Wife getting massages

[Paidiske]

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

The point is that the massage is no more a risk than any other setting. Unless you expect women to live in purdah, we ought to be able to go about our lives. Including having a massage if that's what we choose to do.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The point is that the massage is no more a risk than any other setting. Unless you expect women to live in purdah, we ought to be able to go about our lives. Including having a massage if that's what we choose to do.

No more risk than any other setting? Are you nude in a locked room with a man (not your husband) rubbing oil all over your body in any other setting? And is that fine if your husband has a problem with it? Oy vey...

 

[Paidiske]

No more risk than any other setting? Are you nude in a locked room with a man (not your husband) rubbing oil all over your body in any other setting? And is that fine if your husband has a problem with it? Oy vey...

Again with the sexualising of something that isn't sexual.

I can tell you that I have been at far more risk of developing inappropriate relationships in settings that involved no near-nudity or rubbing with oil, than I ever have in a therapeutic massage. It's also through recognising and growing through those situations that I have learned to manage such risk.

Yes, there are risks in life. But to avoid all risk is to refuse to live. So let each person work out what makes sense for them, rather than trying to impose blanket rules forbidding something which for many people is harmless.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Again with the sexualising of something that isn't sexual.

So let each person work out what makes sense for them, rather than trying to impose blanket rules forbidding something which for many people is harmless.

It can be or turn into as I have explained repeatedly. I have also said it is up to the couple if it is OK or not, I am not imposing anything. My point is that it may be improper to most religious Christians, Muslims and Jews. Do you often resort to putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say to try and win an argument? You will not convince me and I can not convince you, so quit going around in circles and just leave it alone, we both made our points...

 

[Paidiske]

It can be or turn into as I have explained repeatedly.

But so can anything. And most of the time, it doesn't.

I have also said it is up to the couple if it is OK or not, I am not imposing anything.

But at the same time, insisting that it is automatically improper. If you're now saying actually, it can be perfectly proper to do this, and it is up to each person to make their own ethical decisions, then fine; that's all I was arguing for. But it took a lot of arguing to get you to that point!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But at the same time, insisting that it is automatically improper. If you're now saying actually, it can be perfectly proper to do this, and it is up to each person to make their own ethical decisions, then fine; that's all I was arguing for. But it took a lot of arguing to get you to that point!

No that's not what I am saying. I said it was up to the couple but that most if not all religious Christians, Muslims and Jews would see it as improper. How many times must I repeat myself???

 

[Paidiske]

No that's not what I am saying. I said it was up to the couple but that most if not all religious Christians, Muslims and Jews would see it as improper. How many times must I repeat myself???

But you also said, flatly and without qualification, many times, that "it is improper." So at best you were not very clear.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But you also said, flatly and without qualification, many times, that "it is improper." So at best you were not very clear.

Yes I was quite clear. I said I thought it improper and that most, if not all, religious Christians, Muslims and Jews would think so too. How many times must I repeat myself?????

 

[Paidiske]

Yes I was quite clear. I said I thought it improper and that most, if not all, religious Christians, Muslims and Jews would think so too. How many times must I repeat myself?????

Your earlier posts were making blanket statements. Like, "A woman should never be alone and almost naked with a man that is not her husband." "A woman should only get a message from their husband." "It is improper. period..."

So if now you are saying that it is not necessarily improper, it is up to the couple to judge, and so on, you might forgive thread participants for feeling that your posts are somewhat inconsistent.

 

[o_mlly]

... it is up to the couple to judge

And if the couple do not agree on her questionable activity?

We are to avoid the occasions of temptation, no? Her masseur may be tempted to commit adultery if he looks upon her nakedness with lust, no? She is subject to her husband, no?

 

[Paidiske]

And if the couple do not agree on her questionable activity?

They'll have to work it out like grown ups.

We are to avoid the occasions of temptation, no?

But this isn't an occasion of temptation for everyone.

Her masseur may be tempted to commit adultery if he looks upon her nakedness with lust, no?

If... if... if. And her masseur may be entirely professional, may be gay, may be happily married with no desire for any other sexual partner. If she's been going to him with no issue for years, it seems unlikely that one will begin now.

Meanwhile, someone else is being tempted to commit adultery while fully clothed. Perhaps we should just acknowledge that most of us have the capacity to work out what is and is not wise in our own lives?

She is subject to her husband, no?

As he is to her.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Your earlier posts were making blanket statements. Like, "A woman should never be alone and almost naked with a man that is not her husband." "A woman should only get a message from their husband." "It is improper. period..."

So if now you are saying that it is not necessarily improper, it is up to the couple to judge, and so on, you might forgive thread participants for feeling that your posts are somewhat inconsistent.

Yes that was my opinion on the original post. I also have said, in the end it is up to the couple to decide if it is OK or not. I have been totally consistent.

 

[o_mlly]

But this isn't an occasion of temptation for everyone.

Patently, it is.

They'll have to work it out like grown ups.

And if they cannot?

If... if... if. And her masseur may be entirely professional, may be gay, may be happily married with no desire for any other sexual partner. If she's been going to him with no issue for years, it seems unlikely that one will begin now.

Meanwhile, someone else is being tempted to commit adultery while fully clothed. Perhaps we should just acknowledge that most of us have the capacity to work out what is and is not wise in our own lives?

That's a lot of "maybe's". Are you claiming that from what the husband has shared that he is unreasonably concerned?

As he is to her.

Biblically, the husband is not the subject of the wife. New Testament: Ephesians 5:22-33. Old Testament: Genesis 2:18. Is the claim that the husband is to subject to his wife a belief of your tradition or just your own personal belief?

The husband is commanded to love his wife, ie, will that she be Godlike, and so obtain her salvation.

 

[Paidiske]

Patently, it is.

It's only an occasion of temptation if you're actually tempted. Many people are not.

And if they cannot?

They have the same options every other couple has; they can seek outside advice, counselling, and so on.

Are you claiming that from what the husband has shared that he is unreasonably concerned?

I think so, yes.

Biblically, the husband is not the subject of the wife. New Testament: Ephesians 5:22-33.

Go back to Ephesians 5:21. Be subject to one another...

Is the claim that the husband is to subject to his wife a belief of your tradition or just your own personal belief?

The claim that marriage is not a hierarchical relationship of power and control is a belief shared across many traditions, including mine.

 

[lismore]

Thoughts?

If you wish to communicate directly how you feel to your wife perhaps you should tell her that you have booked a session with a Swedish masseuse called Inge because it's really no big deal. God Bless You

 

[o_mlly]

It's only an occasion of temptation if you're actually tempted. Many people are not.

So, there are no objective situations of temptation? A man repeatedly rubbing oil on the body of a near naked woman and neither are ever tempted. It seems you dismiss concupiscence to be less than what it is.

They have the same options every other couple has; they can seek outside advice, counselling, and so on.

And if that doesn't work?

Go back to Ephesians 5:21. Be subject to one another...

The teaching in Ephesians 5:21 is a general prescription to all Christians. Ephesians 5:2, Corinthians 3:18-19 and 1 Peter:1 are specific to the particular relationship of husband and wives.

The claim that marriage is not a hierarchical relationship of power and control is a belief shared across many traditions, including mine.

One would logically assume that dioceses that accept same-sex marriages would depart from the traditional understanding that "wives" are subject to husbands. The same-sex issue, I read, has splintered the Anglican communion into dioceses that accept and reject same-sex marriages. Do I understand correctly?

 

[Paidiske]

So, there are no objective situations of temptation? A man repeatedly rubbing oil on the body of a near naked woman and neither are ever tempted. It seems you dismiss concupiscence to be less than what it is.

Perhaps I have a higher view of therapeutic work, and professionalism, than some.

Because temptation is an interior, subjective experience, no, I don't think there are objective situations of temptation. What will tempt one person will leave another utterly unmoved, and what many might think innocent will be highly tempting for some.

And if that doesn't work?

They'll have to decide for themselves what they are going to do.

The teaching in Ephesians 5:21 is a general prescription to all Christians.

Which certainly does not exclude marriage!

One would logically assume that dioceses that accept same-sex marriages would depart from the traditional understanding that "wives" are subject to husbands.

I see them as unrelated issues.

The same-sex issue, I read, has splintered the Anglican communion into dioceses that accept and reject same-sex marriages. Do I understand correctly?

I'd say it's rather more nuanced than that.

 

[BCP1928]

What I am getting out of it is that our OP has been taught that a "real man" has a duty to protect his wife from being misguided by her inherently weaker moral compass, but he's not quite sure he believes it so he is not sure what to do.

 

[Richard.20.12]

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?

I can't imagine any sane husband not reacting exactly as you have! First we should know about things like this involving a spouse. We all should, not just men of course.
Look, massage feels great and when you're in the hands of someone well practiced there are few things that feel as physically soothing. But that very skill YOU can learn. She knows what feels good for her physique so why doesn't she just tell you what to do? A good masseuse knows how to use their body for deep massage, powerful massage. A Thai woman very good with massage (not a masseuse herself) once told me the key is to not use the hands so much because they simply aren't strong enough. Now a man has a physical advantage most of the time in terms of strength but there are limits and fingers and hands can get tired over time for anyone. So they use their elbows and learn to lean into the movement. Changing the angle of the massage table also helps hugely. Using pillows with the subject lying on the floor can draw more force to a needed region. Walking on the back is very effective but most women don't have the back strength to support a man's weight so the solution to that is to use a chair backs on each side for your hands and this can alleviate much of the weight on her back. Get a board and a pad for her to lie on and put it on an angle so when you push down from neck to waist along the spine you are stretching it out because her head is lower than her feet. This counteracts the natural compression gravity has on the spine. The angle doesn't have to be much. You can try this on any grass hill. Another trick that takes no skill or effort at all is for the "masseuse" to sit on a chair against a wall with freshly washed feet uncovered. The subject then (without a bra obviously) places the heels on their back. By leaning forward and then straight up the subject can move the heels up and down the back. It feels absolutely marvelous because the subject controls everything so they can dial in the pressure so it's just right. It does require some strength for this to work. Perhaps if a man's legs were heavy and the woman was rather weak it wouldn't work. I discovered this with a short, slim, 100 lb woman. If those legs were those of a 220+ lb man things might not have worked out very well. Not to mention that I would have been nauseated at the thought of that.....lol.

Massage can unite a couple in many ways sex doesn't because long after sexual attraction may have peaked our bodies continue to ache and a loving and effective touch of a spouse can be just the thing to help smooth the problems of life and help them need each other. Because couples really needs to need each other. They just forget it sometimes.

Massage can easily get very sexual and for this reason it's just wrong for the practitioner to be of the opposite sex. But it doesn't have to be for the very reasons mentioned above. LEARN it and you'll be good at it and she won't waste any more of the family money on it. Because it ain't cheap!

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Why?

No, it's a real psychological term.

Didn't see it in the DSM 5.

I did find some websites on it though...

Boundaries in a Relationship Types and Guidelines

Find out the 5 boundaries in a relationship to strengthen your bond. Follow these relationship guidelines for a happier, more fulfilling love life.

mavamedical.com

"Healthy Boundaries in a relationship are defined as “what is acceptable with you and what is not acceptable with you.” They serve as relationship guidelines for the interactions and behaviors that we consider acceptable or unacceptable. Boundaries assist us in living our values and priorities by establishing either psychological or physical limits that protect our safety, mental health, and ease."

Seems about right to me.

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.

Sure...boundaries can develop during a relationship.

I don't think it's semantics at all. Being very clear about the problems of coercive or controlling behaviour

Setting boundaries isn't coercive or controlling....it's normal for every relationship.

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.

Well clearly it does impact him....and you know why.

He wasn't aware of the situation before....he is now.

No, I don't agree. He says he's not concerned about her fidelity.

And yet you came to the same conclusion I did....he's concerned about the possible sexual nature of the massage. As you said yourself...

"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?"

He's obviously not confident in his wife's fidelity.