Wife getting massages

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Agreed. It does seem as if he's under obligations that she is not....and this isn't recognized.

If a husband quit his job, stopped, paying the bills, and the couple was now destitute and homeless....it seems unlikely such therapists would tell the wife she now is obligated to provide those things while he gets massages for the next 5 years because that's equal to the situation of the last 5 years.

The in-group bias of female marriage counselors may be simply too strong to be worth the trouble.

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.

Indeed...and you'll notice on previous posts, this has become imagined as a sort of medical necessity....which is pretty unlikely. I've never even heard of a medically necessary massage or anyone who needed them. It's such an unlikely proposal nobody should have reached that conclusion....rationally.

Not over the far more likely chance of infidelity anyway.

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

I only read the abstract. It's a bit too vague to fully grasp but I can't even think it's a serious work.

 

[Paidiske]

If a husband quit his job, stopped, paying the bills, and the couple was now destitute and homeless....it seems unlikely such therapists would tell the wife she now is obligated to provide those things while he gets massages for the next 5 years because that's equal to the situation of the last 5 years.

It certainly wouldn't be my position. I'd be encouraging them to work together on what they can build, not place all the obligation on one party.

I've never even heard of a medically necessary massage or anyone who needed them.

It's extremely common, in my experience, for massage to be recommended for muscular pain.

I only read the abstract. It's a bit too vague to fully grasp but I can't even think it's a serious work.

I often listen to the authors' podcasts. They are doing very serious work in addressing harmful religious beliefs around marriage, and the fact that they can point to academic research like this demonstrating the harm is part of what makes it robust.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Ok...but assuming he shared this info with her...it sounds like she gave it consideration. Years of consideration.

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.

Why are you going off "impressions" instead of just asking?

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.

His internal issue is his feelings about her massages. I understand that you believe there is something else there...maybe there is. Maybe a creepy uncle gave him a massage as a little boy or something....

But I can describe fully clothed behavior my wife can engage in with another man that are definitely going to result in my discomfort and definitely could become an argument. This is 100% normal...and I promise I've never met any women who were any different.

There have been plenty of people in the thread arguing for that position.

Sure....but I'm not asking you to account for them. I'm asking you to account for yourself. Where in the OP do you see entitlement?

I'm not arguing that there are no obligations to one another in marriage.

Would you mind naming oh....5 you think a wife would have in any marriage?

If that's too many than just whatever ones you think would generally exist in most marriages (not some goofy 5 person polycule or anything....a regular marriage of husband and wife with the standard vows.

 

[Paidiske]

Why are you going off "impressions" instead of just asking?

I'm recalling conversations I had with people I'm no longer in contact with, for the sake of exploring your questions about how gender roles and the like play into my take on pastoral situations.

Where in the OP do you see entitlement?

I don't see it in the OP. I am arguing against people recommending it to the OP.

Would you mind naming oh....5 you think a wife would have in any marriage?

Fidelity, willingness to persevere and work through difficulties and disagreements (nb; I am speaking here of normal life stuff, not abuse etc), shared household decision making, loving/caring for/serving one's spouse (nb; that this can take many forms), and an active sex life as agreed to by both.

Note that I would say these are obligations for husbands and wives in a mutual and reciprocal manner.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It certainly wouldn't be my position. I'd be encouraging them to work together on what they can build, not place all the obligation on one party.

Right...but wouldn't that be equality if he was fulfilling his obligations as a husband for 5 years....and she contributed nothing while getting massages? Wouldn't she be obligated to at least do the same for him for 5 years?

I understand that you may reject traditional gender roles for women but if a woman expects a man to provide for her (and traditional role "provider") what exactly is she obligated to do?

In your estimation of course.

It's extremely common, in my experience, for massage to be recommended for muscular pain.

Sure...once or twice maybe. Anything persistent is a chronic condition that she should see a doctor for.

They are doing very serious work in addressing harmful religious beliefs around marriage, and the fact that they can point to academic research like this demonstrating the harm is part of what makes it robust.

Well you pointed to it. I can't open the research though so I'm unsure if it's even remotely valid.

 

[Paidiske]

Right...but wouldn't that be equality if he was fulfilling his obligations as a husband for 5 years....and she contributed nothing while getting massages? Wouldn't she be obligated to at least do the same for him for 5 years?

Well, you can construct your hypothetical to make him as virtuous and her as unproductive as you like, of course.

But in general, I find that over a lifetime both partners in a marriage need to be flexible to changing circumstances and willing to share the burdens of the moment as best they can. That's unlikely to come out to exactly equal amounts of time spent in (paid) work.

(Nor do I see paid work as an obligation as a husband, particularly, rather than as something each couple needs to work out between them).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm recalling conversations I had with people I'm no longer in contact with, for the sake of exploring your questions about how gender roles and the like play into my take on pastoral situations.

Ok...you don't recall. I thought you had a specific event you were remembering well.

I don't see it in the OP. I am arguing against people recommending it to the OP.

Well....if he's not entitled to anything from his wife....why would he or any other man ever get married?

Certainly you believe he's entitled to something.

Fidelity,

Ok. Does that only mean sexual congress? Or would potentially include something completely non-physical like an emotional affair?

willingness to persevere and work through difficulties and disagreements

Right.

shared household decision making,

I'm sure you mean big decisions here.

loving/caring for/serving one's spouse (nb; that this can take many forms),

Right...I'd put his feelings about this massage as something directly related to caring.

and an active sex life as agreed to by both.

Ok....and I'm assuming you would say the husband is obligated in the same way?

Note that I would say these are obligations for husbands and wives in a mutual and reciprocal manner.

Answered it before you read my question lol. This is all well and good....but relationships, especially marriages, require a home of sorts, food, and whatever else would be necessary to survive in whatever society the couple exists in. How do you see those obligations? I don't think I've met any homeless couples living on the streets for decades....not husbands and wives anyway.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, you can construct your hypothetical to make him as virtuous and her as unproductive as you like, of course.

Well I already stated it's never really 50/50....

But realistically, almost all women want to marry a man who provides more than she does. I'm not going to suggest there's no minority of women who are the primary providers....but it's pretty rare and if a woman ends up making more than her husband during the marriage....the chances she will divorce him skyrocket.

Regardless of any ideal....my point here is that men, for some reason, are still expected to provide. Despite any claims otherwise...women still overwhelmingly seek traditional gender roles from their husband even if they reject those roles for themselves.

But in general, I find that over a lifetime both partners in a marriage need to be flexible to changing circumstances and willing to share the burdens of the moment as best they can. That's unlikely to come out to exactly equal amounts of time spent in (paid) work.

Right....and there's no knowing what problems may arise beforehand.

(Nor do I see paid work as an obligation as a husband, particularly, rather than as something each couple needs to work out between them).

Right....but we can say....statistically....that women are still more likely to expect those obligations to be more on her husband than herself.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok...you don't recall. I thought you had a specific event you were remembering well.

I remember the couple well, and some of the details of conversations we had. But I am trying to pull information out of that to answer your questions, which (astonishingly) are different to what I was working with at the time.

Ok. Does that only mean sexual congress? Or would potentially include something completely non-physical like an emotional affair?

If it is to include things other than sex, that would need to be explicitly agreed between them.

I'm sure you mean big decisions here.

I'm contrasting a model of shared decision-making with one where all final say on anything rests with one spouse.

Right...I'd put his feelings about this massage as something directly related to caring.

Perhaps; but a mutual obligation to care for one's spouse might play out in more than one way around that issue.

This is all well and good....but relationships, especially marriages, require a home of sorts, food, and whatever else would be necessary to survive in whatever society the couple exists in. How do you see those obligations?

I don't see those as obligations of one spouse to the other, but as things for the couple to manage together as they best see fit. In my experience most couples have to be flexible over a lifetime together.

 

[Paidiske]

Right....but we can say....statistically....that women are still more likely to expect those obligations to be more on her husband than herself.

From what I've read, that's shifting as women's economic opportunities become greater. My sense is that women tend to expect men to provide, when women either lack opportunity themselves, or are expected to refrain from work in order to focus on homemaking and raising children. Men, however, tie a lot of their self-worth to the "provider" role and are reluctant to relinquish it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From what I've read, that's shifting as women's economic opportunities become greater.

Sure...I think they're either the sole provider in a marriage or primary provider (60% or more) in roughly 16% of marriages. A jump from 2-3% over the past 50 years. It has leveled off though and is trending differently.

My sense is that women tend to expect men to provide,

Uh huh...

when women either lack opportunity themselves, or are expected to refrain from work in order to focus on homemaking and raising children.

Oh ok...hold on.

https://discover.hubpages.com/relationships/Should-I-Date-Down-A-Complete-Guide

If you search the term "dating down" you'll find, almost exclusively, women trying to describe a problem with not finding a man up to their standards. What these standards include will vary article to article....except for one element, his "ambition" or "career" or "income". For some reason (evolution) women see men who make less than them as inferior and something they shouldn't settle for. That's why despite growing to be the primary earners in 16% of marriages....statistically, those women will leave those marriages more often (they already initiate divorce 70% of the time here) in search of a man who makes more....

The biggest problem with that is men don't really care at all about education or careers in their partners (I'm being a bit hyperbolic) what attracts men is attractiveness which relates directly to youth (again evolution).

So let's just assume that women aren't going to be able to undo millions of years of evolution. They can't both make the same money as a man and all hope to find a man who makes more. Especially when those top earning men have almost endless dating options.

That's why we have a large population of men both financially and romantically checking out of society....or dating abroad....and a large group of women who have careers, no children, and probably will die alone.

I'm not going to directly blame feminism for this. How would they possibly know that traditional gender roles aren't constructed out of nowhere but have roots firmly entrenched in our evolutionary biology?

There is not some infinite number of possible configurations for a society and if you can show me some thriving matriarchies.....I'll gladly concede I'm wrong. Humans are predictably human.

Men, however, tie a lot of their self-worth to the "provider" role and are reluctant to relinquish it.

Is that what you think is happening? Seems like a lot of women suddenly find men not worth their time or effort once they have a greater income.

I'll tell you honestly....if my wife were capable of being the provider....I'd have no issue keeping our home. The simple fact is...I've never even met a woman who wanted to, let alone could.

 

[Paidiske]

For some reason (evolution) women see men who make less than them as inferior and something they shouldn't settle for.

I think the reason is far more likely to be, "If I have to take time out of the workforce to have kids, there had better be one of us able to make an adequate income to cover that time." You know, basic survival.

Is that what you think is happening?

I see an awful lot more insistence on the "man as provider" trope from men, than I do from women.

if my wife were capable of being the provider....I'd have no issue keeping our home. The simple fact is...I've never even met a woman who wanted to, let alone could.

It's not unusual in my world. Most couples I've known well enough over extended periods of time (decades) have shifted the balance of earning over time depending on various life circumstances.

I've been the breadwinner, I've been the student while he was the breadwinner, we've done different arrangements of each working part time or one being full time and the other part time. I've seen similar across almost everyone I know (even in my parents' generation). What is unusual is the idea that the man will work full time for life, and the wife won't work. That I've just about never seen, except in what are now very elderly couples.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think the reason is far more likely to be, "If I have to take time out of the workforce to have kids, there had better be one of us able to make an adequate income to cover that time." You know, basic survival.

Or basic attraction. Women have a complicated experience that requires getting to know a man before they can typically be attracted to him. Only like 10% of men on dating apps are considered attractive to women.

I see an awful lot more insistence on the "man as provider" trope from men, than I do from women.

Right. Fundamentally, women have been giving a false narrative about what they should seek to be happy. They believe that they'll be happy with a big career, money, status....but become deeply dissatisfied with their husband should they outpace him.

It's not unusual in my world. Most couples I've known well enough over extended periods of time (decades) have shifted the balance of earning over time depending on various life circumstances.

It's not unusual anywhere...but sometimes it's not circumstances so much as lack of feeling obligated to the relationship. That's also why women seem more likely to do this.....

The Secret Stash

Why do many women hide money from their husbands?

time.com

I've been the breadwinner, I've been the student while he was the breadwinner, we've done different arrangements of each working part time or one being full time and the other part time.

Ok.

I've seen similar across almost everyone I know (even in my parents' generation). What is unusual is the idea that the man will work full time for life, and the wife won't work.

That's my situation. I was going to post some charts and I sadly realized my income was just slightly higher than the average combined.

Regardless.....those same charts showed that the husband is the sole earner about 23% of the time. 55% of the time he's the primary earner (sole earners plus bringing more than the wife). I think it was 28% of the time it was close enough to be less than a 5000$/year difference.

That I've just about never seen, except in what are now very elderly couples.

I would have another 25 years before I'm elderly lol. The fact is now that there's an increasing group of men who aren't in relationships nor seeking them (why bother) and an increasing number of women slated to die alone childless.

Again I don't blame feminism for blaming men. They probably didn't have a good grasp of evolution when the movement started.

 

[o_mlly]

At no point is this what I have said.

Pardon my possible hyperbole to make a valid point. You did write:

If the situation is exactly as he described it, I'll stand by the emotional reaction being irrational.

But the OP's emotional reaction, he thinks as do I and others, is rational. So, whose judgment prevails? If yours does then you would expect the husband to cave in, no?

 

[o_mlly]

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."

The article does not address what you claimed: egalitarian marriages are more successful than non-egalitarian marriages. Do you have another study that does support your claim?

 

[o_mlly]

I only read the abstract. It's a bit too vague to fully grasp but I can't even think it's a serious work.

It's worse than that. The main author is an epidemiologist writing for a lay audience on sexual health issues.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's worse than that. The main author is an epidemiologist writing for a lay audience on sexual health issues.

Why would an epidemiologist ever feel qualified to discuss relationships professionally let alone marriages?

Ideological capture?

 

[BPPLEE]

Why would an epidemiologist ever feel qualified to discuss relationships professionally let alone marriages?

Ideological capture?

There's an epidemic of divorces

 

[o_mlly]

Why would an epidemiologist ever feel qualified to discuss relationships professionally let alone marriages?

Ideological capture?

I suppose an etymologist identifying a cause in the downward spiral of one's health may offer some advantage. But the OP doesn't claim any negative health issues.

Ideological capture? I think so. But I could be wrong.

Gender and Marital Decision Making: Negotiating Religious Ideology and Practice*

Abstract. This article uses quantitative data from the 1996 Religious Identity and Influence Survey to examine the relationship between religious identity,

academic.oup.com

​

The focus is on variation across religious groups in beliefs about the husband as the head of the family and reported patterns of marital decision making. While conservative Protestants espouse a traditional gender-role ideology, their marital decision-making practices are not significantly different from those of other religious groups. On the other hand, theologically liberal Protestants have more egalitarian ideology while reporting decision-making practices that are not significantly more egalitarian than those of conservative Protestants. The findings suggest that ideology should not be equated with practice without taking into consideration the broader context and subcultural meanings of the beliefs in question.​

​

One must keep in mind that academia gave us the notion that gender is a matter of choice, just a social construct and not biological. So, there could be considerable front-end bias in these "scientific" studies.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's an epidemic of divorces

Lol you know that isn't what an epidemiologist is....

I suppose an etymologist identifying a cause in the downward spiral of one's health may offer some advantage. But the OP doesn't claim any negative health issues.

Ideological capture? I think so. But I could be wrong.

Gender and Marital Decision Making: Negotiating Religious Ideology and Practice*

Abstract. This article uses quantitative data from the 1996 Religious Identity and Influence Survey to examine the relationship between religious identity,

academic.oup.com

​

The focus is on variation across religious groups in beliefs about the husband as the head of the family and reported patterns of marital decision making. While conservative Protestants espouse a traditional gender-role ideology, their marital decision-making practices are not significantly different from those of other religious groups. On the other hand, theologically liberal Protestants have more egalitarian ideology while reporting decision-making practices that are not significantly more egalitarian than those of conservative Protestants. The findings suggest that ideology should not be equated with practice without taking into consideration the broader context and subcultural meanings of the beliefs in question.​

​

One must keep in mind that academia gave us the notion that gender is a matter of choice, just a social construct and not biological. So, there could be considerable front-end bias in these "scientific" studies.

Gender roles certainly. The current meta of "gender" isn't an academic term. I'm not denying it's use in academia but rather the underlying epistemological basis of the term itself is contrary to the telos of academia....a rigorous pursuit of truth, understanding of truth, or expertise in truth.

For example we could study religions....talk about them in great detail on what they believe, teach, practice, history, and so on....these things are either true, or should pursue the truth of the field of study.

However, if we are able to admit that "gender studies" fundamentally revolves around a concept of "gender identity" that's so poorly defined it's muddled the definition of woman by proxy. It's so poorly defined that it isn't clearly delineated from anything....and as a pure abstract without any parameters....is claimed to be potentially infinite. Nobody, of course, would be able to say anything true on the topic at all. It would violate the abstract poorly defined nature of the word and place limitations upon it.

And it didn't get there directly through academia. It got there through a dead activist movement trying to keep itself alive.