Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The OP has allowed that he has "interrogated" his emotion and found it reasonable and now asks others to comment.
Given Original Sin, I think his feeling is rationally validated.
And many of us don't. So if he was looking for confirmation from a bunch of randoms on the internet, he's getting a mixed bag, at best.
Hardly "a bunch of randoms on the internet". We are in the Christian Forums boards in the Ethics and Morality forum.
Hardly anything more authoritative.
He is upset about a situation in which he even acknowledges no one is doing any wrong, and he does not believe it will lead to them doing any wrong. A situation which is a normal part of life for many people, with no issue. So I would put the question back the other way; what makes his discomfort a healthy response to the situation?
Let us dismiss for now the intentions of the actors. Is not the situation objectively one of an occasion for sin? Objective situation: opposite sexes, private room, nearly naked woman, man rubbing her body sensually for 50 minutes?
I think problem here is assuming this is at all sensual. A therapeutic massage is not sensual and often painful to release the muscle tissue. Those who are imaging this into a sexual situation are the ones in the wrong, not this man’s wife.
Of course, all massages are sensual. Sensual only in the sense that the physical touching relieves pain or produces pleasure. Not meant to imply sexual gratification.
Then it's something of a redundant term. We get what you were implying. Man sensually rubbing nearly naked woman in a private room? Know what I mean, squire? Nudge nudge!
That's leaving out some of the objective facts. Such as; therapeutic massage, professionalism of the therapist, and so on. (And I agree that describing this as "sensual" is not objective but subjective and quite possibly mistaken).
No. There is a difference between managing my own wellbeing, and controlling someone else's behaviour. That's a pretty fundamental distinction.
Your question makes no sense to me. I don't describe anyone else's behaviours in terms of "boundaries." My boundaries are about how I manage my time, my availability, my space, my behaviour. How I say yes or no to what is presented to me, to manage my own wellbeing.
Inserting the adjective "therapeutic" to the objective act of "massage" injects a subjective end-in-view. Coloring the masseur as a "professional" does the same and detracts from the objective physicality of the act.
Fair enough. But would you impose your opinion onto the OP? He appears to differ and rationally so.
I disagree. "Therapeutic" is not just about intent, it is about what is objectively happening. A therapeutic massage is a very different experience, objectively, from an erotic massage with a "happy ending." Similarly, a professional conducts him or herself objectively differently from someone playing at massage to get their jollies.
The OP asked for our thoughts.
No. It is not about controlling his behaviour. It is simply about positioning myself in relation to his behaviour. That's the key difference.
Not at all. Again, it's a very fundamental difference.
One thing I've had to be quite intentional about, for example, is going to bed at the time I need to get the amount of sleep I need. If I stayed up as late as he does routinely, I'd be (more) tired all the time. So I go to bed when I need, irrespective of what he's doing.
I am setting boundaries on the use of my time, and my availability to others. And that's the point. Boundaries are ultimately about self-management; not controlling others.
