Are you lazy in your marriage?

[mkgal1]

I disagree that men place a higher value on sex. I think culturally this is acceptable so we teach our daughters sex is bad while encourage our boys in having sex. Not individually as parents but certainly in a social aspect we do. For example, if a man has sex with many women he is seen as a "player" which has been seen as a positive.....however if a woman is seen as promiscuous she is seen as less than. Indirectly we teach our women that they are supposed to have as lower drive then men.

I agree with you if sexual desires are not met at a satisfactory level a man will not be happy. However piggy backing off your example if you have a couple that has great sex life, bad communication, economically stable....the whole nine yards, they will still be unhappy because the communication isn't there.

If sex is the main reason why men get married that probably explains the divorce rates. That probably is why there is equally as many divorces in the church as there is in the world. However let's take the church out of this. If many men marry for sex why is it that people in the secular world get married? I mean it is acceptable for people in the world to have sex before marriage if that was the big plus shouldn't it stop people that are already having sex from getting married?

People in general want a partner that is respectful of all their needs and wants. Sex is part of a marriage but I doubt that mentally emancipated christians men value sex on the same level as communication, companionship, growth and love.

I want a best friend, that has my back and I have her's, I want a family, I want someone to talk all day with, someone to travel with, someone to pray with, someone to share with. To me sex isn't a main reason or even a high priority in marriage.

Don't get me wrong sex is a good thing and it keeps the husband and wife connected and renews a covenant, however to use another human being simple for personal relief isn't love. My wife's job isn't to appease my fleshly desires it's to be a virtuous woman.

I think we as christians have to move away from natures desires and move towards godly desires. When I read a song of solomon it was two people desiring each other sexually, as it should be. When one spouse doesn't desire the other spouse and they have sex out of obligation it takes out the love and replaces it with law. To me it's similar to the Pharisees, there is a law to be in love. Love will always come before law.

I totally agree with this and thought these are all excellent points. Well said, Avniel.

 

[Inkachu]

I agree. Beautifully said, Avniel.

 

[QueSeraSera]

Do you care if he is intentional about trying to talk to you on a daily basis?

If my husband had to "try" (put in a lot of effort) to talk to me on a daily basis then I don't would rather him not bother . In fact if I thought it was that much of a strain for him I would let him off the hook completely and stop talking to him .

Do you want him to plan and surprise you with romantic things that you like?

No, not if its a strain for him to even talk to me on a daily basis . No. The first one kind of ruins it for anything "romantic" to be happening . I think I would already be in a counselors office considering separation over the apparent effort it was taking him to talk to me "daily."

Do you want him to help out around the house without being asked?

Only if he wants me to help him out around the house without being asked .

 

[QueSeraSera]

Businesses are built upon sterotypes

Marriages aren't businesses .

Marriage books are built on stereotypes (whether they are secular or religious).

Exactly and the vast majority of marriage books are a dime a dozen /filled with cookie cutter useless "tips" .I have yet to meet a single person that had a troubled marriage that was saved by reading a marriage book .

Any marriage book worth its salt steers away for male and female stereotypes . And will possibly have insight or suggestions on basics such as more productive ways to argue /or how to get out of bad habits etc . There is nothing, zero, I can learn about my husband reading a marriage book nor he me using stereotypes.

There would only need to be one marriage book if stereotypes helped solve marriage issues or kept healthy marriages thriving.

 

[QueSeraSera]

I agree the wife's job is far more than doing dishes and sexing it up, in the same way a man's job is far more than helping around the house and being romantic to his wife.

I just want to know out of curiosity why you keep saying that . The husband "helping her around "the house." How is he helping her when they both live there ? Do you think maybe the "marriage books" mention that is a common complaint of women because too many men still have the antiquated idea in his head house work is woman's work ?

 

[QueSeraSera]

I thought of this from another angle.

If a single lady said to most Christian or non-Christian men, I don't want to put out, I don't want to clean the house, and I don't care about my appearance and looking pretty. All I want is for you to talk with me, give me children and we will just figure out who does what around the house. You can have sex from time to time, when I feel like it, or when I think you have earned it by doing enough good deeds for me.

This would be the equivalent of a single man saying to the single ladies:
All I want is sex and for you to keep the house, look pretty and I don't want to have to talk to you, except when I feel like it. I don't want to take you out on dates, and I just want to you to sit there and be quiet.

This isn't from another angle . Its the same angle you started out with . If you look at her list of what she wants and doesn't want ,and his list mysteriously is missing the "giving children " part .(Why is that? Why did you leave off the children part on the mans list ?)

Taken at face value how you have written this is.

You want sex (that's for you ) you want her to clean the house (that's for you ) you want her to look pretty that's for you .

She wants to "talk" (that's for her) she wants children (children are for her)she wants both parities who live in the house to clean it not just her .She wants to have sex too just when she actually wants to .

At least answer the one question begging .How is it the husband is "giving her " children ?

So far for sure in marriage according to you talking ,and children are for the wife . Cleaning the house is a wife's duty . If he does its "helping her ." Going out together on dates is for her.

You would not have these list if that is not what you mean .

 

[QueSeraSera]

Sometimes we naturally do the right things without thinking about it, but other times we have to be intentional.

I think if we can set goals to not "intentionally" be jerks that would be a good start .

However I think a person intentionally having to force them self to talk to their spouse every day ,or intentionally force them self to wash dishes that they ate out of too,because they think that work is for the other person, in hopes the other one will force them self to have sex with them in return is no way to live.

 

[Romanseight2005]

No he does not have a book coming out. What is so wrong with encouraging people to be intentional in their marriages? To intentionally study and understand the needs of their spouse and do the best they can to meet those needs? What great crime is there in that?

Or is it the great crime of him mentioning house work and women? That must be some horrible crime. And remember - he did also mention that men should help with the home as well.

I know - his great crime was making a difference between a woman and man in marriage, or calling issues to attention that many surveys and marriage books - both secular and religious draw attention to.

What I find to be such a great crime is how one dimensional the questions in the OP make men out to be.

The questions that the men are asked, regarding the way they seek to show love to their wives, shows that their wives are mufti-faceted, or at least that they might appreciate a myriad of different things from their husbands.

On the other hand, the questions that were asked of the wives, indicated that their husbands either cared about nothing but sex, and a clean house, or that, that's all they wanted from their wives.
No matter how you slice that, it is insulting to men. According to the OP's assumptions, they are either totally one dimensional, or completely incapable of seeing the value in the whole person, that makes up one's wife.

 

[Inkachu]

QueSera, I just wanted to say that your posts are making me cheer internally. Rock on.

 

[mkgal1]

The general attitude in the OP (and continuing throughout the thread) reminds me of this article about the difference between "healthy" love and "unhealthy---narcissistic love":

when it comes to love, narcissists come from a completely different place.

Pick an electrical appliance that you use a lot. Maybe your computer, or cellphone / i-phone, or MP3 player. Got one? O.k. You know how an appliance like that can make a great contribution to our lives, to the point where, when it’s working, we really love it for doing all those things?

That’s a lot what narcissistic “love” is like.

You know how, when you truly love someone, whether it’s a person, or even a pet, you can get really angry at them, yet despite the anger, you still feel love for them? That’s healthy unconditional love. It’s not something narcissists are familiar with.

Healthy unconditional love requires a bonding beyond the surface appearance and behaviour of someone. It’s a love that connects you from core to core. You could say it’s soul based. It’s a love that goes beyond appearances. This is not to say that there are no limits to what you will tolerate.

Narcissistic love is more superficial. We love appliances, as long as they do what they are supposed to do. Who decides what they are supposed to do? We do. Similarly, narcissists decide what other people are supposed to do, and when expectations are not fulfilled the scene can be a lot like someone swearing at their computer for crashing. It’s not a love based on any core connection, it’s a love based on functionality.~Narcissistic Love versus Unconditional Love

 

[mkgal1]

.....and this one, too:

No. Men and women are not wired by God at all. We are flesh and blood and breath and electricity all bound up together in skin. We are whole human beings fully alive. Wires are for robots.

These blanket statements drive a wedge of fear between us, as if we are more different than the same. As if my wife’s “emotional needs” are some mysterious force beyond my simple sex-driven understanding.

This seems to imply that my thirst for sex drives me more than my thirst for relationship. As if relationship is the domain of a woman, and an afterthought for men. As if I trade love for sex.

This is every sort of false. Sex is a part of romance and relationship for both of us, in pretty equal measure. We were friends before we were lovers. I can live without sex, but I deeply need my relationship with my wife.

- See more at: http://redemptionpictures.com/2013/06/27/sex-robot/#sthash.ekItoh92.dpuf

 

[akmom]

So far for sure in marriage according to you talking ,and children are for the wife . Cleaning the house is a wife's duty. If he does its "helping her." Going out together on dates is for her.

That might very well be the dynamics of that marriage. It is for mine. I do the housework because I am home more. It just makes sense.

I have been trying to put my finger on what's bothering me about this. I guess I don't understand how taking on someone else's chores is showing love. Presumably all tasks are divided according to what is logical for that household. It works for me to do the housework while my husband is at his job. If he were to do the dishes, for example, then it would be because I didn't do them. That begs the question... why? Was it is a one-time situation in which I didn't have the chance to get it done? If so, that isn't showing love; that is being flexible for the mutual benefit of having dishes for dinner. He is no more "kind" by doing them that day than a wife is "kind" by doing them everyday. Because the alternative is just to delay dinner. Or maybe it is a constant situation, in which the wife never has time to finish the dishes (because she also works, or homeschools, or is otherwise burdened during the day). Then it is not showing love either, because it's a one-time accommodation for a long-term problem; the wife has more work than she can get done, and the husband has time to do some of it, so it's really time to reassign chores to be more efficient.

My husband had this notion of preconceived tasks too. One of them was mowing the lawn. I kept nagging him to buy me a lawn mower that I could start. The pull-start on ours was too hard for me to pull, and it just kept seizing up. He took this as a passive-aggressive way of telling him to mow the lawn. So he'd come home after work and mow it, instead of getting me the lawn mower I wanted. Meanwhile I would be inside twiddling my thumbs, waiting for him. I felt like I was always waiting on him. When he finally let me get my lawn mower, I mowed while he was at work. Win-win. I do it during the day while he is making money, and in the evening we are both done with work. What's so hard about that?

Now if the reason that the dishes are not done is because it's her job, because she has more time to do it, and yet she doesn't do it... then the problem is that she just isn't doing what both husband and wife agree she should be doing. So the problem is with work ethic. Helping with the dishes, then, would be enabling. If you're enabling, you certainly can't be complaining about a spouse's lack of contribution! (Unless you are doing it because it just absolutely has to get done, in which case, that is not showing love either.)

 

[akmom]

"Going on dates" is a poor example too! My husband used to do that. He'd want to take me out for dinner. Well I like eating at home just fine, so it wasn't about doing something nice for me. It was that he liked eating out and I was just along for the ride. I'd be annoyed at a spouse who considered that to be their gesture of thoughtfulness too.

I guess the same could be said for cooking dinner. It's not that special if both of you eat!

 

[QueSeraSera]

That might very well be the dynamics of that marriage. It is for mine. I do the housework because I am home more. It just makes sense.

Of course. But that is not what I meant . Besides when is "talking" and "having children" for the wife ?

You add it all together and its not good.

 

[QueSeraSera]

"Going on dates" is a poor example too! My husband used to do that. He'd want to take me out for dinner. Well I like eating at home just fine, so it wasn't about doing something nice for me. It was that he liked eating out and I was just along for the ride. I'd be annoyed at a spouse who considered that to be their gesture of thoughtfulness too.

Agreed .I prefer eating in .Or even if "going out" is to a family members pot luck bar-b gue. Going "out to eat" is boring actually . Unless its with a group for a special occasion.I think my husband likes "going out to eat" . So I'm doing him a treat going with him .

 

[akmom]

Of course. But that is not what I meant . Besides when is "talking" and "having children" for the wife ?

Yeah, that was weird. Apparently get talked at is her "treat" in the marriage. (And "having children" must have been his treat to the first wife.) At least the "helping with dishes" was closer to the mark.

 

[QueSeraSera]

Yeah, that was weird. Apparently get talked at is her "treat" in the marriage. (And "having children" must have been his treat to the first wife.) At least the "helping with dishes" was closer to the mark.

 

[Inkachu]

Mkgal - both great posts, thank you! Nice to see a man confirming some of that stuff.

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Thread is closed per OP request.

MOD HAT OFF