers him. You can tell him it shouldn't...but that doesn't help him any, because it bothers him.

Not what I said. Sharing your feelings is fine. Controlling her behaviour is not.

Well setting a boundary is about what you're willing to accept in a relationship and what you won't. If he can't or won't accept this ....because it bothers him...that's a boundary.

I don't see how he can possibly control her behavior. She will either respect his boundaries and end the massages....or disrespect his boundaries and continue....and the potential damage to the relationship is her fault for her choices.

Not really. No one is doing anything to him.

His wife is engaging in physical behaviors with another man regularly that makes him uncomfortable.

It doesn't really matter if you don't think its an issue....it is. That's why he posted lol. Clearly it's an issue.

I'd be concerned, though, by the idea that his concerns should automatically be more important than her pain treatment.

I'm sorry...I didn't get any indication that this was related to "pain treatment". What sort of pain treatment is done by a masseuse in private? Why wouldn't it be with a physical therapist or doctor in a clinical environment if it were pain related?

 

[Paidiske]

The OP made it pretty clear this bothers him. You can tell him it shouldn't...but that doesn't help him any, because it bothers him.

Actually, I think it does help, in a way. Because it says the problem is not in her behaviour, but in his reaction, and that's where he has work to do.

I don't see how he can possibly control her behavior. She will either respect his boundaries and end the massages....or disrespect his boundaries and continue....and the potential damage to the relationship is her fault for her choices.

I still disagree that this is a valid use of the concept of boundaries. However, him trying to tell her she can't/shouldn't have massages because he doesn't like the idea is a form of control. It would be him trying to control her behaviour.

His wife is engaging in physical behaviors with another man regularly that makes him uncomfortable.

It doesn't really matter if you don't think its an issue....it is. That's why he posted lol. Clearly it's an issue.

As noted, I think the issue is in his reaction, not her behaviour.

I'm sorry...I didn't get any indication that this was related to "pain treatment". What sort of pain treatment is done by a masseuse in private? Why wouldn't it be with a physical therapist or doctor in a clinical environment if it were pain related?

The OP says these massages are "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." And yes, this kind of pain treatment is common. At one stage, when I had a lot of back pain, I had a similar sort of massage (by a masseuse, in private) regularly to help keep the pain under control. It was very effective.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually, I think it does help, in a way. Because it says the problem is not in her behaviour, but in his reaction, and that's where he has work to do.

Well there's a reason for his reaction...I don't know if he simply assumed what the circumstances were, or if he was misled...

But I think we can safely assume this wouldn't bother him if it were the situation he thought it was....it wouldn't be a problem.

Imagine his wife telling a story about him saying that she learned the "guy's night out" he has every weekend that's described as "him and some friends drinking at a bar" was actually him and some friends going to a strip club where half naked women danced around?

He didn't lie to her...but he omitted some details and upon learning of them...she's uncomfortable. Would you tell her she needs to work on herself because this doesn't actually affect her in any way?

I still disagree that this is a valid use of the concept of boundaries.

Give me an example of a valid boundary a husband can impose on his wife.

Just any hypothetical example...doesn't have to be specific to anyone.

As noted, I think the issue is in his reaction, not her behaviour.

His reaction is something based on her behavior.

The OP says these massages are "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." And yes, this kind of pain treatment is common.

If she's been doing this for some time...certainly she'd have seen a doctor by now. She's not an athlete getting massages after a prize fight.

If she's genuinely in chronic pain, she should see a Dr.

Edit- after going back, it's also mentioned these are "just for relaxation".

Let's not pretend to know exactly why these are happening.

 

[Paidiske]

Imagine his wife telling a story about him saying that she learned the "guy's night out" he has every weekend that's described as "him and some friends drinking at a bar" was actually him and some friends going to a strip club where half naked women danced around?

He didn't lie to her...but he omitted some details and upon learning of them...she's uncomfortable. Would you tell her she needs to work on herself because this doesn't actually affect her in any way?

I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not. He is sexualising something that is not sexual.

Give me an example of a valid boundary a husband can impose on his wife.

Just any hypothetical example...doesn't have to be specific to anyone.

You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."

This is a helpful read on the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour: Decoding Relationships: Recognizing Coercive Tactics and the Boundaries-Control Dilemma - Terri Cole

His reaction is something based on her behavior.

It's a reaction to her behaviour. But I'm arguing that the reaction is where the problem is.

If she's been doing this for some time...certainly she'd have seen a doctor by now.

Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.

Let's not pretend to know exactly why these are happening.

I'm taking the OP at face value. He states these are as needed for stiffness and pain. He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety." In which case, she's not doing anything wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not.

A moment ago....the distinction was "he isn't affected by her behavior".

Now it's the degree to which something is erotic?

Do you at least agree that the wife in the scenario I outlined isn't anymore affected by the husband's behavior than in the OP?

You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."

Is that a no? You can't think of a boundary he can reasonably impose on his wife?

Reframing yourself as some kind of victim doesn't change the fact that it's about....

1. Your spouse's behavior.
2. How it makes you feel.

If he says I feel uncomfortable when you get massages so I'm leaving you the next time you do it, is that now a "boundary" since I framed him the way you did above?

This is a helpful read on the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour: Decoding Relationships: Recognizing Coercive Tactics and the Boundaries-Control Dilemma - Terri Cole

I honestly don't care what "Terri Cole" has to say on the topic. If you can't think of any reasonable boundary one can ask of another in a relationship....that's the problem.

It's a reaction to her behaviour.

So is your "yelling" example above.

Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.

But we have no reason to make these assumptions. As of now, the best characterization is that they make her feel good....not that they're curing some medical condition.

He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety."

I would suggest that if the confidence he stated existed....he wouldn't need to state it, nor ask for advice, nor have any issues with it.

 

[Paidiske]

A moment ago....the distinction was "he isn't affected by her behavior".

Now it's the degree to which something is erotic?

I am suggesting that part of the agreement to fidelity in marriage includes limits on engagement with erotic entertainment. (Exactly where those limits are might vary from couple to couple, by agreement). Breaching that agreement - breaking a solemn vow - does affect one's spouse.

Since a massage is not in that category, it's a completely different issue.

Do you at least agree that the wife in the scenario I outlined isn't anymore affected by the husband's behavior than in the OP?

No, I do not.

Is that a no? You can't think of a boundary he can reasonably impose on his wife?

Again, boundaries are not something you impose on others.

If he says I feel uncomfortable when you get massages so I'm leaving you the next time you do it, is that now a "boundary" since I framed him the way you did above?

It's closer to a boundary than trying to stop her getting massages.

It is, however, still a deeply problematic response.

As of now, the best characterization is that they make her feel good....not that they're curing some medical condition.

That's not how I read the OP (although I would say treating, rather than curing).

I would suggest that if the confidence he stated existed....he wouldn't need to state it, nor ask for advice, nor have any issues with it.

If you think the OP is not being honest, then there's probably no constructive way to engage with the topic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not. He is sexualising something that is not sexual.

You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."

This is a helpful read on the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour: Decoding Relationships: Recognizing Coercive Tactics and the Boundaries-Control Dilemma - Terri Cole

It's a reaction to her behaviour. But I'm arguing that the reaction is where the problem is.

Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.

I'm taking the OP at face value. He states these are as needed for stiffness and pain. He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety." In which case, she's not doing anything wrong.

I read it anyway. Here's why Terri Cole is both a hypocrite and not very bright.


Anyway she starts off with a real doozy.

If you need to have boundaryless, inappropriate friendships with men, model, post pictures of yourself in a bathing suit, or have friendships with women who are in unstable places and from your wild recent past beyond getting lunch or coffee or something respectful, I am not the right partner for you. If these things bring you to a place of happiness I support it and there will be no hard feelings. These are my boundaries for romantic partnership.”

Apparently, this are Jonah Hill's boundaries and they seem centered on a monogamous relationship. What does Terri Cole say?

"Jonah’s texts allude to having dealbreakers around Sarah’s behavior, but what is manipulative and wrong is he knew what she did for a living before they got together. He waited until she was emotionally hooked and then said, “Stop doing these things because these are my boundaries.”

oh no...nooooo...lol.

You don't have to set boundaries with someone you're dating casually, just getting to know, interested in...in fact, if you want to see what they're really like, don't.

But once you decide to enter a serious relationship with someone....yes, that's when you should discuss your boundaries. I'm uncertain what sort of job requires the boundaries Jonah outlined above, but I can't think of one outside of swimsuit model that would necessitate any of those.

 

[Paidiske]

I'm uncertain what sort of job requires the boundaries Jonah outlined above, but I can't think of one outside of swimsuit model that would necessitate any of those.

If I recall correctly (I remember reading some stuff about this at the time) she was a professional surfer. Pictures of her in a bathing suit were kind of part of the territory.

That's not the point, though. The issue is not at what point in a developing relationship it might be appropriate to introduce boundaries. The issue is the difference between having boundaries, and trying to control someone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am suggesting that part of the agreement to fidelity in marriage includes limits on engagement with erotic entertainment.

If you don't think there's anything possibly "erotic" about a guy oiling you up and rubbing your body alone in his home....you're certainly not understanding the situation.

No, I do not.

Ok...in what way would she be "affected"?

Again, boundaries are not something you impose on others.

You seem fine with imposing boundaries on erotic entertainment.

It's closer to a boundary than trying to stop her getting massages.

In what way? I didn't say they interact with the dancers, I didn't say they're throwing money at the dancers, I just said they're having drinks.

It is, however, still a deeply problematic response.

How so?

That's not how I read the OP (although I would say treating, rather than curing).

Relaxation isn't a treatment category. I've never been prescribed relaxation.

If you think the OP is not being honest, then there's probably no constructive way to engage with the topic.

I think he doesn't want to unnecessarily slander his wife. I'm respecting that...but I can also read the subtext here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I recall correctly (I remember reading some stuff about this at the time) she was a professional surfer. Pictures of her in a bathing suit were kind of part of the territory.

Ok...yeah, perhaps that isn't a reasonable request then.

That's not the point, though. The issue is not at what point in a developing relationship it might be appropriate to introduce boundaries. The issue is the difference between having boundaries, and trying to control someone.

According to Terri Cole its definitely about "when" the boundaries are introduced. Jonah Hill was wrong for introducing his when he did. However in her example....a man who starts drinking and his wife wants him to stop because she's only known him sober is fine....as long as she didn't know he was a recovering alcoholic prior to the relationship lol.

That's literally the same thing except it treats ignorance as a virtue of some sort.

 

[Paidiske]

If you don't think there's anything possibly "erotic" about a guy oiling you up and rubbing your body alone in his home....you're certainly not understanding the situation.

Where does it say anything about this being in anyone's home?

Can a massage be erotic? Sure. But it can be, and often is, completely non-erotic. By the OP's own characterisation, that is the situation in this case. And sexualising women's bodies, and activities, when they're not actually sexual, is a problem, not with those women, their bodies, or the activities, but with the attitudes of the person seeing them as inherently sexual.

Ok...in what way would she be "affected"?

That he broke his vow would undermine trust, for a start.

You seem fine with imposing boundaries on erotic entertainment.

I am acknowledging that most marriages have agreed boundaries on erotic entertainment.

In what way?

In what way is it closer? It's closer because it's about managing his own behaviour, rather than hers.

Look, nobody's saying relationships shouldn't have dealbreakers. Infidelity, addiction, abuse, come to mind as obvious examples. But an ordinary, everyday activity that is in no way harmful but in fact beneficial? It's hard to argue for that as a reasonable dealbreaker.

How so?

It's attempting to control her behaviour through threats.

Relaxation isn't a treatment category. I've never been prescribed relaxation.

Massage certainly can be, though. As I noted, I've had very similar massage treatment for ongoing back pain. It was very effective.

I think he doesn't want to unnecessarily slander his wife. I'm respecting that...but I can also read the subtext here.

I'm reading a whole different subtext. One in which he can't see his wife's body as anything other than sexual, even when she's engaged in an entirely non-sexual activity.

 

[Paidiske]

Edited to remove weird duplicate post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where does it say anything about this being in anyone's home?

From the OP....

"Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn,"

He also mentioned this wasn't a spa or something similar.

Where exactly did you think this was happening? A rented office? For just a massage table?

Can a massage be erotic? Sure.

Exactly.

But it can be, and often is, completely non-erotic.

Same can be said of a trip to the strip club.

By the OP's own characterisation, that is the situation in this case.

Well I'll agree it would certainly help if he explained why it bothers him specifically....but he didn't.

I think we can assume from the description that what he previously imagined was something more clinical and professional turned out to potentially be something more erotic.

That he broke his vow would undermine trust, for a start.

What vow was that?

What's reasonable in your eyes here? Can he require the name and address of the masseuse to at least see if she's being honest about him being a licensed masseuse?
Would it be acceptable for him to schedule his own massage to see if this guy only has female clientele?

I am acknowledging that most marriages have agreed boundaries on erotic entertainment.

I am certain my wife knows that if she intends to get oiled up by some guy alone in his home we're done.

In what way is it closer? It's closer because it's about managing his own behaviour, rather than hers.

That's literally the same thing. I'm not suggesting he tie his wife to the floor. I'm not saying chain her to the toilet. Obviously he can only control his own behavior.

I don't see whatever distinction you're making.

Look, nobody's saying relationships shouldn't have dealbreakers. Infidelity, addiction, abuse, come to mind as obvious examples.

Right. But you don't get to choose someone else's "dealbreakers". You certainly don't have to agree with his....but if it's his, that's fine. It's his choice.

It's attempting to control her behaviour through threats.

Ok...so now what's the difference between your threat of "leaving the room" for yelling..... and his threat of "leaving the relationship" because she can't give up these massages?

Both examples are someone trying to control someone else's behavior.

I'm reading a whole different subtext. One in which he can't see his wife's body as anything other than sexual, even when she's engaged in an entirely non-sexual activity.

Ok...I think that's silly. I bet if she chose to relax by taking the dog on a walk, he probably wouldn't read it as sexual.

 

[Paidiske]

From the OP....

"Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn,"

He also mentioned this wasn't a spa or something similar.

Where exactly did you think this was happening? A rented office? For just a massage table?

He had assumed the actual massage was in an open setting, and it turns out it's in a closed room. I still read this as taking place in a day spa, massage therapy type place. Where it is normal for the massages to be in closed rooms.

Same can be said of a trip to the strip club.

I have not actually been a patron of strip clubs, but it's hard to argue they're not erotic in intent.

I think we can assume from the description that what he previously imagined was something more clinical and professional turned out to potentially be something more erotic.

I disagree. I think he assumed that "professional" just looked different than it actually does.

What vow was that?

Of sexual fidelity.

What's reasonable in your eyes here? Can he require the name and address of the masseuse to at least see if she's being honest about him being a licensed masseuse?

This is petty, but it's bugging me. A male massage therapist is a masseur. A female massage therapist is a masseuse.

I think it's quite reasonable for him to check out the credentials of the masseur, sure.

Would it be acceptable for him to schedule his own massage to see if this guy only has female clientele?

You might recall I actually suggested that he might book a massage of his own to gauge the setting and tone.

I am certain my wife knows that if she intends to get oiled up by some guy alone in his home we're done.

That is so not how I read what is happening here.

That's literally the same thing.

Nope.

Obviously he can only control his own behavior.

That's not obvious. Coercive control is very much a thing.

Right. But you don't get to choose someone else's "dealbreakers".

No, you don't. And ultimately, if this guy wants to end his marriage over this, he can. Nobody can stop him.

However, we can certainly argue that him deciding that a massage for pain relief is a dealbreaker, especially after years of them occurring with no issue, and him acknowledging no infidelity or impropriety, is a tad unreasonable.

You certainly don't have to agree with his....but if it's his, that's fine. It's his choice.

From a Christian point of view, it's not fine. "I don't like that my wife gets (non-erotic, therapeutic) massages," is not actually a valid reason for divorce.

Ok...so now what's the difference between your threat of "leaving the room" for yelling..... and his threat of "leaving the relationship" because she can't give up these massages?

Both examples are someone trying to control someone else's behavior.

I disagree. Threatening someone with divorce is of a whole different order of behaviour, than leaving the room during a heated argument and picking up the conversation when the other person is able to engage safely and respectfully.

Ok...I think that's silly. I bet if she chose to relax by taking the dog on a walk, he probably wouldn't read it as sexual.

And I think a therapeutic massage is no more sexual than walking the dog. And that he can't see that is exactly the issue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He had assumed the actual massage was in an open setting, and it turns out it's in a closed room. I still read this as taking place in a day spa, massage therapy type place.

I think you're wrong, as that would still be a "spa setting" and not alone completely.

I have not actually been a patron of strip clubs, but it's hard to argue they're not erotic in intent.

It's not a matter of intent. We don't know what the masseuse intends. I've been to the strip club for a friend's celebration when I was younger....wasn't slightly erotic. It all depends upon the perception of the people involved.

I disagree. I think he assumed that "professional" just looked different than it actually does.

Ok...well unless he decides to clarify...I guess we can just assume neither. I'm not sure why that wouldn't still be a "spa setting" at a spa....but ok.

Of sexual fidelity.

Well I'm lost...I thought you were speaking about him.

This is petty, but it's bugging me. A male massage therapist is a masseur. A female massage therapist is a masseuse.

It's autocorrecting. I don't care enough to change the spelling every time. Stop trying to abusively control my behavior lol.

I think it's quite reasonable for him to check out the credentials of the masseur, sure.

Ok...a point of agreement is good.

You might recall I actually suggested that he might book a massage of his own to gauge the setting and tone.

I don't recall that, but I'll take your word on it.

Nope.

You can at least try and explain the difference instead of disagreeing on no grounds.

That's not obvious. Coercive control is very much a thing.

Do you want me to throw you a bone here?

You can absolutely destroy relationships by imposing unreasonable boundaries upon your spouse.

You can also destroy them by placing few to none.

Does that make sense?

No, you don't. And ultimately, if this guy wants to end his marriage over this, he can. Nobody can stop him.

Right.

However, we can certainly argue that him deciding that a massage for pain relief is a dealbreaker,

There's that framing again. Relaxation isn't pain relief.

especially after years of them occurring with no issue,

I don't see why that would matter. It's an issue now.

and him acknowledging no infidelity or impropriety, is a tad unreasonable.

Well what exactly do you think bothers him here? If it's not about anything sexually improper, erotic, or infidelity....what makes you think he's sexualising the issue?

You can't argue both...

1. He's confident there's nothing sexual about the massage

And...

2. He believes that there's an improper sexual element in the massage.

From a Christian point of view, it's not fine. "I don't like that my wife gets (non-erotic, therapeutic) massages," is not actually a valid reason for divorce.

Glad you're here to speak for all denominations.

I disagree. Threatening someone with divorce is of a whole different order of behaviour, than leaving the room during a heated argument and picking up the conversation when the other person is able to engage safely and respectfully.

It's a difference of degree...but either way, you're denying an element of the relationship with the person. Leaving the room is a temporary element...divorce tends to be more permanent...but it's just a difference of degrees. Both are attempts to control behavior.

And I think a therapeutic massage is no more sexual than walking the dog. And that he can't see that is exactly the issue.

I don't think you can reasonably tell him, without any more details....his feelings are somehow wrong. Regardless....

What would you prefer your husband do if a non-sexual behavior of yours made him very uncomfortable?

1. Shut up and mind his own business, any attempt to discuss this is abusive manipulating control and his feelings are invalid.

Or...

2. Explain to you why it bothers him so that a possibility of resolution exists?

 

[Michie]

My wife has been going for massages for many years. I always assumed it was a spa setting with multiple people in the room. Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn, covered by a sheet except for the body part being massaged, wearing only her bikini briefs, massage oil, everything except her bikini area and breasts are fair game for his hands directly on her skin. He is a licensed "massage therapist" and I have been assured it is completely non-sexual, just for relaxation and, as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck, that sort of thing. This has me upset. I feel like I should have been told years ago exactly what the circumstances were. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable? Am I just too insecure? I don't believe it will lead to any actual impropriety or infidelity, but I don't like the idea of another man running his hands all over her feet, legs, thighs, shoulders etc. in private using massage oils. Thoughts?

Where did you go Chas?

 

[Paidiske]

I think you're wrong, as that would still be a "spa setting" and not alone completely.

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. For a while I had a masseuse who had her own premises. While she did share them with other staff, I tended to be her last client of the day and I don't believe I ever saw anyone else on site. Completely alone, but still in a professional setting.

It's not a matter of intent.

Isn't it? Isn't the fact that this woman gets a massage for pain relief, not for sexual pleasure, precisely the point?

We don't know what the masseuse intends.

Well, we have some clues, due to the stated reasons for the massage, and that nothing improper is going on.

I've been to the strip club for a friend's celebration when I was younger....wasn't slightly erotic. It all depends upon the perception of the people involved.

Mmhmm. And what was the purpose of the stripping, if not some erotic intent?

Well I'm lost...I thought you were speaking about him.

You were asking why was getting a massage different than going to a strip club. I am saying that stripping is inherently sexual, and massage is not.

You can at least try and explain the difference instead of disagreeing on no grounds.

My following comment was intended to explain further.

You can absolutely destroy relationships by imposing unreasonable boundaries upon your spouse.

You can also destroy them by placing few to none.

Does that make sense?

No.

There's that framing again. Relaxation isn't pain relief.

The OP states that these massages were "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." That's pain relief.

Well what exactly do you think bothers him here? If it's not about anything sexually improper, erotic, or infidelity....what makes you think he's sexualising the issue?

He acknowledges that she is not doing anything improper or being unfaithful. But he can't stop reacting as if this is somehow a sexual thing. That is what makes me think he is sexualising something that just isn't sexul to the people concerned.

It's a difference of degree...but either way, you're denying an element of the relationship with the person. Leaving the room is a temporary element...divorce tends to be more permanent...but it's just a difference of degrees. Both are attempts to control behavior.

I disagree. Largely because one is about "I am not willing to be yelled at," and the other is about, "I am not willing to let you do this thing that doesn't impact me."

Refusing to be yelled at isn't controlling the other person. Refusing to let someone do (insert benign activity here) is.

What would you prefer your husband do if a non-sexual behavior of yours made him very uncomfortable?

1. Shut up and mind his own business, any attempt to discuss this is abusive manipulating control and his feelings are invalid.

Or...

2. Explain to you why it bothers him so that a possibility of resolution exists?

I have no problem with option two. By all means he can talk to her and explain why it bothers him, and they can talk through the various ways they might choose to go forward. What I had a problem with was people saying she should stop having massages, or he should supervise them, or that it's somehow sinful for her to do so; basically saying either that she was doing something inherently wrong, or that he had the right to control her decision about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. For a while I had a masseuse who had her own premises. While she did share them with other staff, I tended to be her last client of the day and I don't believe I ever saw anyone else on site. Completely alone, but still in a professional setting.

That still doesn't make sense....because it's a "sometimes" thing you're describing and it seems to be an "everytime" thing with only guys, not women, or more likely....the same guy.

Is she picking this guy deliberately?

Isn't it? Isn't the fact that this woman gets a massage for pain relief

Relaxation isn't "pain relief". Lots of things can be done for relaxation (and pain relief for that matter).

Well, we have some clues, due to the stated reasons for the massage, and that nothing improper is going on.

Ok.

Mmhmm. And what was the purpose of the stripping, if not some erotic intent?

Sorry...I thought that was clear. I wanted to go celebrate with my friends, they wanted to go to the strip club. I wasn't there for the strippers.

For some odd reason you seem to have jumped to that conclusion in my hypothetical. Perhaps the husband just wants to drink with his friends and they want to drink there. Perhaps they have cheap drinks. It's not inherently sexual.

See how that works now?

You were asking why was getting a massage different than going to a strip club. I am saying that stripping is inherently sexual, and massage is not.

I just pointed out it's a matter of perspective. Do you understand now?

My following comment was intended to explain further.

No.

Then I'd suggest you consider this a little bit harder. Let's imagine a husband who follows your advice, never trying to influence his wife's behavior when it bothers him or makes him uncomfortable. I'd suggest one problem is that while he might be able to pretend for awhile, he will eventually allow these behaviors to pile up, growing resentful, bitter, and ultimately destroying the relationship. He's not simply going to be able to change how her behavior makes him feel so easily....in fact, it seems like confronting the issue is far more likely to succeed in even that outcome.

Here's another likely possibility that I've personally experienced. If you don't act as if you care what your spouse does...or genuinely don't care to influence her behaviour....she will love it for awhile, growing increasingly insecure, and eventually spiral into anxiety and a near constant reassurance of affection. Why? Because if she cannot do anything that truly bothers you, it will inevitably seem as if you don't truly care about her. We don't just perceive care/love positively. Imagine if you started smoking crack at home (purely hypothetical) and your husband didn't react....he just kept giving you the same affection and affirmations of his devotion as usual. How long before you no longer genuinely believe in those things he says? I'd suggest that even if you weren't able to put your finger on it....you would rather quickly conclude that you have no real effect on your husband at all....regardless of anything he says. That's how it would feel.

So when I say boundaries are a good thing...I mean it. I have very few, and very low expectations, and it's been a personal struggle for me eventually walking out on multiple women I've damaged because they never quite felt necessary to my life in any way.

I'm not trying to sound egotistical. Clearly it wasn't all me. But I've learned women generally prefer to feel needed than free to do whatever they wish whenever without any significant reservations. Sorry if you disagree.

The OP states that these massages were "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." That's pain relief.

Do I really need to quote him?

"He is a licensed "massage therapist" and I have been assured it is completely non-sexual, just for relaxation and, as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck, that sort of thing."

Primary reason= just relaxation.
Secondary reason= stiff back/sore neck.

She's not some crippled arthritic unable to move whenever the barometer is high. He should certainly wonder why her neck is constantly sore despite these 50 minute massages if you want to get realistic.

He acknowledges that she is not doing anything improper or being unfaithful.

That's not the problem. That's him masking his obvious insecurities.

But he can't stop reacting as if this is somehow a sexual thing. That is what makes me think he is sexualising something that just isn't sexul to the people concerned.

But we agree the problem is that he is uncomfortable with the massages because of some potential sexual element....right?

Otherwise I don't know why you keep insisting this is a sexual problem of some kind.

He can't be both 100% confident nothing sexual is happening....and upset about the possibility of something sexual happening.

That doesn't make any sense.

No....he's masking his insecurities and seeking reassurance that what he suspects is happening isn't happening.

He's not 100% confident in anything. He's on a message board seeking advice from strangers.

If you can't understand that....explain what it is you think is the problem in different words. He's sexualising a situation that he's 100% confident is in no way sexual doesn't make sense to even a teenager. He's either sexualising it because he's not really that confident....or there's some other problem that he left no clues for.

Those are really the only options here.

I disagree. Largely because one is about "I am not willing to be yelled at," and the other is about, "I am not willing to let you do this thing that doesn't impact me."

Ok...let's examine these sorts of dynamics outside of a spousal relationship so you don't have any Christian hangups about it....

Imagine a parent putting their child on "time out" and demanding they sit quietly in a corner because of their bad behavior. Let's also imagine this parent threatening to kick this child out of their house at 18 because of something they did.

We can agree that while one of those reactions is more severe than the other....they're both attempts to influence or change the child's behavior, right?

Refusing to be yelled at isn't controlling the other person. Refusing to let someone do (insert benign activity here) is.

You're attempting to keep them from yelling at you by temporarily withdrawing from the relationship.

If you really want to get philosophical...all language communicated to another is an attempt at manipulation. All of it. Even if the only reason why I'm explaining this to you, right now, as you read these words.... is to get you to change from not understanding what I'm saying to a point of understanding what I'm saying....which, however tiny and insignificant, is still manipulation of you and your perspective.

It doesn't really matter if you disagree. That's what it is.

I have no problem with option two. By all means he can talk to her and explain why it bothers him, and they can talk through the various ways they might choose to go forward.

Right. Which seemed like a reasonable position until I described this as a boundary (which it is...once she knows it makes him uncomfortable, she's choosing to make him uncomfortable from then on...even that is manipulation)....at which point you seemed to object to the whole idea.

What I had a problem with was people saying she should stop having massages, or he should supervise them, or that it's somehow sinful for her to do so; basically saying either that she was doing something inherently wrong, or that he had the right to control her decision about it.

She doesn't have to. She gets to choose what she values more....the massages or the comfort of her husband. That's a valid option for him to give her... and even if there's no ultimatum. No spoken consequences....don't imagine it's not an attempt to influence her behavior.