Wife getting massages

[Paidiske]

But the OP's emotional reaction, he thinks as do I and others, is rational. So, whose judgment prevails?

That's really up to the OP. He can take from our responses what he pleases.

If yours does then you would expect the husband to cave in, no?

I would expect him to at least discuss things with his wife, keeping an open mind about how those discussions would unfold.

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?

The relevant sentence in the abstract was: "Current belief in sexually restrictive tropes was associated with lower marital and sexual satisfaction as was past belief in sexually coercive tropes. " I think "lower marital and sexual satisfaction" fits what I claimed was "much better outcomes than ...across all sorts of measures."

 

[Ana the Ist]

The relevant sentence in the abstract was: "Current belief in sexually restrictive tropes was associated with lower marital and sexual satisfaction as was past belief in sexually coercive tropes. " I think "lower marital and sexual satisfaction" fits what I claimed was "much better outcomes than ...across all sorts of measures."

The relevant word is associated.

Notice it's associated...not correlated. That means it seems to be a potential factor in some respects....or potentially not in others.

They used the term associated because they couldn't even claim a correlation....and they are far from any causation.

 

[Paidiske]

they are far from any causation.

I didn't claim causation either. I just said egalitarian marriages had better outcomes across a range of measures.

I'm basically ignoring all your other stuff about the sharing of paid work because it's so off topic it's completely irrelevant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Before this gets too far off topic....probably a good idea to break down the OP.

My wife has been going for massages for many years.

This is a significant factor.

I always assumed it was a spa setting with multiple people in the room.

This is clunky. Perhaps he would substitute "room" for "spa" again and it would make sense. Regardless, we know he wasn't aware, wasn't made aware, or was deceived years ago, for whatever reason.

Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn, covered by a sheet

I'm assuming he means towel or something like that, not a head to toe sheet with a shoulder exposed. Sheet is also clunky.

except for the body part being massaged, wearing only her bikini briefs, massage oil, everything except her bikini area and breasts are fair game for his hands directly on her skin.

See above.

He is a licensed "massage therapist" and I have been assured it is completely non-sexual, just for relaxation and, as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck, that sort of thing.

These aren't his words... they are his wife's. That's what has been told, in haste, to reassure him once he caught the discrepancy between what he thought was going on and whatever is going on. People who lie even by omission will inevitably forget any small details of the lie. Small details like "I'm going to a spa" will matter to him...but since they aren't memories....she will forget them in weeks or months. It has been years at this point, he's not entirely certain what was said. When he pointed out the discrepancy....this is her reassurance.

This has me upset.

A valid feeling.

I feel like I should have been told years ago exactly what the circumstances were.

The fact that he wasn't indicates either she knew he was uncomfortable with this....or didn't care.

Does this make anyone else uncomfortable?

Far less would probably make most men uncomfortable and they would admit it if they weren't shamed for it.

Am I just too insecure?

No. You don't have to be comfortable with your wife being greased up and rubbed down frequently for years. That probably wasn't in your vows. Most of the time "to have and to hold" is a part of wedding vows.

I don't believe it will lead to any actual impropriety or infidelity, but I don't like the idea of another man running his hands all over her feet, legs, thighs, shoulders etc. in private using massage oils. Thoughts?

You seem uncertain about some things. Apparently, you agreed to something else years ago...and you have every reason to disagree now that you understand what it is or what it is claimed to be.

Next time you would normally be relaxing with her or otherwise enjoying her company....ignore her completely. Do whatever you would if she weren't there. Make her say things twice before you respond...and immediately cut off any attempt at casual discussion. She should ask what's wrong in relatively short time. Your response to this should be....

"I don't know, something feels off/wrong, I don't understand why I thought you were getting a massage at a spa all these years."

One of two things will then happen because she either deceived you or not.

1. If she genuinely didn't deceive you, she's really going to want you to understand that this isn't an issue...and it's easy for you to ask for every detail, no matter how small, about the massages. Get his name, get address, get the location, his number, how much he charges, is music playing, are candles lit, do they talk during the massage and if so...what did she talk about. Every last detail. If she knows she's lying....

2. She's going to get super defensive. Remind her that she asked what was wrong...you merely told her. She may know that giving details will allow you to verify her story....and she may try to change the subject, play the victim, gaslight you into thinking your feelings aren't valid, or simply claim to not know answers because inside...she's panicking. Any of these responses are pretty strong indicators she's lying, after all....she asked what was wrong....you accused her of nothing. What is there to be defensive about. Most importantly, don't allow her to deviate the topic....any of these responses should be met with silence from you and a steady eye contact. Just sit...she's going to want to convince you so things can return to the way they were....but again, she won't be able to remember any new lies over time. If she plays the victim...remind her she asked you what was wrong, you explained that something felt wrong, and you were uncertain why you thought the massages were at a spa. You haven't accused her of anything, she has no reason to be defensive. You framed the problem as your understanding of these massages....and now, she's unwilling to give you details that would help you understand.

If she storms out of the room, out of the house....she's literally running so she can avoid lying more. She knows this is about to be humiliating for her. When she inevitably returns....don't speak at all. Do as you please, pay her no mind, no consideration. If she tries to wait you out....I'd suggest securing your finances and a lawyer and leaving. If she tries to resolve it in any way....any way at all....other than giving you the details you want to know....explain to her you know she's lying. You know it. It wouldn't matter if she claimed to be willing to give up the massages....because you wouldn't believe her. Explain it...don't argue.

Hope you get #1.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I didn't claim causation either. I just said egalitarian marriages had better outcomes across a range of measures.

I didn't see that in the abstract.

I'm basically ignoring all your other stuff about the sharing of paid work because it's so off topic it's completely irrelevant.

I was under the impression that "egalitarian marriage" referred to the relative amounts of income each party brings to the marriage being within 10-20k of each other.

 

[Paidiske]

I didn't see that in the abstract.

That's what the measures of marital satisfaction and so on is about. There are specific things being measured and the egalitarian marriages tended to score better.

I was under the impression that "egalitarian marriage" referred to the relative amounts of income each party brings to the marriage being within 10-20k of each other.

No, it's got nothing to do with who earns what. It's about whether the spouses are seen as equal partners who share decision making, or whether it's a complementarian, he-leads-she-submits-and-obeys arrangement.

 

[o_mlly]

That's really up to the OP. He can take from our responses what he pleases

Of course.

I would expect him to at least discuss things with his wife, keeping an open mind about how those discussions would unfold.

Of course.

The relevant sentence in the abstract was: "Current belief in sexually restrictive tropes was associated with lower marital and sexual satisfaction as was past belief in sexually coercive tropes. " I think "lower marital and sexual satisfaction" fits what I claimed was "much better outcomes than ...across all sorts of measures."

? The OP did not mention any sexual problems.

Does not the expression from the abstract "... past belief in sexually coercive tropes" betray a bias in the author's thinking? I submit that it does.

As to the author's claim, "Current internalization of two tropes was associated with higher marital satisfaction", as a religious person on a Christian website, I'm sure you are aware of why God forbad intermarriage between pagans and Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:2-5) -- syncretism. The author suggests that syncretism is a good outcome. No, it is not -- watering down the truth becomes untruth and is never a good thing. It appears the values and beliefs of the OP and his wife are not in synch. Why has this kind of disruption in values and beliefs in marriage become so prolific in the modern age? Paul has the answer.

Paul also warned us that fallen mankind would seek to find a religion compatible with their desires rather than the Lord's will (Timothy 4:3-4). The philosophy/religion of feminism ... "is a more recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies."

Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's what the measures of marital satisfaction and so on is about. There are specific things being measured and the egalitarian marriages tended to score better.

I'm sorry....I should have been more specific.

I didn't see the measures in the abstract. That's sort of the problem with the abstract, it doesn't have any generalized access to the methodology nor is there any clear explanation of how they are measuring "marital satisfaction" and which variables they controlled for.

So you can say they scored better all the live long day....so can the abstract....but did they control for common factors that end marriages or seem correlated with high divorce rates?

There's prior divorces, financial inequity (now called financial cheating as seen in the Times article) how long the couple has been together, the couple's age, etc.

I'd need to know the methodology and variables before I would even consider the possibility of the research being something close to valid. There's been so many scandals in bogus research or fake data or data manipulation in academia. Fortunately, since I'm well acquainted with statistical analysis and demographic research in my degree....I can usually spot problems that would be strong indicators of either generally good research or generally bad research....and explain it to you if need be.

No, it's got nothing to do with who earns what. It's about whether the spouses are seen as equal partners who share decision making, or whether it's a complementarian, he-leads-she-submits-and-obeys arrangement.

Ok....then it's not clear what variables they looked at and how they possibly measured those for their study at all....or if they controlled for other variables.

In short, that's why the abstract means nothing to me. If I look at a Pew Survey on "egalitarian marriages" it will explain both "what qualifies as an egalitarian marriages" in detail, how those factors are measured, etc. In fact, I did look at a Pew Survey and income was the definitive factor.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course.

Why of course? Weren't you just arguing that she had an obligation to submit to his wishes? That's very different from an open-ended conversation.

Does not the expression from the abstract "... past belief in sexually coercive tropes" betray a bias in the author's thinking?

How so?

As to the author's claim, "Current internalization of two tropes was associated with higher marital satisfaction", as a religious person on a Christian website, I'm sure you are aware of why God forbad intermarriage between pagans and Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:2-5) -- syncretism. The author suggests that syncretism is a good outcome.

No; if that's what you think they're saying, you've completely misunderstood the abstract, and I suggest you find a way to read further.

Granted, I've had the benefit of following the authors' blog and podcast for some time, so I've heard a lot of this discussed in depth, and have more than just the abstract to go on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And @Paidiske...before it gets mentioned...relationships are inherently transactional. Marriages can be objectively proven as transactional, otherwise we wouldn't have alimony, child support, spousal support, etc. Nobody, especially men, is loved unconditionally. I think a parent and child can love each other pretty close to unconditionally....but there are those rather extreme situations that show they aren't unconditional. Denis Rader aka the BTK killer has living children....and frankly, if they said they don't love their father and hate his guts....I'd get it.

So when I say that a labor/money factor exists....I mean not only does it exist....it matters. If you were to ask most women anonymously if they would be the sole provider for a husband who does some light housework and occasionally cooks a meal....I would expect that regardless of whether or not they "share decision making" or "he leads she submits" 80%+ of women would say that unless he's recovering from a very serious medical condition and is moving forward to a well paying career....they'd leave, marriage or not.

Granted, I've had the benefit of following the authors' blog

Link the blog.

 

[Paidiske]

If you were to ask most women anonymously if they would be the sole provider for a husband who does some light housework and occasionally cooks a meal....I would expect that regardless of whether or not they "share decision making" or "he leads she submits" 80%+ of women would say that unless he's recovering from a very serious medical condition and is moving forward to a well paying career....they'd leave, marriage or not.

I think most people - men and women - would look for a life partner who contributes significantly to the partnership in some way. Some light housework and occasionally cooking would be unlikely to be satisfactory for either.

Significant contribution can come in lots of forms and isn't always financial, though.

Link the blog.

All the Latest from the Blog! - Bare Marriage

baremarriage.com

The podcast is probably the better place for in-depth discussion of this research, though. The blog covers a lot of stuff that's irrelevant.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

If I ever had a wife and found out about such thing going on.

I'd probably be concerned too. I'd prefer she had female masseuse instead.

Men are usually preferred massage therapists being physically stronger. A strong massage therapist is quite important but hey, there are strong female massage therapists too!

And as we all know, two women alone will NEVER do anything sexual.

 

[timewerx]

And as we all know, two women alone will NEVER do anything sexual.

I don't think that will happen because the OP's wife is straight.

Can a straight woman suddenly become sexually attracted to the same sex?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I don't think that will happen because the OP's wife is straight.

Can a straight woman suddenly become sexually attracted to the same sex?

Somebody can be curious, see an opportunity, and fall into temptation. Or the masseuse could be gay and, like the man, take advantage of a vulnerable client.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And @Paidiske...before it gets mentioned...relationships are inherently transactional. Marriages can be objectively proven as transactional, otherwise we wouldn't have alimony, child support, spousal support, etc. Nobody, especially men, is loved unconditionally. I think a parent and child can love each other pretty close to unconditionally....but there are those rather extreme situations that show they aren't unconditional. Denis Rader aka the BTK killer has living children....and frankly, if they said they don't love their father and hate his guts....I'd get it.

So when I say that a labor/money factor exists....I mean not only does it exist....it matters. If you were to ask most women anonymously if they would be the sole provider for a husband who does some light housework and occasionally cooks a meal....I would expect that regardless of whether or not they "share decision making" or "he leads she submits" 80%+ of women would say that unless he's recovering from a very serious medical condition and is moving forward to a well paying career...they would leave.

You may notice that while many versions of a feminist utopian matriarchy involve women in the highest positions of authority and power....they don't place men in positions of housekeeping and child raising. They instead still imagine men taking on all the difficult and dangerous and laborious jobs like garbage men, soldiers, construction, etc. It's also pretty telling that the vast majority of their "thought leaders" are masculine lesbians who are resentful or even hateful towards men.

Of course.

Of course.

? The OP did not mention any sexual problems.

Does not the expression from the abstract "... past belief in sexually coercive tropes" betray a bias in the author's thinking? I submit that it does.

As to the author's claim, "Current internalization of two tropes was associated with higher marital satisfaction", as a religious person on a Christian website, I'm sure you are aware of why God forbad intermarriage between pagans and Israelites (Deuteronomy 7:2-5) -- syncretism. The author suggests that syncretism is a good outcome.

Syncretism?

No, it is not -- watering down the truth becomes untruth and is never a good thing. It appears the values and beliefs of the OP and his wife are not in synch. Why has this kind of disruption in values and beliefs in marriage become so prolific in the modern age? Paul has the answer.

Values certainly should overlap largely....it's unclear to me why beliefs must.

Paul also warned us that fallen mankind would seek to find a religion compatible with their desires rather than the Lord's will (Timothy 4:3-4). The philosophy/religion of feminism ... "is a more recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies."

Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Feminisms ultimate goal appears to be little different from that of neo-nazis....total dominion over those they feel are inferior, to blame for societal ills, and generalized bigotry of that group....men.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Somebody can be curious, see an opportunity, and fall into temptation. Or the masseuse could be gay and, like the man, take advantage of a vulnerable clienMen.

Pretty funny you're willing to consider this more worrisome than infidelity with a man.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think most people - men and women - would look for a life partner who contributes significantly to the partnership in some way. Some light housework and occasionally cooking would be unlikely to be satisfactory for either.

Not myself and apparently roughly 23% of men. Compared to 3% of women.

Significant contribution can come in lots of forms and isn't always financial, though.

Sure...but labor and income are a part of a relationship. They don't run on feelings and magic.

All the Latest from the Blog! - Bare Marriage

baremarriage.com

The podcast is probably the better place for in-depth discussion of this research, though. The blog covers a lot of stuff that's irrelevant.

I have an extremely childish taste in podcasts.

 

[o_mlly]

Weren't you just arguing that she had an obligation to submit to his wishes? That's very different from an open-ended conversation.

And he has an obligation to her: " To love and to cherish".

How so?

The author betrays her bias by referring to the traditional marital relationship as being a "... past belief in sexually coercive tropes". She obviously does not understand the traditional relationship.

No; if that's what you think they're saying, you've completely misunderstood the abstract, and I suggest you find a way to read further.

I don't think I misunderstand her at all. If the abstract betrays her bias then I would not be likely to pay for the details of an epidemiologist's insights on traditional marriages.

Granted, I've had the benefit of following the authors' blog and podcast for some time, so I've heard a lot of this discussed in depth, and have more than just the abstract to go on.

Good. Can you at least cite something the author wrote or said that is positive on traditional marriage relationships? As co-author of the book titled, "How to Raise Girls to Resist Toxic Christian Teachings about Sex, Self, and Speaking Up" it would seem she's pretty far out there as a liberal.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Uhh, academia, especially social academia, left that understanding of their role some time ago. Their truth, rather than being objectively independent from how one may think about it, has morphed into reality is subjectively what they think it should be.

And, yes, I find their thinking quite muddled. For example, the interviewer asks, "Just how many genders are out there?" If I am going to continue listening, I will need to take a few extra strength aspirin to ward off the certain headache that is soon to come upon me.

 

[o_mlly]

Syncretism?

In the sense that syncretism is an attempt to unite the principles or parties who are irreconcilably at variance with each other. Israelite are monotheists; pagans are polytheists. There's no middle ground between the two.

Feminisms ultimate goal appears to be little different from that of neo-nazis....total dominion over those they feel are inferior, to blame for societal ills, and generalized bigotry of that group....men.

Yes, that seems to be their goal, at least until the married feminists need the protection that their husbands promised to provide them from those who would do them harm. "Honeeeeee, can you help me out here?"