Wife getting massages

[Ana the Ist]

Therapeutic massage isn't about pleasure. As someone upthread said, it's often actually quite painful at the time.

I'll gladly concede that if done poorly, I have heard it can be painful. Typically, these won't find repeat customers. I think we can safely assume his wife isn't some (pain seeker) and she does this frequently because it feels pleasurable.

If we were talking about physical therapy or something like that, I'd agree...but 99% people consider a good massage pleasurable... not painful.

This isn't the first time you've basically accused me of lying when you didn't like something I said.

I'm not accusing you. I tried thinking of common examples of boundaries that most people agree on...you kept insisting they were fundamentally different but couldn't explain why.

I even said I'd prefer not to ask you personally about your boundaries out of respect....because they aren't my business. After the 3rd or so common example that you dismissed as somehow "different" I didn't have much choice if I was going to understand what you thought a boundary is. I asked for one that you're comfortable sharing.

You told me the yelling example. Then many posts later....probably because I was able to make my point with it....you said you and your husband never yell. It's not a boundary in your relationship....it never exists. It's fiction.

When I asked you for an example of a boundary....did you think I was asking for something that never happens? I wouldn't describe traveling to the moon as a boundary, would you?

I didn't say the marriage is perfect. We have our disagreements. But no, we don't yell at each other.

Ok.

It's important.

I had a pastoral situation recently where one partner in a relationship was prone to frequent angry outbursts, and expected his partner to basically manage his mood so that he wouldn't be angry. It was, of course, impossible, because the partner wasn't the source of the anger and couldn't prevent it. The failure of the angry partner to take responsibility for his own emotions has led directly to the end of the relationship.

I'm not surprised to hear that whatever made this man angry....definitely wasn't the fault of his wife. I'm also not surprised to hear that the relationship fell apart, despite seeking help.

How about a situation where the husband is angry, or uncomfortable, and you did agree that both....

1. The wife's actions or inactions were the cause (fault or not)

2. The husband's feelings were entirely valid.

Has a situation like that ever come to you for counsel/advice...or however you prefer to describe it?

Right. So you can speculate that she's being unfaithful, despite evidence to the contrary, but I can't even extrapolate from the statement that she has pain, to consider that the massage might actually be ameliorative.

Actually I'm fine with the both of us conceding that...

1. The details aren't exactly clear.
2. The problem is that the massages make him uncomfortable.

Now....what you consider evidence and what I consider evidence are going to be subject to interpretation. I've already pointed out that if he was 100% certain of fidelity and there's nothing inherently sexual about the massages....he wouldn't be in here describing his discomfort with them. There appear to be several guys here who have no issue with massages either and don't see them in any way as sexual....I'm not telling them they are wrong. I am able to understand that those guys are claiming they wouldn't be uncomfortable....and that's where the logic of your position breaks down. You can claim that he's holding some inherently sexual view of massages needlessly....but we know that's untrue. He was fine with these massages for what seems like a significant amount of time. They did not trouble him.

Not clients, parishioners. And yes, about half of them are men.

And what's the general success rate by your estimation? If you had to guess, out of all people coming to you with relationship problems, how many move back towards a better relationship with their partner?

And please don't consider this a judgment...I don't know what success rates are where you live, whether they change locally, whether they change by education, whether they typically fail due to seeking late intervention, etc.

Obviously there's too many factors to consider and you're trying to help regardless....not trying to destroy relationships.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not trying to trap you here @Paidiske, I've simply noticed a trend over maybe the past 5-10 years of men giving up on marriage counseling....and relationships in general....and this reason increasingly seems why.

This is copied from a different forum but it's 4 years old and basically a perfect example.

"Is the marriage counselor playbook completely sexist?​

I've been through 3 counselors already. Every single one of them had the same approach: The man is the problem and the way to repair the marriage is to repair the man. Have any of you experienced similar themes in your counseling?

I'm having a hard time figuring out why, but all 3 counselors didn't say anything disparaging about the wife nor did they question any of her assertions at any point. It's almost like the s.o.p. for marriage counselors is to act as prosecuting attorney for the female.

I've never cheated and I've never been abusive, so I'm pretty confused. I'm not saying I'm 100% innocent of creating any marital discord, but the biggest infraction she accuses me of is focusing on the kids, working too much and not making her a priority. Not really what i'd consider validation for the counselors to paint me as a villain that needs to be reformed."

Now...obviously, you gave very similar advice. Man has problem....problem is man....man needs to fix himself. I asked if you have guys coming in for counseling....you offered up an example where....man is angry.....his feelings are invalid....man must fix himself....relationship fails.

There's also a corresponding increase in men, openly discussing these problems with other men....and golly....they seem to be figuring out why problems keep happening at least some of the time.

In this case though, your two examples fitting the experience of a random guy 4 years ago with 3 different counselors probably indicates that this particular bias is the issue.

Women-are-wonderful effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I can't really explain how many researchers have tried to disprove this bias and failed....and how many times the results have been repeated proving the bias about as definitively as possible. The effect is stronger in women....so just the fact that he willing to show up for counseling should mean you need to try really hard to consider his views, his feelings, his concerns, etc.

An easy exercise for this is called the 50/50 exercise. Ask them what they each think they contribute to the relationship....in labor hours....every month on average. If they say it's a 50/50 split, 60/40 split...whatever...tell them that's great and you want to talk to the husband alone first for 20-30 mins....then the wife alone for 20-30 minutes. Have them list out every sort of real labor they do that keeps the relationship going and is needed. Nothing nonsensical like emotional labor....actual work, a job, helping children with homework, cleaning, trips to the store for groceries or essentials (not wants or luxuries) hours driving, etc. Things that if they didn't happen....bills wouldn't get paid and food wouldn't be on the table and they wouldn't be able to stay together anyway. Per month.

Then, if they're comfortable with it....roughly their financial contribution per month as well. Then subtract any indulgences and any luxuries that cost money and aren't 100% necessary.

Then when they're both done...you can see exactly how much each contributes to the relationship objectively. You may be surprised to see it's nowhere near 50/50 any of the time. Maybe it's 60/40....but maybe it's actually 90/10 and the wife is something that costs money, not contributing money. If that's the case....well....if the problem they came in with is that he's yelling at her twice a week because he has to cook dinner when he gets home and she's off getting a massage....the solution is to explain she's both lazy and ungrateful and he is working very hard for her benefit. She should consider ending the massages and cooking dinner.

 

[Paidiske]

I'll gladly concede that if done poorly, I have heard it can be painful. Typically, these won't find repeat customers. I think we can safely assume his wife isn't some (pain seeker) and she does this frequently because it feels pleasurable.

That's certainly not my experience. Ime, the massage itself is generally painful, but in a way which results in reduced pain for some time afterwards.

When I asked you for an example of a boundary....did you think I was asking for something that never happens? I wouldn't describe traveling to the moon as a boundary, would you?

I gave you a textbook example. It's not one I use personally because my husband isn't prone to yelling, but it is literally one of the first examples given in the book I was quoting.

I'm not surprised to hear that whatever made this man angry....definitely wasn't the fault of his wife.

Both of them were men, so the gendered aspect is irrelevant in this example.

How about a situation where the husband is angry, or uncomfortable, and you did agree that both....

1. The wife's actions or inactions were the cause (fault or not)

2. The husband's feelings were entirely valid.

Has a situation like that ever come to you for counsel/advice...or however you prefer to describe it?

I can think of examples, yes. Usually when the wife is unreasonably controlling.

Actually I'm fine with the both of us conceding that...

1. The details aren't exactly clear.
2. The problem is that the massages make him uncomfortable.

I wouldn't say "the massages make him uncomfortable." I would concede to, he is uncomfortable with the massages.

And what's the general success rate by your estimation?

Mostly I refer them on to people who specialise in relationship counselling (which I don't) for that work. Most of my pastoral work that touches on relationships is done with one person when the other refuses to go to counselling or the like.

Now...obviously, you gave very similar advice. Man has problem....problem is man....man needs to fix himself.

The thing is, though, if the genders had been reversed I'd have said exactly the same thing to the wife. (Not "problem is man," but "problem is not the massage, but the reaction to the massage.")

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's certainly not my experience. Ime, the massage itself is generally painful, but in a way which results in reduced pain for some time afterwards.

I would suggest that you change your experience...

Are massages supposed to hurt?

Massages are not supposed to be painful therapy, even though they can be perceived this way. Some clients and even some massage therapists believe pain is just a part of the massage and it has to be painful to work.

www.google.com

Massage can hurt....but typically shouldn't. Some people believe it should and therefore want it to....but there's no studies showing any genuine benefits to that.

I gave you a textbook example. It's not one I use personally

Ok, well you wrote it as if it was a genuine one you experienced. You didn't say hypothetically, or describe an abstract husband and wife....you said it was something you did, in your relationship.

I can quote you if you want.

Both of them were men, so the gendered aspect is irrelevant in this example.

I don't know why you'd assume that.

I can think of examples, yes. Usually when the wife is unreasonably controlling.

Uh huh. Generally, would you describe that as a result of her....feelings? Or her prioritizing herself and her time while demanding her husband contribute more?

I wouldn't say "the massages make him uncomfortable." I would concede to, he is uncomfortable with the massages.

I have no idea what sort of difference between those two things exists.

If I said to you that my wife's massages made me uncomfortable....

And you said back, so you're uncomfortable with the massages?

I'd answer yes and think we just said the same thing.

What's the difference?

Most of my pastoral work that touches on relationships is done with one person when the other refuses to go to counselling or the like.

Ahhh...ok.

The thing is, though, if the genders had been reversed I'd have said exactly the same thing to the wife.

I do believe that you think you would.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok, well you wrote it as if it was a genuine one you experienced. You didn't say hypothetically, or describe an abstract husband and wife....you said it was something you did, in your relationship.

I did not mean to imply this.

Uh huh. Generally, would you describe that as a result of her....feelings? Or her prioritizing herself and her time while demanding her husband contribute more?

Neither, exactly. More a sense of entitlement on her part to make decisions for the household. (The example I'm particularly thinking of was a wife who flatly refused to support her husband doing further study, in a way that basically made it impossible for him to pursue).

I have no idea what sort of difference between those two things exists.

One locates the cause in the massage. The other locates it in his reaction.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did not mean to imply this.

I'll take that to mean you would state it differently if you could.

Neither, exactly. More a sense of entitlement on her part to make decisions for the household.

Ok.

(The example I'm particularly thinking of was a wife who flatly refused to support her husband doing further study, in a way that basically made it impossible for him to pursue).

What exactly do you mean by "support"? She tried to persuade him not to? Or that his study required extra effort from her gaining added responsibilities?

One locates the cause in the massage. The other locates it in his reaction.

I'm sorry....the cause of what?

The cause is the massage....his reaction is discomfort. I don't see what you're saying. The cause can't be his discomfort....and the reaction the massage.

 

[Paidiske]

What exactly do you mean by "support"? She tried to persuade him not to? Or that his study required extra effort from her gaining added responsibilities?

She refused to make changes to their life together which would have allowed him to study. And, you know, I can see that they might have needed to negotiate on timings or details or whatever, but what amounted to a flat, "No, I like things the way they are, and that's how they're going to stay," was a problem.

I'm sorry....the cause of what?

The cause is the massage....his reaction is discomfort. I don't see what you're saying.

I'd say the cause of his discomfort is his underlying attitudes. The massage is just the catalyst for this particular instance of discomfort, not the cause.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I am not certain why the word that describes the psychological opposite of a sadist was bleeped out. If anyone does not know then kindly PM me.

Right?

It's not a dirty word.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And if I suggested to my wife that she should change her ways using terms such as 'obligation' and 'submit' then I'd be sleeping in the spare bedroom for a while.

I believe this....100%.

 

[Ana the Ist]

She refused to make changes to their life together which would have allowed him to study. And, you know, I can see that they might have needed to negotiate on timings or details or whatever, but what amounted to a flat, "No, I like things the way they are, and that's how they're going to stay," was a problem.

It seems as if you have spent the entire thread arguing with me for the position of a wife not needing to compromise for the comfort of her husband.

Yet you're telling me that you told this wife that she needed to compromise her time and behaviors or choices or whatever for the benefit of her husband.

Why? Why does it matter in one case and not the other?

I'd say the cause of his discomfort is his underlying attitudes.

Even without knowing his underlying attitudes?

The massage is just the catalyst for this particular instance of discomfort, not the cause.

Is there some definition of catalyst that works here and isn't a direct synonym of cause?

Catalyst - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

A catalyst is an event or person causing a change. Getting kicked out of your parents' house might be a catalyst for becoming more independent.

www.vocabulary.com

I mean...I'm not trying to be pedantic. Catalyst is a nice word to show off one's vocabulary. I don't understand the difference between a catalyst and cause in this context though.

 

[Paidiske]

It seems as if you have spent the entire thread arguing with me for the position of a wife not needing to compromise for the comfort of her husband.

Nope. I have been arguing against the position of a husband unilaterally expecting or demanding that his wife stop doing something, just because he doesn't like it.

Why? Why does it matter in one case and not the other?

It's the same principle. The wife who wouldn't support her husband to study was, in effect, controlling and limiting him. The husband who expects his wife to stop her massages without mutual agreement would be, in effect, controlling and limiting her.

Even without knowing his underlying attitudes?

The way I read it, his underlying attitude is an inappropriate sexualisation of his wife's body, and/or therapeutic massage.

Is there some definition of catalyst that works here and isn't a direct synonym of cause?

I was thinking in the sense of something that precipitates or prompts a reaction for which the underlying causes were already in place.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. I have been arguing against the position of a husband unilaterally expecting or demanding that his wife stop doing something, just because he doesn't like it.

Ok.

It's the same principle. The wife who wouldn't support her husband to study was, in effect, controlling and limiting him. The husband who expects his wife to stop her massages without mutual agreement would be, in effect, controlling and limiting her.

It's still unclear what support you are talking about. Verbal? Financial? Time? Labor?

The way I read it, his underlying attitude is an inappropriate sexualisation of his wife's body, and/or therapeutic massage.

Ok...

Are you saying that you think it's inappropriate for a husband to sexualize his wife's body under certain circumstances?

I was thinking in the sense of something that precipitates or prompts a reaction for which the underlying causes were already in place.

Ok...I'd probably say impetus. I only tend to hear catalyst in chemistry contexts. Thank you.

I'll try to explain my thinking about it a last time and you certainly don't need to agree.

I'll use an example of my own. I've had a prostate exam. I'm sure you know what that entails. A Dr. Certification. Privacy. Etc.

I am fully rationally aware that this isn't in any way sexual or something related to sexuality. It's a medical procedure.

If I were to describe in many words how it made me feel...embarrassed, vulnerable, weak. If I were to use one word....violated.

You would probably describe that all as irrational, right? I cannot change that though...I was completely aware of everything (the OP isn't) I was fully comprehending what was happening.....rationally. Yet despite this...that was my emotional state for maybe an hour or two. No amount of certification, latex gloves, lube, or therapy is going to change that. I would only call a feeling irrational if someone explained feeling a certain way but not having any understanding of what the cause was. Those would often indicate mental illness. Children are often afraid of the dark....without any need to be....perhaps you'd also describe it as irrational.

To describe the experience as uncomfortable is an understatement....I don't want to be comfortable with that. It's not a "problem" though.

Now, I get that you probably don't agree...and think if it's a problem, a person should try to change that. If it were....I'd say try to find a doctor with smaller fingers. You'd probably suggest therapy. Mine is a suggestion of practicality....that doesn't require him becoming someone he isn't as if it's the desired outcome. Yours is one of personal change to attempt to become someone different....and it's a very drastic suggestion in my mind over something so minor.

Again, you don't have to agree....but does that make sense? It's not a perfect example but is it understandable?

 

[Paidiske]

It's still unclear what support you are talking about. Verbal? Financial? Time? Labor?

As I recall, primarily willingness to move. (The study he wanted to do wasn't something you could do online).

Are you saying that you think it's inappropriate for a husband to sexualize his wife's body under certain circumstances?

I'm saying it's inappropriate to sexualise his wife's body in such a way that he sees an activity that is inherently non-sexual, as sexual.

You would probably describe that all as irrational, right?

Not necessarily.

I would only call a feeling irrational if someone explained feeling a certain way but not having any understanding of what the cause was.

In this case, I am using the term irrational, to describe reacting to something as if it were something other than what it actually is.

Now, I get that you probably don't agree...and think if it's a problem, a person should try to change that.

Again, not necessarily. The cost of changing it might be disproportionate to the problem experienced. I know that sometimes I choose to put up with something that's a problem for me, because what it would take to deal with it would be a bigger problem.

If it were....I'd say try to find a doctor with smaller fingers. You'd probably suggest therapy.

For that example? Probably not.

Again, you don't have to agree....but does that make sense? It's not a perfect example but is it understandable?

It makes sense, but the difference to me is that your problem doesn't involve someone else. If you wanted to resolve a difficulty (however big or small you judge it to be) by getting someone else to change what they're doing, that needs to be agreed to by them too.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I recall, primarily willingness to move. (The study he wanted to do wasn't something you could do online).

Move to a nearby town/city? Or are we talking about a considerable distance?

I'm saying it's inappropriate to sexualise his wife's body in such a way that he sees something inherently non-sexual, as sexual.

You see it as inherently non-sexual. I don't see why you could make that choice for him.

Not necessarily.

Then it's still unclear what the basis for rationality is that you judged the OPs feelings by.

In this case, I am using the term irrational, to describe reacting to something as if it were something other than what it actually is.

Right. It was a medical exam. By a certified doctor. Why should I feel embarrassed or violated or anything negative?

Again, not necessarily. The cost of changing it might be disproportionate to the problem experienced. I know that sometimes I choose to put up with something that's a problem for me, because what it would take to deal with it would be a bigger problem.

Do you see giving up the massage in the OP as a bigger "cost" than the therapy it would require to alter how he feels about it (if that is possible of course)?

For that example? Probably not.

Hmm.

It makes sense, but the difference to me is that your problem doesn't involve someone else.

Ok...maybe an example of me setting a boundary between my wife and someone else then?

We talked before marriage before saying our vows. I explained that even though I am not religious, I took marriage very seriously. To me, it meant no longer prioritizing myself before her....but rather as I would myself. I explained as best as I could what that actually meant....I thought she understood. It took about 2 years I think before she saw a real example.

Her parents came to visit us for the night at our new house before continuing on a trip. I was making dinner so she could spend time with her parents before we ate. They were running late, I watch her make some frantic texts and a phone call. She explains her father missed the exit and I saw she had given him the right directions. No big deal.

10 minutes later they arrive and he's in a bad mood....blaming my wife for his mistake. Can you imagine? 10 feet through the door of my home, talking to my wife as if she were to blame for something entirely his fault. Would I allow him to speak to me this way? Nope. So I cannot allow him to speak to her that way.

I very briefly (this wasn't an argument) told him he wasn't going to speak that way to his daughter in my home. I explained it was entirely his fault, the directions were perfect, it was his mistake. If he wasn't able to control himself he could leave or I'd throw him out.

For the next 3 hours....you could hear a pin drop lol. They hadn't seen her in 2 years and I was fully aware I had spoiled whatever possibility of joy existed lol. I mean dead silence...her mom didn't even seem to know what to say. They drove over 1000 miles....stayed three hours. I don't care how they feel about me though....I don't really have strong opinions or feelings toward them. The behavior this her father displayed...completely disrespectful. She was used to it...I simply don't tolerate it.

I apologized to her for ruining the evening after they left....she wasn't at all upset. We now laugh about it whenever it's brought up.

That's a boundary setting. Between me and him and my wife/his daughter. Very simple, very easy, no discussion. I understand that he was used to speaking to her differently but that was over once we married. I think it took him a good two years to get over being angry at me. What sort of husband would I be to allow that though?

I'd could describe it as being completely about myself...but it seems silly to me to disregard the fact that I was directly and overtly controlling behaviour. I certainly wouldn't try to change myself to allow that to continue merely because they were speaking and it didn't "involve" or "impact" me. It did involve me. That's my wife...and I wouldn't allow that from a stranger let alone her father.

Does that make sense?

 

[Paidiske]

Move to a nearby town/city? Or are we talking about a considerable distance?

That's subjective, I guess. But it's not really the point. There's a difference between, "I'm not ready to uproot my entire life right now, can we work together towards this as a shared goal?" And a flat "No, I'm not willing to consider it."

You see it as inherently non-sexual. I don't see why you could make that choice for him.

It's not about him; it's not his massage. It's about her. If it's not sexual for her (and I see no reason to even seriously entertain the idea that it is), then him getting all weird about it as if it's sexual is exactly the problem.

Do you see giving up the massage in the OP as a bigger "cost" than the therapy it would require to alter how he feels about it (if that is possible of course)?

I can't judge the cost to her, because I don't know why she chose this particular therapist or how much weight she puts on it.

But it's not giving up the massage that I'm objecting to, if she's happy to do it. It's the sense of his entitlement to her giving up the massage, as if he gets to unilaterally decide for her. And the cost of that dynamic in a marriage is very steep indeed.

I'd could describe it as being completely about myself...but it seems silly to me to disregard the fact that I was directly and overtly controlling behaviour. I certainly wouldn't try to change myself to allow that to continue merely because they were speaking and it didn't "involve" or "impact" me. It did involve me. That's my wife...and I wouldn't allow that from a stranger let alone her father.

Does that make sense?

I think that action taken to protect someone else from abuse, is very different to trying to control (abuse) someone in the first place.

 

[o_mlly]

In the sense that it means I know what objectively takes place, no, it's not.

First person experience expressed as knowledge of the world is always subjective.

It might mean that the situation is resolved quickly, but that just means the underlying problems are never addressed at all.

Not necessarily "quickly" nor "never addressed at all" between two who love each other. Their discussions may indeed be lengthy and prolonged.

I would say framing it as a matter of obligation is deeply pastorally unhelpful.

I would say that allowing the issue to be unresolved may leave a burning ember that portends a failed marriage. I would also say that requiring him to cave is equally unpastoral.

The OP is not asking his spouse to stop snoring ... that's not a matter involving her willing self. He is asking her to stop or alter a willed behavior that troubles him. The former is unreasonable, the latter is not.

Also, kindly cite the study that supports the conclusions you claim about egalitarian marriages.

 

[Paidiske]

I would also say that requiring him to cave is equally unpastoral.

At no point is this what I have said.

Also, kindly cite the study that supports the conclusions you claim about egalitarian marriages.

Try this one for a start (it just happens to be the most recent to cross my radar). Sanctified Sexism: Effects of Purity Culture Tropes on White Christian Women’s Marital and Sexual Satisfaction and Experience of Sexual Pain The important phrase in the abstract is "coercive gender ideological tropes."

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's subjective, I guess. But it's not really the point. There's a difference between, "I'm not ready to uproot my entire life right now, can we work together towards this as a shared goal?" And a flat "No, I'm not willing to consider it."

Right...and I'm guessing that you're saying she hadn't even considered it, before telling him no. What would you have said if he had floated the idea 2 months prior and she had plenty of time to consider it before saying no?

It's not about him; it's not his massage. It's about her.

Well...he's in a marriage with her.

If it's not sexual for her (and I see no reason to even seriously entertain the idea that it is), then him getting all weird about it as if it's sexual is exactly the problem.

I don't think I'd describe that feeling as "weird".

If my wife were getting frequent, nude massages from some guy in private....I'd probably also be "uncomfortable".

I can't judge the cost to her, because I don't know why she chose this particular therapist or how much weight she puts on it.

Let's just imagine it's the best, highest value massage possible.

Still worth keeping if it sends her husband into therapy?

But it's not giving up the massage that I'm objecting to, if she's happy to do it. It's the sense of his entitlement to her giving up the massage, as if he gets to unilaterally decide for her.

I don't recall any sense of entitlement nor insistence she gives it up. What part of the OP makes you think that?

I think that action taken to protect someone else from abuse, is very different to trying to control (abuse) someone in the first place.

Well I would say that if his wife is so indifferent to his feelings then she isn't worth his time, effort, care, love, etc.

Also...I don't want to give the impression that my FIL was abusive. He was certainly angry, rude, and wrongly blaming my wife. I'd call it disrespectful....and odd as it may sound, just as disrespectful to me as it is to her. He should have considered how he would have acted if I had come into his home and spoken to his wife that way.

But I'm sure you get that by now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At no point is this what I have said.

Try this one for a start (it just happens to be the most recent to cross my radar). Sanctified Sexism: Effects of Purity Culture Tropes on White Christian Women’s Marital and Sexual Satisfaction and Experience of Sexual Pain The important phrase in the abstract is "coercive gender ideological tropes."

Coercive gender ideological tropes.

This sounds like a rejection of the notion of being obligated in any meaningful way to a husband. Am I pretty close or should I read the link?

Oh no...it seems to be saying that women who sleep around a lot before marriage are better off than those who don't.

I'm guessing that the obvious evidence against that....the higher divorce rates than in the 70s....is probably men's fault lol.

 

[Paidiske]

Right...and I'm guessing that you're saying she hadn't even considered it, before telling him no.

I wasn't there for that bit. I got the impression, when I was being told about it some time later, that further study was an ambition he cherished for years, and she just wouldn't countenance the changes involved. These are not his words, but my sense of them as a couple, but my strong impression was that their respective positions gave her more power in the household (and in community they lived in) and she liked it that way and didn't want it to change.

Let's just imagine it's the best, highest value massage possible.

Still worth keeping if it sends her husband into therapy?

I wouldn't agree that it's "send[ing] her husband into therapy" at all. He'd be going to therapy to deal with his own internal issues.

I don't recall any sense of entitlement nor insistence she gives it up. What part of the OP makes you think that?

There have been plenty of people in the thread arguing for that position. Another PP was just suggesting that she had an obligation to submit. That's what I've been pushing back against.

I'm not arguing that there are no obligations to one another in marriage. I am arguing that those obligations are not one-sided submission and obedience from wives to coercive and controlling husbands.