Wife getting massages

[Ana the Ist]

If you're convinced that he thinks, on some level, she's really cheating,

I think he suspects it...or at least acknowledges the possibility. It doesn't seem like he would be asking for advice otherwise. I don't recall him stating that he saw a solution in disregarding his feelings the way some posters here have.

then we're reading this situation completely differently, and our conversation probably can't go any further.

That's your choice to make...I'm not capable of controlling your behavior

I think intellectually he knows she's not - he tells us so - but he can't get past his sexualised hang up.

That's not an intellectual claim....it's an emotional one. Obviously he doesn't know...he believes. It's in private and without any evidence...he can only take her word on it.

He doesn't like the idea of another man touching her, because he's sexualising it. That's the problem.

When you say "he's sexualising it" you make it sound as if it's some abstract conceptualization. It's not...he's considering that from his wife's perspective or the masseuse's perspective....or both....it may have some sexual aspect. That's what troubles him. It's not him considering this as a potentially sexual act if anyone does it...nor does he consider it a potentially sexual act if others are around (getting massages themselves or simply working in the vicinity in a professional setting).

These are the context clues that tell me it's not merely the act itself....it's the fact that it's his wife, and the fact that it's not a professional setting.

If you think that he somehow he is sexualising the massage all of a sudden....why? Why would the act of a massage suddenly become less sexual with people in the general vicinity of the same building? Do you think he's going to be comfortable with the same sexualized massage happening on a table to the left and right of his wife? That seems rather silly to believe he'd be ok with his wife in some group sexual activity with a bunch of people if he's certain there's nothing sexual about it when she and the masseuse are alone.

No...the intellectual argument here is that he's aware that his wife may not be honest with him (she may have framed the massage differently and like most lies, she forgot to it over time). She may have convinced him that she never described it as a spa setting when she actually did long ago....and simply forgot.

And please, don't respond with a simple repeat of your interpretation of the OP. I'd at least like to know why you imagine he went from seeing the massage as non-sexual with a bunch of people around...to something potentially sexual in private....if it has nothing to do with concerns about impropriety between the masseuse and his wife?

I think when he says he's certain nothing is wrong there... and he's sure there's no improper behavior, that's the emotional argument....not the intellectual one. It's the version of events he wants to believe. He's aware he can't read minds and sometimes people lie.

Maybe. I'm really familiar with guys reacting as if non-sexual things are sexual, though.

I'm also aware that women pretend they don't do things that are sexual in nature despite knowing full well they are lol.

I think by "spa setting" he means the sort of shared space I showed a picture of.

Right...and I explained why that didn't make any sense. You don't have to keep repeating it. If it's in a spa...it's a spa-setting by definition. If it's a place of business....it's a commercial space and not a private one.

It doesn't really matter. The point is he thought there'd be someone else in the room at the time the massage was happening, and there isn't.

Or in the we building. The question above is what I'm interested in your answer to....

But here it is again if you forgot....

"I'd at least like to know why you imagine he went from seeing the massage as non-sexual with a bunch of people around...to something potentially sexual in private....if it has nothing to do with concerns about impropriety between the masseuse and his wife?"

Yes, exactly. Which is why I've been insisting this is his issue to resolve, not hers.

It's why I'm insisting you're reading the problem wrong. He doesn't see all massages as sexual....that's a fact.

Or he could go to therapy or otherwise invest in developing some maturity around this.

It's going to be far easier and less expensive for her to change her behaviour.

Perhaps she could go to a spa where there are people around and not some private residence.

They're only the go-to experts on boundaries.

According to who? I don't think the issue of boundaries has an expertise level of knowledge.

Sure. And that's not the problem. The problem is when the expected solution is that you will automatically stop whatever it is, rather than the two of you agreeing together to a way forward.

I don't think it says much of their relationship if she cares more about a massage than his comfort.

I agree. That's not what I took issue with. Because it's also perfectly okay for her to not be willing to compromise or stop.

Right. He'll know where he stands in regards to the masseuse.

I wouldn't recommend divorce over something this minor.

Yes, exactly. And that's why this is not a boundary situation.

For you... for him, it is.

Surely the experts explained that you don't choose someone else's boundaries?

Oh, please, find something more hypothetical.

I'd rather not ask for something that personal....

But most ltr I've had involved a dislike of this behavior.

So I figured it's an example you could at least relate to.

The response is to work together to an agreed solution.

This feels like what I suggested that the OP do with his wife.

It might be that at agreed intervals we both pitch in to tidy up (that tends to be the go-to here, noting that I also have a propensity to untidiness). Or whatever. The point is that it's a negotiated and agreed solution, not an ultimatum from one person; stop leaving clothes on the floor or I'm getting a divorce.

Gotcha....so ultimately, should there be no agreed upon solution, and he simply decides to continue leaving clothes on the floor....

What then? You're going to pursue therapy until clothes on the floor no longer bothers you?

I'd also note that having to live with someone else's mess is a heck of a lot more of a real impact

Oh no...

than having an ick feeling about something they're doing that's not actually impacting on you in any real way.

How are the clothes on the floor possibly impacting you? He eventually does laundry...he simply leaves dirty clothes everywhere. It doesn't affect you in any way other than your uncomfortability with the messiness.

Perhaps you simply should get over it. He's not responsible for your feelings.

Also I don't agree that your spouse being oiled up and rubbed down regularly is going to be a less significant than a messy habit.

Not at all. The problem comes in when one spouse feels entitled to dictate that the other will do or not do whatever it is. That's controlling behaviour, and abusive.

Ok...so what exactly would the conversation be about when confronting your husband about the clothes on the floor?

Why doesn't he like the idea? Because he's sexualising it.

He was fine with it when he believed that the situation was different.

What about it being private and not in a "spa-setting" suddenly makes it sexual?

 

[Paidiske]

I never said it was. I said it could be for a man and a nude woman in a locked room. It is improper, at least it is for a religious person...but I guess you can't see that...

If it could be a temptation, then there is also the possibility that it could not be. Leave it up to each person to judge their own temptations, rather than making blanket rules that place unnecessary limits.

And no, I don't agree that it's improper. There is no sin, no wrong, in obtaining a therapeutic massage. There is no impropriety in work that relieves pain and stiffness and provides health benefits.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm am a fellow human and my observations, right or wrong, are relevant to the conversation about how some people treat other people. And, my observation is that men needing to determine what women may or may not do is bad.

That's great...

This is about a relationship though. A marriage in fact. That's a dynamic that is a little bit different from just "man tells woman what to do".

 

[Paidiske]

These are the context clues that tell me it's not merely the act itself....it's the fact that it's his wife, and the fact that it's not a professional setting.

We don't know what the setting is, though. I still don't see anything in the OP that says it's not a professional setting.

If you think that he somehow he is sexualising the massage all of a sudden....why? Why would the act of a massage suddenly become less sexual with people in the general vicinity of the same building? Do you think he's going to be comfortable with the same sexualized massage happening on a table to the left and right of his wife? That seems rather silly to believe he'd be ok with his wife in some group sexual activity with a bunch of people if he's certain there's nothing sexual about it when she and the masseuse are alone.

I think he thought it was very open, lots of people around, perhaps only groups of women, and then he found out it was private and with a man. And he isn't able to think of another man touching his wife in that setting without thinking of it as sexual.

No...the intellectual argument here is that he's aware that his wife may not be honest with him (she may have framed the massage differently and like most lies, she forgot to it over time). She may have convinced him that she never described it as a spa setting when she actually did long ago....and simply forgot.

I don't see any evidence of that.

I'd at least like to know why you imagine he went from seeing the massage as non-sexual with a bunch of people around...to something potentially sexual in private....if it has nothing to do with concerns about impropriety between the masseuse and his wife?

Look at all the posts in this thread claiming that a man can't massage a woman without it being a temptation, sexual, improper. Clearly his thoughts are running in a similar vein.

If it's a place of business....it's a commercial space and not a private one.

But all we know is that it's a private room. And private rooms are provided in all kinds of settings.

I don't think the issue of boundaries has an expertise level of knowledge.

Given that it's an issue within psychology, of course it does.

I don't think it says much of their relationship if she cares more about a massage than his comfort.

Maybe and maybe not. The point is coming to an agreed solution, rather than one person demanding their way.

Surely the experts explained that you don't choose someone else's boundaries?

Again, boundaries are not about controlling others. That's something else entirely.

Gotcha....so ultimately, should there be no agreed upon solution, and he simply decides to continue leaving clothes on the floor....

What then? You're going to pursue therapy until clothes on the floor no longer bothers you?

Or you learn to live with it. Because overall the relationship is good and the clothes on the floor are part of an overall not-that-bad package. You know, totally hypothetically.

How are the clothes on the floor possibly impacting you?

As a potential trip hazard, for a start. I could list the ways. My point is, they actually impact on my life in that I have to see them, and deal with them. Rather than simply disliking the idea of them.

Ok...so what exactly would the conversation be about when confronting your husband about the clothes on the floor?

My point is, I have no right to issue a demand, an ultimatum, manipulate or seek to control his behaviour. I can ask him to change, I can provide reasons why that would be good, but if he chooses not to... that is ultimately his right. In a healthy marriage neither party controls the other.

What about it being private and not in a "spa-setting" suddenly makes it sexual?

Well, you know, now that other people can't see them the whole time, who knows what salacious things they could be getting up to?

 

[FaithT]

But Scripture doesn't say that, either.

Does it have to?

 

[Paidiske]

Does it have to?

The PP claimed that "The scriptures say what they say." But the Scriptures do not say that this is improper. They simply don't.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If it could be a temptation, then there is also the possibility that it could not be. Leave it up to each person to judge their own temptations, rather than making blanket rules that place unnecessary limits.

And no, I don't agree that it's improper. There is no sin, no wrong, in obtaining a therapeutic massage. There is no impropriety in work that relieves pain and stiffness and provides health benefits.

As I said, it is really up to the husband in the end. I said it is improper IMO. I also said it would be better if she went to a woman for it or if the husband was present. I also said I think that most if not all religious Christians, Jews and Muslims would also see it as improper. I never said that obtaining a therapeutic massage was a sin or improper. I said the conditions of this particular massage mentioned was improper.

 

[Paidiske]

I said the conditions of this particular massage mentioned was improper.

If the massage itself is not improper, then I don't think the conditions change that. If no wrong is being done, no wrong is being done.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

If the massage itself is not improper, then I don't think the conditions change that. If no wrong is being done, no wrong is being done.

Well yes the conditions COULD have a bearing on it. That was my point of possible impropriety. We do not know if no wrong is being done. We can assume that it isn't. Massage in and of itself is not improper.

 

[Paidiske]

Well yes the conditions COULD have a bearing on it. That was my point of possible impropriety. We do not know if no wrong is being done. We can assume that it isn't. Massage in and of itself is not improper.

I don't agree. Something that is not wrong with other people around, does not become wrong in private (in general, I can't think of any specific exceptions right now). But "possible impropriety" is a long way from insisting that something is improper, and that every right-minded person would agree.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We don't know what the setting is, though. I still don't see anything in the OP that says it's not a professional setting.

There's nothing that says it is....and I would consider a professional setting to be spa-like.

I think he thought it was very open, lots of people around, perhaps only groups of women, and then he found out it was private and with a man.

Right...but whatever he thought it was before...it was a massage, and it wasn't sexual. He's clearly capable of not sexualising a massage.

And he isn't able to think of another man touching his wife in that setting without thinking of it as sexual.

And there's the difference...what is it about his wife, alone with a masseuse, in private, mostly naked for an hour....getting rubbed down with oil that he finds potentially sexual when he didn't before?

I don't see any evidence of that.

Look at all the posts in this thread claiming that a man can't massage a woman without it being a temptation, sexual, improper. Clearly his thoughts are running in a similar vein.

But all we know is that it's a private room. And private rooms are provided in all kinds of settings.

Given that it's an issue within psychology, of course it does.

I don't think it's a psychological term. Pop psychology maybe.

Maybe and maybe not. The point is coming to an agreed solution, rather than one person demanding their way.

Ok. If that's how you see it....fine. I'd rather know what my wife's dealbreakers are before we get married personally. Waiting until afterwards is too late.

Again, boundaries are not about controlling others. That's something else entirely.

It's a semantic argument at this point.

Or you learn to live with it. Because overall the relationship is good and the clothes on the floor are part of an overall not-that-bad package. You know, totally hypothetically.

Right. I'd only add that the clothes on the floor might be the first of few issues....or it may be the last of many that ultimately changes how you feel about someone.

As a potential trip hazard, for a start. I could list the ways. My point is, they actually impact on my life in that I have to see them, and deal with them. Rather than simply disliking the idea of them.

He didn't give many details on this....so for all we know, he pays for the massages. It could be that she drives far and when added to the hour long massage....he gets less time with her. He's clearly stressed over this...that's unhealthy.

I don't know why you would imagine him unaffected.

My point is, I have no right to issue a demand, an ultimatum, manipulate or seek to control his behaviour.

Nonsense. Everyone manipulates everyone.

Well, you know, now that other people can't see them the whole time, who knows what salacious things they could be getting up to?

And there it is....he's concerned about his wife's fidelity. I'm not sure why it took so long for you to agree on what he sees as the problem.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I don't agree.

Yes I know that. Something that is not wrong with other people around, does not become wrong in private...but it could, and that was my point. Most would think it improper under those conditions.

 

[Paidiske]

And there's the difference...what is it about his wife, alone with a masseuse, in private, mostly naked for an hour....getting rubbed down with oil that he finds potentially sexual when he didn't before?

Perhaps he assumes that being around others is the difference between finding a massage sexual, and not.

I don't think it's a psychological term. Pop psychology maybe.

No, it's a real psychological term. Often misused in pop psychology, likely the source of the misunderstanding of the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour.

I'd rather know what my wife's dealbreakers are before we get married personally. Waiting until afterwards is too late.

That's probably ideal, but my observation is that often there are many situations we've never even considered until they hit us in the face.

It's a semantic argument at this point.

I don't think it's semantics at all. Being very clear about the problems of coercive or controlling behaviour is far too important to reduce it to a question of semantics.

I don't know why you would imagine him unaffected.

My point is, the difference between her having a massage in an open room with others present, and in a private room, is absolutely no impact on him. As demonstrated by the fact that he didn't even realise for years!

Nonsense. Everyone manipulates everyone.

To a very weak degree, perhaps. But again, manipulation with an aim to control is really not okay.

And there it is....he's concerned about his wife's fidelity. I'm not sure why it took so long for you to agree on what he sees as the problem.

No, I don't agree. He says he's not concerned about her fidelity. I am taking his words at face value. But he doesn't like the idea of something that *could* be sexual (if the people involved were actually quite different).

 

[Paidiske]

Something that is not wrong with other people around, does not become wrong in private...but it could, and that was my point. Most would think it improper under those conditions.

I don't think it's improper until it actually becomes wrong. Until then we're creating problems where there are none.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I don't think it's improper until it actually becomes wrong. Until then we're creating problems where there are none.

That in itself could create the problem, which was my point. That is like saying that adultery is only wrong when it actually occurs. Technically yes. BUT, as Yeshua said, if you lust in your heart you have already committed it. So why put yourself in that position...again, that was my point.

 

[Paidiske]

That in itself could create the problem, which was my point. That is like saying that adultery is only wrong when it actually occurs. Technically yes. BUT, as Yeshua said, if you lust in your heart you have already committed it. So why put yourself in that position...again, that was my point.

But it's not the same thing! If you don't have lust without being alone with a man, being alone with a man won't create it.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But it's not the same thing! If you don't have lust without being alone with a man, being alone with a man won't create it.

It can. You are wrong. Maybe she is unhappy in a marriage. It happens all the time...

 

[FaithT]

Yes I know that. Something that is not wrong with other people around, does not become wrong in private...but it could, and that was my point. Most would think it improper under those conditions.

IF I were to get a professional massage, which I won’t, I would want someone else in the room with us.

 

[Paidiske]

It can. You are wrong. Maybe she is unhappy in a marriage. It happens all the time...

I'm not saying relationships can't grow over time. But you don't need to be alone for that (and that's not about lust, anyway).

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm not saying relationships can't grow over time. But you don't need to be alone for that (and that's not about lust, anyway).

That does not change the point that it CAN and DOES happen...