Wife getting massages

[BCP1928]

And, what if a husband frequents a strip club to relax and enjoy his favorite beer on draft? Does his wife have a right to tell him that that behavior is out-of-bounds?

Wow. You must have had some really interesting experiences in massage parlours to want to make that comparison.

 

[o_mlly]

You must have had some really interesting experiences in massage parlours to want to make that comparison.

Nope. Only ever had one massage after playing 36 holes of golf at Pinehurst Country Club. After a ~ 70-year-old, 5-foot-tall English man beat me up for about an hour, I felt great and ready to do 36 more holes the next day.

 

[BCP1928]

Nope. Only ever had one massage after playing 36 holes of golf at Pinehurst Country Club. After a ~ 70-year-old, 5-foot-tall English man beat me up for about an hour, I felt great and ready to do 36 more holes the next day.

And you compare that to drinking beer in a strip club?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Odd that no one's mentioned the golden age of medicine when all OBGYNs were men. (Unless I missed it.)

I mentioned it.

As I noted, there's a difference between being somewhere with a trained physician shoving cold metal up your whooha while you wished you were literally anywhere else on the planet...

And engaging in what amounts to foreplay in most marriages, but with another man instead of your husband.

Female perspective. I also don't go to the OBGYN without my husband in the room. (My own choice, I don't want to go through that without him) though I do know there's women who are comfortable with that, I'm just not one.

My point is that it's a completely different situation, completely different feel to it, and your never alone in the room with the doctor. They always have nurses in the room, either one or two depending, but the doctor is never alone with you, and he's not rubbing his hands all over you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you not realise that coercive control - in various forms - is extremely common?

Coercive control? What's that?

We already agreed that he, and her, are obligated to consider how their actions impact each other when they got married. I'd say the same for any long term romantic relationships.

Not really, because it's still about her, not about him.

In what way is it about her?

Don't you dare tell me it's her behaviour (you know, that thing you insisted had nothing to do with setting relationship boundaries right up to the ridiculous point when you said "going to bed" was a boundary you set for yourself...and had nothing to do with abuse).

He's simply expressing his concerns to her....explaining how he's affected by them, and what he intends to do about it.

I mean....you say that somehow these rules are applied evenly to both partners but clearly they aren't. Clearly you don't think he can do anything except what you suggested....blame himself.

Except the constant yelling is a form of abuse

You didn't say we can only set boundaries around abusive behaviour. You also don't get to decide what's abusive to him or how he should handle his mental health.

If my wife was at some guy's private place (not a spa like setting) claiming to spend the next hour getting oiled up and rubbed down once....just once.....we'd be done. The notion that this guy has been putting up with this regularly for what seems like some time now is pretty wild.

Heaven forbid we suggest he grow up and actually take responsibility for his own emotional reactions

That's what I'm suggesting he does.

You apparently want him to become someone he isn't to fit a wife who doesn't care about the way her actions affect her husband.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wow. You must have had some really interesting experiences in massage parlours to want to make that comparison.

Why? He said he's going there for the beer....not the strippers. The fact that strippers are there is incidental.

More to the point, why wouldn't this husband be able to go to Las Vegas to do whatever his heart desires....far from his wife....and do it I dunno....4 times a year? A little solo vacation of undetermined length, undetermined cost, with or without his friends and his money.

He should be able to do that without either fully explaining it first to his wife....or caring for how she reacts emotionally.....right?

 

[o_mlly]

And you compare that to drinking beer in a strip club?

Someone with critical thinking skills would have no problem seeing the comparison.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I mentioned it.

As I noted, there's a difference between being somewhere with a trained physician shoving cold metal up your whooha while you wished you were literally anywhere else on the planet...

And engaging in what amounts to foreplay in most marriages, but with another man instead of your husband.

Female perspective. I also don't go to the OBGYN without my husband in the room. (My own choice, I don't want to go through that without him) though I do know there's women who are comfortable with that, I'm just not one.

My point is that it's a completely different situation, completely different feel to it, and your never alone in the room with the doctor. They always have nurses in the room, either one or two depending, but the doctor is never alone with you, and he's not rubbing his hands all over you.

Indeed, we all understand that there is not....nor should there be....any sexual aspects of a doctor's appointment. We may be required to show part or all of our nude body to them, or deal with an invasive procedure (men still get prostate exams) but it's not something sexual. That doesn't mean doctor's don't ever abuse their roles....they do. There's a famous Olympic gymnast doctor. There was a dentist in California doing unspeakable things to patients under anesthesia. It's not common but it happens.

I think we also should be able to understand that there are intimate behaviors that aren't quite sex outside the relationship (cheating) that we all would not be comfortable with our partners engaging in. It may not be the same for everyone, but they exist. I can't think of any women I've known that would ever be comfortable with me mildly flirting with another woman over the phone. I don't know any guys who are genuinely comfortable with their women going to a club, drinking, and dancing with other guys. That's right, I said dancing....something you can do fully clothed, not oiled up, and without the guy's hands all over her body. I bet if we did a survey it wouldn't make 100% of guys uncomfortable but I would not be surprised if the number is over 50%.

So we set boundaries. That's healthy for both parties to do....and it's important for a serious relationship with someone you genuinely care about.

 

[Bradskii]

And you compare that to drinking beer in a strip club?

Well, when I finish a game of golf...

 

[Paidiske]

Are you claiming that there can never be bad behavior in a professional therapeutic massage? If not then those adjectives are not meaningful in this thread.

No, I am not claiming that; but as someone who's had my share of professional therapeutic massages, I'm still going to claim that those adjectives are meaningful. The context and experience are objectively different than - to choose an example of a comparison someone made - foreplay.

And, what if a husband frequents a strip club to relax and enjoy his favorite beer on draft? Does his wife have a right to tell him that that behavior is out-of-bounds?

I wouldn't put it like that. She has a right to raise her objection, but she also does not have the right to actually control what he does.

Coercive control? What's that?

"Coercive control can involve any behaviour which scares, hurts, isolates, humiliates, harasses, monitors, takes away another person’s freedom or unreasonably controls their day-to-day activities." (Emphasis mine).

In what way is it about her?

It's about what she does. If - for example - she did something else away from him that took exactly the same amount of time and money, it would make absolutely no material difference to him whatsoever.

I mean....you say that somehow these rules are applied evenly to both partners but clearly they aren't. Clearly you don't think he can do anything except what you suggested....blame himself.

If the genders were reversed I'd be saying exactly the same thing to the wife.

You didn't say we can only set boundaries around abusive behaviour.

No. What I am trying to say is that we don't set boundaries around someone else's behaviour. That's a misuse of the concept.

That's what I'm suggesting he does.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're suggesting he punish his wife for his own emotional immaturity.

You apparently want him to become someone he isn't

I think we all have the potential to become more emotionally mature.

to fit a wife who doesn't care about the way her actions affect her husband.

Well, we don't know what she thinks or feels. We don't even know, from the OP, whether at the point that he posted he'd even spoken to her yet.

I think we also should be able to understand that there are intimate behaviors that aren't quite sex outside the relationship (cheating) that we all would not be comfortable with our partners engaging in. ...

So we set boundaries. That's healthy for both parties to do....and it's important for a serious relationship with someone you genuinely care about.

The thing is, in a relationship, the limits of what is or isn't considered cheating should be something discussed and agreed to. Not unilaterally imposed by one party on the other. And there are plenty of people who would object to considering a therapeutic massage cheating.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Coercive control can involve any behaviour which scares, hurts, isolates, humiliates, harasses, monitors, takes away another person’s freedom or unreasonably controls their day-to-day activities." (Emphasis mine).

Ok....firstly, I'd like to point out that "scares, hurts (emotionally), isolates, humiliates" are going to be a part of those "uncomfortable" feelings the OP has regarding his wife's massages. The feelings you dismissed. Men don't say they're humiliated, scared, or hurt...because that's emasculating and a big turn off for women. Rest assured though, we do have these feelings from time to time.

As for the rest of the your definition....it doesn't fit. He isn't preventing her from getting massages. He's leaving the relationship (worst case scenario) if she continues to get massages. Geez....now that I've framed it as exclusively him controlling his behaviour....all you seem to notice is that it's about her behaviour. Stop trying to make it about her behaviour. He's setting boundaries, based on his feelings and his needs, nothing more. As you said, this has nothing to do with controlling behaviour.

It's about what she does.

Remember several posts ago....remember when I said we were past this. You insisted that setting boundaries isn't about your spouse's behavior and I insisted it was....

Now that I'm framing his behavior as solely about him and his mental health....now you want to talk about her behaviour.

Let's make it clear....she's getting massages now, and she can get them whenever he leaves. He isn't controlling her behaviour at all.

Is that understood? I understand that you're only concern is for the wife and her massages....but pretend for a moment you came on here seeking advice and everyone just took a shot at you. Would you return to see further responses?

If the genders were reversed I'd be saying exactly the same thing to the wife.

I don't believe that. I believe you genuinely believe it....but I don't agree.

No. What I am trying to say is that we don't set boundaries around someone else's behaviour. That's a misuse of the concept.

I don't know any other way to say this.

The OP isn't here to learn what you're comfortable with. He's not here to learn what I'm comfortable with. That's why I suggested he tell his wife why he's no longer comfortable with the massages
....and set some boundaries. It's a healthy and normal thing that for some reason feminists will belittle or gaslight a man into not doing.

That doesn't help anyone though. She's accountable for her actions and he's not obligated to stay in a relationship he's uncomfortable with just because she really really really wants her massages.

I've no pity for a wife that would choose that over her husband.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're suggesting he punish his wife for his own emotional immaturity.

No. He's not doing anything to her. Just like you aren't doing anything to your husband by withdrawing from the room whenever you've decided he gets too loud. A constant reminder he's not allowed to be angry with you....or you'll withdraw from the relationship.

I think we all have the potential to become more emotionally mature.

Sure. The first step here would be recognizing his emotions and deciding if he wants to just accept them....or if he prefers something more comfortable. Once that is done....it's just a matter of how he goes about alleviating his discomfort. I would still suggest though, that should he leave the marriage, he has an obligation to tell her why....so she has an opportunity to learn something about herself, him, and why this didn't work and avoid that in the future if she's wise.

Well, we don't know what she thinks or feels. We don't even know, from the OP, whether at the point that he posted he'd even spoken to her yet.

And given the responses it's not difficult to see why. There's a guy who seems to literally want the OP to provide the thread with evidence of his wife's infidelity.

Imagine that. It's as if that poster, and several others, forgot a real person posted the OP seeking help. Most replies appear to be some version of "you aren't supposed to feel that way because I don't feel that way". How does that help? I don't think any adults here are so naive as to not understand why he feels how he does....you simply believe he shouldn't. Great advice.

The thing is, in a relationship, the limits of what is or isn't considered cheating should be something discussed and agreed to.

Right....that would be called setting boundaries. Women don't like agreeing to any boundaries and call it "abusive" and "controlling" but they have no problem endlessly fighting for their boundaries to be accepted.

I generally agree....my only stipulations would be that it's near impossible to consider everything that you might decide is cheating before experiencing it. It seems at one point...the OPs wife didn't get massages. Now she's getting lubed up and rubbed down in private regularly by some guy and the husband is uncomfortable because he originally thought this was a spa of some kind.

Not difficult to understand why he has a problem.

Not unilaterally imposed by one party on the other.

He's not imposing anything.

He's telling her how he feels and why.

Then he's telling her what he will do about it.

He doesn't have to tell her to stop getting massages....so long as she understands the consequences of her actions, she's accountable. She can decide what is important to her.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok....firstly, I'd like to point out that "scares, hurts (emotionally), isolates, humiliates" are going to be a part of those "uncomfortable" feelings the OP has regarding his wife's massages.

I'd be willing to concede some hurt, maybe (although I think it's irrational). But if he feels humiliated or scared because his wife is getting a therapeutic massage, the bloke has bigger problems going on than even I think are there.

As for the rest of the your definition....it doesn't fit.

You asked how he would possibly control her actions. I pointed out that coercive control is very common. You asked what coercive control was, and I told you.

This is my concern; that recommending a "boundary" will become a form of coercive control in which he unreasonably controls her normal day-to-day activities.

Stop trying to make it about her behaviour.

It's entirely about her behaviour.

Now that I'm framing his behavior as solely about him and his mental health....now you want to talk about her behaviour.

Because I don't buy that it's solely about him. It's about what she's doing. And if that's affecting his mental health, then that's not proportionate or healthy and he needs help.

That's why I suggested he tell his wife why he's no longer comfortable with the massages
....and set some boundaries. It's a healthy and normal thing that for some reason feminists will belittle or gaslight a man into not doing.

Let me point you back to the definition of coercive control (noting that it is, in fact, a criminal offence where I live).

No. He's not doing anything to her.

You don't think a threat of divorce is doing anything?

Just like you aren't doing anything to your husband by withdrawing from the room whenever you've decided he gets too loud. A constant reminder he's not allowed to be angry with you....or you'll withdraw from the relationship.

Not at all. He's allowed to be angry. But I am allowed to manage my own safety depending on how he expresses that anger.

I don't think anyone adults here are so naive as to not understand why he feels how he does....you simply believe he shouldn't. Great advice.

If that's where the problem is, should we refrain from suggesting he work on it? I mean, he did ask for our thoughts.

Right....that would be called setting boundaries.

I wouldn't use that word, but if they are discussed and mutually agreed, I don't have a problem with the concept.

Women don't like agreeing to any boundaries and call it "abusive" and "controlling" but they have no problem endlessly fighting for their boundaries to be accepted.

Nonsense. There are lots of things we all agree to; but the point is them being mutually agreed, not unilaterally imposed. It's the unilateral imposition that's abusive and controlling.

I generally agree....my only stipulations would be that it's near impossible to consider everything that you might decide is cheating before experiencing it.

And if that happens, it's time to discuss it and come to mutual agreement. And the thing is, that might not be mutual agreement that the previously not-considered situation is, in fact, cheating. And that's something the couple have to work through like any other disagreement; it's not something where one spouse gets to unilaterally demand that the other stop.

He's not imposing anything.

You seem to think he gets to impose a limit on her therapeutic massages. With threat of divorce. Which is pretty darned unreasonable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd be willing to concede some hurt, maybe (although I think it's irrational). But if he feels humiliated or scared because his wife is getting a therapeutic massage, the bloke has bigger problems going on than even I think are there.

Again with the gaslighting....again with the invalidating. We aren't really in any position to tell him how he should feel....let alone tell him his current feelings are wrong. He said he's uncomfortable.

Unfortunately, because he's probably a man from a modernized western nation, the story he's been told all his life is to sunk it up and be a man. Nobody cares about your problems, and on top of it, they have problems of their own. That's the message if he sought help from a man.

If he sought help from a woman, the response above probably seemed mild. He's been told by women that not only are his problems all his own fault and own making....but so are the problems of women. His very nature is inherently toxic. He needs to be mild and gentle and good.....while ironically noticing that this behavior doesn't help him at all. He's not going to be considered seriously for being mild and gentle and good....he's going to be dismissed as insecure, mocked, and shamed.

This is generally the nature of our respective societies regarding any problems men may have. I don't want this to sound like an accusation though...we're both products of it. I'm simply saying that this environment, this generalized set of social norms isn't one that tells men to ask for help. It punishes men who ask for help. It's not surprising that he doesn't clearly state the exact situation or how it makes him feel.....he's probably already insecure about just asking for advice. It makes him feel weak.

So since we don't know the exact situation....since we don't know exactly what the problem is....I don't understand why anyone would think it wise to invalidate his feelings, tell him he's wrong, and dismiss a guy seeking advice. I would need to know someone rather well....over a period of time....before I felt justified in even suggesting that the problem was one of irrational feelings. It's amazing to me the speed and confidence of so many others in reaching that conclusion.

You asked how he would possibly control her actions.

Fair enough, I did ask.

I pointed out that coercive control is very common.

But that's not happening here so no worries.

This is my concern; that recommending a "boundary" will become a form of coercive control

Your definition of "Coercive control" doesn't mention setting boundaries and frankly, I'm sure you would agree he isn't obligated to stay in a marriage with a woman who does not care for his feelings nor consider them.

It's entirely about her behaviour.

This is an amazing flip flop.

See....I said setting boundaries was always about the behavior of a spouse. You insisted it wasn't. You couldn't think of a boundary you could set with your spouse that wasn't about behavior but nonetheless....you continued on.

I pointed out repeatedly that you were merely framing your example (leaving the room when your husband yells) as having nothing to do with his behavior....as if your husband's yelling had nothing to do with it.

Do we now agree that setting boundaries is inherently about the behavior of your spouse or ltr with someone? Or should I keep framing this as solely about him, and his mental health, and his well-being (like you did for yourself) and watch you continue to make my point for me?

I mean....good grief. There are things you can be an expert in but relationships apparently isn't one of them.

Because I don't buy that it's solely about him. It's about what she's doing.

Nor should you.

Just like I didn't believe it was solely about you, your well-being, your mental health, when you framed your example all about you.

We don't have to dwell on this....you don't even have to admit I was right the entire time....just say you agree boundaries are generally about what we consider acceptable or unacceptable behavior in relationships and we can move on.

Or...you know....I'll just keep framing his situation as solely about him and his well-being and we can watch you argue against everything you said to me for the last three pages....insisting her behavior is an element of the problem.

Let me point you back to the definition of coercive control (noting that it is, in fact, a criminal offence where I live).

I wasn't aware they castrated all the men there. How long until the nation dissolves?

You don't think a threat of divorce is doing anything?

Whoa....he's not controlling her behaviour. He's choosing whatever is best for him. If she's not obligated to consider how her actions affect him....and she'd rather he remain miserable so she can get those massages....absolutely he should leave.

Not at all. He's allowed to be angry.

Right...just like the OPs wife is allowed to get massages.

Being yelled at makes you uncomfortable....her massages make him uncomfortable.

In both cases I'm suggesting the same response should the spouse's behavior continue.

My position, my advice, actually is equal for both men and women.

But I am allowed to manage my own safety depending on how he expresses that anger.

Sure....absolutely. I would only point out that some women do the same thing with no yelling at all, or claim a man is yelling when he isn't, simply to avoid being accountable to their spouse.

If that's where the problem is, should we refrain from suggesting he work on it? I mean, he did ask for our thoughts.

Absolutely....but it's unclear how you're reaching the conclusion that he's in the wrong. Try considering that perhaps he suspects his wife but doesn't want to say so (humiliated) wants advice but doesn't want to seem weak, and perhaps his feelings are entirely valid, doesn't want his marriage to end but won't be comfortable with the situation (scared, isolated).

I wouldn't use that word

Why?

Nonsense.

Is it?

Name a boundary your husband could impose on you without any difficulty.

There are lots of things we all agree to; but the point is them being mutually agreed, not unilaterally imposed. It's the unilateral imposition that's abusive and controlling.

Do you ask for your husband's permission before leaving the room whenever he yells at you? No....right? You unilaterally impose your boundary on him.

Should we describe that as coercive control?

And if that happens, it's time to discuss it and come to mutual agreement.

We didn't sign ourselves over to the women of this nation, we have a thing called a no fault divorce. If he were particularly cruel or spiteful....he can just leave. In that case, the sooner the better....every 2 years is another year of alimony.

However, there are other options....like leaving and not divorcing. Simply end all combined financial arrangements and split. See if she can even find you in order to file for divorce.

He's not obligated to stay with someone who doesn't care.

And the thing is, that might not be mutual agreement that the previously not-considered situation is, in fact, cheating. And that's something the couple have to work through like any other disagreement; it's not something where one spouse gets to unilaterally demand that the other stop.

Again, you don't ask your husband for permission to leave the room because he's yelling at you.

Before you do though, I would at least hope that....

1. You're explaining why you're leaving the room....not simply avoiding an argument because you don't want to face accountability.

2. He's actually yelling...not merely angry or upset...you aren't policing his emotions.

You seem to think he gets to impose a limit on her therapeutic massages. With threat of divorce. Which is pretty darned unreasonable.

Is it? Let's be clear....imo this is an extremely tiny and inconsequential sacrifice I'd make so fast it would never be spoken of again. Massages? Seriously? If she cared even in the slightest about the man she married she'd immediately go to a spa or situation he's comfortable with. He's not demanding a different dinner every night at 8pm sharp lol. He's not asking how to get her cleaning the house 2 hours a day in high heels and a skirt. The mere fact that he's on here seeking advice means she's probably walking all over him, doesn't respect him, and either misled him about the massages or omitted details that she knew would be a problem. Like most lies....she forgot about it....slipped up...and he noticed that her massages aren't what they were once described as. Now he's unsure why he was misled in the first place.

Absolutely he should assert himself. Draw a line right in the sand. I can't imagine a massage so precious I'd risk my wife for it. This is an extremely small and understandable request....and she should be willing to comply quickly.

 

[Paidiske]

Again with the gaslighting....again with the invalidating. We aren't really in any position to tell him how he should feel....let alone tell him his current feelings are wrong. He said he's uncomfortable.

He did not, however, say that he was scared or humiliated. And I can see absolutely no reason why someone should be humiliated over their spouse getting a therapeutic massage, unless he was the cause of the underlying problem. It's not a reasonable response!

since we don't know exactly what the problem is....I don't understand why anyone would think it wise to invalidate his feelings, tell him he's wrong, and dismiss a guy seeking advice.

Look, if he were in my office for a pastoral conversation, I'd listen a lot more before offering an opinion. But if all I have to go on is the OP, it's certainly my impression that his emotional reaction is likely to be more about his internal baggage, than his wife doing anything wrong.

Your definition of "Coercive control" doesn't mention setting boundaries

Because healthy boundaries are neither coercive nor controlling.

and frankly, I'm sure you would agree he isn't obligated to stay in a marriage with a woman who does not care for his feelings nor consider them.

I have no evidence that that's the case here, though.

I pointed out repeatedly that you were merely framing your example (leaving the room when your husband yells) as having nothing to do with his behavior....as if your husband's yelling had nothing to do with it.

No; I pointed out that leaving the room is about me managing my situation; not about trying to control someone else.

Do we now agree that setting boundaries is inherently about the behavior of your spouse or ltr with someone?

No. I categorically do not agree.

To go back to Cloud and Townsend's definition in their book Boundaries, "Boundaries define us. They define what is me and what is not me. A boundary shows me where I end and someone else begins."

In this case, the important boundary issue is the husband recognising that his wife is neither the cause of, nor responsible to fix, his discomfort.

Whoa....he's not controlling her behaviour.

Threat of divorce is often used to control, so I'm not so convinced by that claim.

Being yelled at makes you uncomfortable....her massages make him uncomfortable.

In both cases I'm suggesting the same response should the spouse's behavior continue.

Except that his discomfort is not because of anything she is doing to him.

Absolutely....but it's unclear how you're reaching the conclusion that he's in the wrong.

Because he's uncomfortable about her doing something that is not immoral, not unethical, is doing no one any harm, is a perfectly normal part of life for many people. It'd be like a husband having conniptions because his wife goes swimming and men can - gasp! - see her in bathers, and conflating that with seductive behaviour in lingerie.

Try considering that perhaps he suspects his wife but doesn't want to say so...

I can't respond to him in any meaningful way if his OP is fundamentally dishonest. At that point I have nothing to say to him.

Why?

Because boundaries are about self-management, not the behaviour of those around us.

Is it?
Name a boundary your husband could impose on you without any difficulty.

He can't "impose" any boundaries. But there are many things I would be, and am, happy to go along with because they suit him and are not a problem for me.

One example is the level of soft drink in the house. It bothers him, he regulates it quite tightly. It's a non-issue for me, I don't interfere with how he manages it. Perhaps someone would frame that as "imposing" but to my mind that would only apply if I actually wished for it to be different, but at that point I'd say it would have to be mutually agreed, because we're both adults in the household and neither of us gets to impose a decision on the other.

Do you ask for your husband's permission before leaving the room whenever he yells at you? No....right? You unilaterally impose your boundary on him.

He can keep yelling if he wants. I'm not imposing anything on him.

We didn't sign ourselves over to the women of this nation, we have a thing called a no fault divorce.

So it's better to just walk away than work through an issue with your spouse? Wow.

Is it?

Very.

Let's be clear....imo this is an extremely tiny and inconsequential sacrifice I'd make so fast it would never be spoken of again.

To you. We don't know whether it would be for her. We don't know why she chose this particular therapist, whether he's more effective than others she's tried, whether his prices are better, whether his location or available times are more convenient, whatever. We don't know.

Maybe, if asked, she'd be perfectly happy to swap to someone else. In that case, great. Maybe she wouldn't. In that case, her reasons and feelings matter just as much as his.

The mere fact that he's on here seeking advice means she's probably walking all over him, doesn't respect him, and either misled him about the massages or omitted details that she knew would be a problem.

You're reading a lot into the text that isn't there.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He did not, however, say that he was scared or humiliated.

Nor should you expect him to...unlike a woman in his situation, he would be mocked or denigrated for saying that. Look at the reaction to him admitting he's uncomfortable....now multiply it by 10.

Look, if he were in my office for a pastoral conversation, I'd listen a lot more before offering an opinion.

It's astounding to me that you're offering this advice professionally. I agree the OP isn't exactly clear....but the difficult part is convincing myself that he had no idea what a massage was, despite likely being an English first speaker and in western civilization.

Apart from some deception....how do you account for this? I knew what a massage was before the internet when I was maybe 12 or 13....definitely. How did this 30+ guy (guess?) manage to never learn what a massage was his entire life nor look one up once his wife was out getting them frequently?

Do you like to imagine him in a cult for 25 years? Do you think perhaps he left his Amish community late?

Or is it far more likely some degree of deception happened here?

I have no evidence that that's the case here, though.

Uh huh.

No; I pointed out that leaving the room is about me managing my situation; not about trying to control someone else.

So is leaving the relationship. He's not trying to control the someone else he's "managing his situation".

Fun.

No. I categorically do not agree.

Not for men...no.

To go back to Cloud and Townsend's definition in their book Boundaries, "Boundaries define us. They define what is me and what is not me. A boundary shows me where I end and someone else begins."

Who are these people again? That might be the dumbest explanation I've ever heard (calling their explanation dumb) we already know that babies understand themselves in relation to others before they're verbal.

A quick check shows most babies understand they are separate from other people (individuals) at 6-12 months. It's a developmental milestone....not a relationship boundary.

In this case, the important boundary issue is the husband recognising that his

Let's assume that you won't be able to talk him out of the way he feels about his wife. There's no rational basis for feelings, so rationalizing them is counterproductive. You should accept how he feels and work from there....

Threat of divorce is often used to control, so I'm not so convinced by that claim.

You said you would leave over yelling.

Except that his discomfort is not because of anything she is doing to him.

Clearly it's because of something she's been doing without him around. There's plenty of reasonable boundaries in that regard. He's not demanding she never speaks to any men or wear a burka. This is, if entirely innocent, a luxury indulgence most people never bother with. At no point would a boundary regarding this be considered "abusive".

Because he's uncomfortable

Skip the rest of your opinion about her behaviour....remember, none of that is clear. Somehow this man either had no idea what a massage was....or he was deceived. That's all we really know. Now he understands what's happening (even if you don't) and he's uncomfortable with it.

I can't respond to him in any meaningful way if his OP is fundamentally dishonest.

Well it's hard to be honest when you're blamed despite reaching out for help.

This man is more concerned of not wrongly accusing his wife....that he'd rather dance around his own suspicions than voice them. Instead of reading the obvious nature of his problem correctly and offering advice....I'd say about 50% of the replies invalidated him and told him he's wrong and alone in solving his problem.

Again....astounding you do this professionally.

Because boundaries are about self-management

That's exactly what I'm suggesting he do...manage himself....the same way you manage getting yelled at.

He can't "impose" any boundaries.

Notice how you disagreed that women are reluctant to accept boundaries.

One example is the level of soft drink in the house. It bothers him, he regulates it quite tightly.

Would he do this alone? Seems like he would. It's not a relationship boundary.

Perhaps someone would frame that as "imposing" but to my mind that would only apply if I actually wished for it to be different

Right...boundaries become imposing when placed upon you. Yet with ease...you have no problem placing them unilaterally upon your husband.

He can keep yelling if he wants. I'm not imposing anything on him.

Just like she can keep getting massages. I can't even conceive of a legal way he could prevent her if he wanted. He can manage his behavior though....and withdraw from the relationship.

So it's better to just walk away than work through an issue with your spouse? Wow.

What's the issue?

To you. We don't know whether it would be for her.

I can't imagine any scenario where it would be a problem for a wife worth keeping. He should leave.

We don't know why she chose this particular therapist,

This isn't a therapist. It's a guy who oils up women and rubs their naked body for an hour. I don't know if that requires a 48 hour training or 6 months but let's not pretend he's anything but a disposable luxury. No real injuries nor need of this guy was explained.

Maybe, if asked, she'd be perfectly happy to swap to someone else. In that case, great. Maybe she wouldn't. In that case, her reasons and feelings matter just as much as his.

On this we agree. If she says she'll drop him immediately and understands her mistake....great. If not....then clearly she cares far more about her massages than her marriage. Not worth keeping. Easily replaced.

You're reading a lot into the text that isn't there.

It's there...and I think more guys than me can read it.

 

[Paidiske]

Apart from some deception....how do you account for this?

Lots of people are really clueless about a lot of things. It doesn't particularly surprise me that he might be mistaken about therapeutic massages taking place in a private room.

Or is it far more likely some degree of deception happened here?

I see no reason to think so.

So is leaving the relationship. He's not trying to control the someone else he's "managing his situation".

"Don't do this or I'll divorce you," does come across as using threats to coerce, when it's about something as petty as this.

Who are these people again?

If you drop their names and "boundaries" into google you'll get a stack of results that are their publications. Like I said, they are kind of the go-to people on boundaries.

There's no rational basis for feelings, so rationalizing them is counterproductive. You should accept how he feels and work from there....

Are you basically arguing that growth in perspective and emotional maturity is not possible? That's a pretty pessimistic view.

You said you would leave over yelling.

I would leave over any form of abuse, including chronic yelling. My spouse getting a therapeutic massage (even if I have some discomfort about that) is absolutely not a form of abuse.

At no point would a boundary regarding this be considered "abusive".

At any point that he attempts to coerce her behaviour it would be abusive.

Notice how you disagreed that women are reluctant to accept boundaries.

I disagreed that women are unwilling to accept mutually agreed limitations. The key word there is "mutually agreed."

Would he do this alone? Seems like he would. It's not a relationship boundary.

It is a relationship matter in the sense that I respect his wishes and don't bring more soft drink into the house than he's comfortable with.

Right...boundaries become imposing when placed upon you. Yet with ease...you have no problem placing them unilaterally upon your husband.

Not accepting being abused is a whole different thing than trying to control someone's non-abusive behaviour.

This isn't a therapist.

OP says he's a licenced massage therapist.

On this we agree.

Clearly you don't agree that her reasons and feelings matter just as much as his!

It's there...and I think more guys than me can read it.

I, however, am not prepared to go down massive hypothetical rabbit holes based on your speculations that are not, in any way, supported by what the OP actually says.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lots of people are really clueless about a lot of things.

We aren't talking about neurobiochemistry here. We aren't astounded he doesn't know theoretical quantum physics. It's a massage.

I see no reason to think so.

I think it's common sense. I don't see it more likely he was entirely oblivious to the concept of massage than his wife lying intentionally or by omission.

"Don't do this or I'll divorce you," does come across as using threats to coerce

Again, he can simply say what he's feeling, and why, and what he intends to do all without ever telling her to not go to the masseuse.....just like you can do the same when yelled at without demanding your husband quit yelling.

If you drop their names and "boundaries" into google you'll get a stack of results that are their publications.

Publications don't make expertise.

Are you basically arguing that growth in perspective and emotional maturity is not possible?

At what point did I say anything remotely like that. I think the wife is fully capable of growth and emotional maturity.

I would leave over any form of abuse, including chronic yelling. My spouse getting a therapeutic massage (even if I have some discomfort about that) is absolutely not a form of abuse.

Per your own description of boundaries (according to the "experts" you quote) abuse isn't a part of it. It's not necessary in any way to set boundaries.

At any point that he attempts to coerce her behaviour it would be abusive.

Again, not according to your definition of coercive control or whatever it was. You said she isn't responsible for his comfort....and if you genuinely believe that....you'd be a hypocrite to require him to be responsible for hers.

I disagreed that women are unwilling to accept mutually agreed limitations. The key word there is "mutually agreed."

I said they struggle accepting boundaries....please refer to your own definition. They don't require any agreements.

It is a relationship matter in the sense that I respect his wishes and don't bring more soft drink into the house than he's comfortable with.

So he's upset or uncomfortable when you violate his soda limit?

I thought you were joking or making a hypothetical...

Does he yell about this?

Not accepting being abused is a whole different thing than trying to control someone's non-abusive behaviour.

I'll just keep referring you to your own definition which doesn't require abuse.

OP says he's a licenced massage therapist.

According to his wife.

Clearly you don't agree that her reasons and feelings matter just as much as his!

She's not on here asking for help. That's why it's so odd to prioritize her.

I, however, am not prepared to go down massive hypothetical rabbit holes based on your speculations that are not, in any way, supported by what the OP actually says.

Well they're really just supported by statistical liklihood.

 

[Paidiske]

We aren't talking about neurobiochemistry here. We aren't astounded he doesn't know theoretical quantum physics. It's a massage.

And I had to explain to a grown adult the difference between fiction and non-fiction recently. Especially if he's never had one himself, the idea that he might have some misconceptions about massage doesn't even surprise me.

At what point did I say anything remotely like that.

The point where you suggested we have to accept rather than challenge someone's irrational feelings.

Per your own description of boundaries (according to the "experts" you quote) abuse isn't a part of it. It's not necessary in any way to set boundaries.

I'm arguing about your definition of boundaries, I'm not saying they're not necessary.

Again, not according to your definition of coercive control or whatever it was.

Well, yes. That definition included "any behaviour which unreasonably controls day-to-day activities."

You said she isn't responsible for his comfort....and if you genuinely believe that....you'd be a hypocrite to require him to be responsible for hers.

Requiring someone not to coerce someone else, is not making them responsible for that person's comfort.

I said they struggle accepting boundaries....please refer to your own definition. They don't require any agreements.

Anyone would struggle to accept limitations unilaterally imposed without agreement. It would be profoundly unhealthy (indeed a lack of boundaries) if they didn't.

So he's upset or uncomfortable when you violate his soda limit?

I thought you were joking or making a hypothetical...

Does he yell about this?

No, I was giving you a real example of a situation where I go along with what he wants, because he wants it and it's no problem to me to do so.

And no, in fact, I can't recall that my other half has ever yelled about anything with me. Occasionally with the offspring, but he's calmer with her than I am, so...

I'll just keep referring you to your own definition which doesn't require abuse.

It's setting a healthy boundary to remove yourself from an abusive situation. It's not setting a boundary at all, if you're attempting to control what the other person does or doesn't do.

Well they're really just supported by statistical liklihood.

This sort of comment just comes across as goading.

 

[o_mlly]

No, I am not claiming that; but as someone who's had my share of professional therapeutic massages, I'm still going to claim that those adjectives are meaningful. The context and experience are objectively different than - to choose an example of a comparison someone made - foreplay.

First, you admit the inclusion of "professional therapeutic" is based anecdotally on your own subjective personal experience. So, I still submit that the adjectives are not objective in describing the physical act.

However, having never had a "professional therapeutic" massage, perhaps I'm wrong. In a therapeutic massage, does the client remain fully clothed? Does the masseur/masseuse not touch with their hands the body of the client? Is the massage not done in a private setting?

I wouldn't put it like that. She has a right to raise her objection, but she also does not have the right to actually control what he does.

So, she may object but not actually do anything more to dissuade him from going to a strip club to enjoy his favorite beer? And he is free to dismiss her objection as he heads out the door? And their lives as husband and wife just go on?

What does it mean that “the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24)? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean that “the two shall become one flesh”? What is the meaning of Genesis 2:24?

www.gotquestions.org

And the two will become one ... The biblical view of “one flesh” communicates a unity that covers every facet of a couple’s joint lives as husband and wife. In marriage, two whole lives unite together as one emotionally, intellectually, financially, spiritually, and in every other way. The “two shall become one” in purpose. They are so close that they function like one person, balancing each other’s strengths and weaknesses so that together they can fulfill their God-given calling.​

 

[Ana the Ist]

And I had to explain to a grown adult the difference between fiction and non-fiction recently.

I've had to explain the difference between fact and opinion on here before....what those examples have in common is they are abstractions and those can be difficult to grasp.

A spa massage isn't really an abstraction.

The point where you suggested we have to accept rather than challenge someone's irrational feelings.

The problem is that you concluded they're irrational despite knowing you don't have evidence they are. Surely people have come to you seeking advice and held information back for reasons that might embarrass them the first, second, or even third time they sought help?

Also....at what point do feelings become rational or irrational. There's no psychologist I know of that agrees on the rational response to something as common as grief....they all seem to agree responses vary and none are invalid. How does someone invalidate a feeling?

I'm arguing about your definition of boundaries, I'm not saying they're not necessary.

What do you mean my definition of boundaries? I asked for yours....said it was pretty awful....but decided to use it anyway so we can move past it. The moment I agreed this wasn't about the OPs wife's behaviour....you immediately starting arguing I was correct all along and it was in fact about her behavior.

Seriously....let's look at the definition you provided, fought for, and insisted upon for multiple posts.

To put it simply: boundaries are about what I will or will not do, not what limits I attempt to set on what someone else can or cannot do.

That's the definition I told you was semantic. When you disagreed, I told you it was specifically framing semantics. When you continued to disagree I thought I'd given you enough opportunities to try and understand....I thought, why waste time? I'll just prove it's semantic framing. I adopted your definition and began framing my advice to him the in a self serving way that solely focuses on his behavior....just like your definition insists.

Do you realize what your response has been? Now you're insisting it's about her behaviour....not just his well being.

When I pointed out that was my argument the entire time....and you should just let it go....you tried tacking on some nonsense about her behaviour not being abusive. Why would that matter? Take a look at the definition of boundaries you gave me.

To put it simply: boundaries are about what I will or will not do, not what limits I attempt to set on what someone else can or cannot do.

Do you see anything in there about his spouse's behavior being a part of boundaries? No. That's according to your so-called experts. You're even arguing with them now. You've completely abandoned the point you were trying to make for 3 pages and now you're just making my old argument for me.

Please, just accept the L here. You're wrong. Swallow your pride. I don't want to just start posting your previous statements and your current ones and explain in detail why they're in no way consistent and completely contradictory. I'm running out of ways to make this clear to you though.

Well, yes. That definition included "any behaviour which unreasonably controls day-to-day activities."

This doesn't control her day to day activities. Again she can continue with the masseuse....alone.

Anyone would struggle to accept limitations unilaterally imposed without agreement.

No...ask any man on this forum if he gave up a behavior that his wife didn't like. My wife made it clear that she didn't want me viewing pornography. I dropped it the next day. It was a great choice on my part....and we weren't even married yet. Why would it be difficult to choose between that and a loving wife that adores me? I literally quit from the moment she asked me to.

No, I was giving you a real example of a situation where I go along with what he wants

Again, if you weren't married....it seems like he would still do this. Your participation isn't even required as far as I can tell.

And no, in fact, I can't recall that my other half has ever yelled about anything with me.

Is he happy?

It's setting a healthy boundary to remove yourself from an abusive situation.

Look at your definition...

To put it simply: boundaries are about what I will or will not do, not what limits I attempt to set on what someone else can or cannot do.

Not only is abusive behaviour not a part of your description....your description explicitly says it should have nothing to do with your spouse's behavior.

I'm trying as hard as I can to work with you here....so I've played the same semantic games you were. Now you disagree with yourself.

This sort of comment just comes across as goading.

It's not intended to.