Question for married guys..

[mac6195]

I think she'd be acting like a jerk if she was forever stomping around the house yelling, "I wanna get out of this ****hole!", or sulking expressively whenever her husband ignored the 'subtle' hints she gave out about wanting to move. I don't think the 'jerk' tag applies to someone who finds a situation more difficult than they originally expected... I think it applies to someone who comes to that realisation and puts all the blame on their partner, then throws silent or loud temper tantrums about it. Know what I mean?


See, I guess I've been thinking of the OP's problem in a way that would make your scenario equivalent to her husband coming to her and saying, 'I can't cope with the lack of penetrative sex anymore'. I guess I've just been assuming that there'd be plenty of other sexual activity. So I wasn't really getting your references to a 'team problem'. This scenario has helped me see where you're coming from... I still think it's an assumption being made, that the OP wouldn't be at all interested in sexual activity of any type. I'm not sure I blame an unmarried person for being unwilling to discuss what sort of sexual activities they WOULD be up for, in marriage

There are three issues here as I see them.

First the iname calling in the case of calling someone a jerk because they discover that what they thought would work for them in marriage has turned out to their surprise not to work.

Secondly looking at problems as being on one side or the other, indicating a lack of "oneness" or unity in marriage.

Thirdly, the OP not being responsive to the questions posed to her about other sexual activities. I don't feel that the OP has to go into any kind of detail as to what she would do. She definitely does not need to do it, for my sake, in this forum. But I do think she has not been responsive as to whether she would be open to other kinds of sexual activity and would freely give of herself to a prospective husband sexually. Her response to that would be very helpful to the men on the forum. On the other hand her one post implied, at least to me, that she might have an attitude that she could "take it or leave it" in regards to sex.

What the men on this post seem to be saying is if you find a man who is interested in marriage you had better communicate with him ahead of time:

1. That sexual intercourse, at least under present circumstances, is not possible.

2. How OP expects to satisfy that male need for sexual intimacy and drawing together with his wife.

 

[TheDag]

There are three issues here as I see them.

I think the main issue is actually none of the things you've mentioned but rather the fear of the OP. There is not really much we can do about that.

 

[solosoprano]

I know it's been a while, but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for his or her input.

 

[SabrinaFair]

Sex isn't always a high priority for every guy, so it is possible to meet a guy who may rank sex rather low on his list of needs. Also, as others have mentioned, there are other options you can explore other than intercourse.

 

[lin1235]

I personally find the word "jerk" to be pejorative and don't feel it would be appropriate if the tables were turned. I feel that if this were flipped around there would be howls from the women over the use of that word. Research has shown that women find it acceptable to label men if they don't match up to the female ideal, but they find it highly offensive if the same thing is said of them.

If I interpret what she is saying correctly I see 3 main possibilities in the scenario Solo has presented:

1. Her husband is a "jerk" because of the fact that he has a normal male sex drive and finds out after the marriage that he can't deal with the situation as well as he thought he could. Shouldn't this be a shared problem, in that she as well as he would have entered into the marriage believing that it would be okay. Or is that surprise all his problem and responsibility?

2. Solo has indicated in other responses that sexual intercourse is not necessarily that important to her. To me there is the implication that it would be good if she could find a man that did not place a high importance on sexual intercourse. With God's provision maybe she can find that man. However that may be difficult and not in God's design for her life. That would leave the possibility of not getting married or getting married and using some of the other possibilities mentioned here for sexual intimacy. And I find that she has not given any reply to several suggestions made by men about those other possibilities for intimacy. Is she open to that? I sense in her responses that she may be saying that because sexual intercourse is out of the picture she feels she may be off the hook. I can understand a man feeling that his wife is not being considerate of him in that case. I ask in this case just who would be the "jerk" - husband or wife?

3. That if a man does not have sexual intercourse he automatically will turn into a jerk. There have been many cases where sexual intercourse has become impossible or highly impractical before or after marriage. Things such as parapalegia and other physical ailments. Many men and women have been able to make adjustments and have a satisfactory marriage and or sexual relationship. Some have also failed to make the adjustments whether the condition existed before or after the wedding vows. If they fail isn't there some shared responsibility on both sides?

To sum it up. I feel Solo is saying if there is a sexual relationship problem after marriage that was not anticipated by either side before going in to the marriage that she feels the man could become, either by definition of his male sex drive or by his actions, a "jerk". Inherent in that supposition is the concept that the surprise after the marriage of problems in the sexual area is all the man's problem. I find that to be male bashing. This should be a shared concern that both work on. Otherwise, where is the partnership and oneness that should be in marriage?

I think anyone acting like a "jerk" is wrong whether male or female. And believe me both are capable.

Women are capable of being "jerks" over things that they feel are not the way they thought they would be before they went into a marriage. Just because it is not sex, they should not have a "holier than thou" attitude. While men should be willing to make some compromises in the area of sex, women should as well and that goes for other areas where women may feel their needs are not being met as well as they would like.

I think you're reading too much into what the OP is saying. She's not accusing men of being jerks and proclaiming women to be saints. She's saying, when she gets married, to a man by definition, she's worried that he'll claim to be OK with her being unable to have sex, but after some time of going without vaginal sex (while she may be willing to do anything else to keep him happy), he may start being grumpy, blame her for not wanting to have sex, disbelieving the pain she'll be in during penetration, etc. To me, that is acting like a jerk, and I think that's what she's afraid of.

She never claimed men are more likely to be jerks, she's saying she feels she's OK with her condition, even if it means she can't ever have penetrative sex. But she may meet a wonderful guy who all his life had expected to have penetrative sex once married (a reasonable expectation). He may find he loves her enough to marry her regardless of her condition, but after some time discontent may set in, and she'll find herself married to a man who is no longer satisfied.

I don't think the OP needs to be clear about what kinds of other activities she'd be open to. It's enough that a number of posters here have told her it would probably be necessary to engage in other sexual activities to keep a guy happy - she needs to be open to those activities when she gets married, and we don't have a right to know where she stands on those issues right now if she doesn't want to share.

 

[MikeK]

She isn't guy-bashing, it's an honest question. A guy who married her, knowing fully what he was getting into but then treating her poorly and resenting her would be a bit of a jerk, IMO. Similarily, if she weren't completely upfriont and honest about her condition, she would be the dishonest jerk.

As for how I would react, I don't know. I wouldn't start dating someone that I knew I would never have sex with. If I somehow fell in love, head over heals in a fairytale sort of way, maybe I would. It might likely depend on the following - a) is the girl capable of recieving sexual pleasure through any sort of stimulation? b) is she committed to searching for a cure for this unfortunate condition and willing to try anything and everything to improve her situation? (sounds like you are, OP) c) is she desiring to do all that she is capable of to please her man in whatever ways won't result in excrutiating pain for her, or will she be dismissive of her husbvand's sex drive and resent it?

I don't see any reason why a couple couldn't make the best of it, if both partners were wanted to do everything they could to make their intimate lives as good as possible despite whatever unnique circumstances they might have. Not *that* different than any other couple. Okay it is *that* different, but perhaps not insurmountable.

If the woman were unable to recieve any sort of sexual pleasure, I would have an even harder time with that than the prohibition on intercourse, I think. Knowing that no matter what, my wife simply doesn't desire my touch would grind on me, I think. A stronger man might be okay with that too though.

 

[SabrinaFair]

There are couples out there where they knowingly married paraplegics or quadraplegics, going into the marriage knowing sex would have a very different definition in their marriage- but still in love and still willing to make it work. Take heart.

 

[Digit]

First off, I'm a new member and I can't figure out the forum rules for individual folders, so if I'm breaking a rule, sorry!

I was wondering something. I know how marriage revolves around more than just sex, but if you knew before marriage (or I guess didn't find out til after you were married) that your fiancee or wife wouldn't be physically able to consummate the marriage, would you still marry her/have married her? I've heard different men say different things about it, but I was just wondering what y'all think.

I can't say I understand male minds, but my question is partly because if I got married today a disorder (severe vestibulitis) would keep me from any consummation-- at least until there is a suitable treatment for me (which there is not as of now), and I'm wondering just how that would be handled within a Christian marriage-- and just to get opinions if it were true for you and your spouse. TIA

I think I echo the thoughts of the first reply you got. There is a great deal more that you can do, and I think there are only two real issues:
First is if you would be open to other sexual activities, or would any form of sex-play be ruled out. Secondly is how would you feel about not being able to consummate the marriage, because I am sure if your future husband struggles with it, there will be an element of guilt on your part, and this could complicate things. I think there are two sides to it, and I know from some other posts in this forum by other posters, that they often say marriage isn't all about sex, unless it's never about sex. If that makes sense.

To totally confuse the issue, I can't imagine being apart from my wife, and that has absolutely zero to do with sex, which is odd... me typing that, but true. It isn't everything except when it's nothing, and I guess that's why I echo the first reply you had in that as long as there is an element of that part of the marriage, then that would be ok. Also, I think it depends on the reason behind not having sex. For example, many people post here about their husbands having pornography addictions, and denying themselves to their wives, through this addiction. That to me would be a far bigger issue, than a medical condition, which I think (and hope) would invoke love, compassion and understanding in me, rather than judgement.

Hope that sort of helps, and doesn't meddle it up.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[emem56]

You say being a Jerk(I just hate it when people want to call names when someone is being truthful how they feel) because you can't help it. The question has been asked are you open to other things. If you are open WITH EVERYTHING at the being, I can't see why he/she would not be willing. BUT! If you are saying no any kind of sex or touch of any kind, that is differant. It is not all about intercourse all the time. There are so many ways. Think about people with herpes, there is a fear of giving it to the other. They just find ways to over come this. IT TAKE TWO FOR THIS TO WORK, you must be willing to try other things and not just say here it is and just deal with it. If you care and love him/her both must be willing to bent alitte.

what other ways just curious, because i am not married yet and i am not really educated on that topic.

 

[jsimms615]

First off, I'm a new member and I can't figure out the forum rules for individual folders, so if I'm breaking a rule, sorry!

I was wondering something. I know how marriage revolves around more than just sex, but if you knew before marriage (or I guess didn't find out til after you were married) that your fiancee or wife wouldn't be physically able to consummate the marriage, would you still marry her/have married her? I've heard different men say different things about it, but I was just wondering what y'all think.

I can't say I understand male minds, but my question is partly because if I got married today a disorder (severe vestibulitis) would keep me from any consummation-- at least until there is a suitable treatment for me (which there is not as of now), and I'm wondering just how that would be handled within a Christian marriage-- and just to get opinions if it were true for you and your spouse. TIA

No, I don't think I would still marry her. Sorry if that is selfish of me.

 

[invisiblebabe]

Unfair!! That's like my wife asking me if she was fat.....I ain't stupid.....

LOL... well, due to psychological issues on my end, we weren't sure if we would be able to consummate the marriage right away. So his answer is partly based off real events

 

[Whitestone]

Honetly I don't think I could. To me sex incorporates a sense of closenessto my wife and masculinity/selfworth to myself.

I know my short coming are not the Lord's, so I am completely confident that the Lord will bless you with a husband that would be as loving and understanding as the decent men that have posted on this thread....when you are ready for that in your life.

I am very sorry for your condition, but I know the Lord can use everything for good. Who knows? You may just be the person to find a cure for it.

 

[solosoprano]

There are couples out there where they knowingly married paraplegics or quadraplegics, going into the marriage knowing sex would have a very different definition in their marriage- but still in love and still willing to make it work. Take heart.

Thanks for posting that. I really hadn't thought about it that way in context to my problems (I suppose because no one knows I have a problem unless they're told or know me long enough, and you can actually see that the people in these situations have a problem of some kind). I sometimes wonder how it is for women who suddenly develop severe vulvodynia (vestibulodynia) during the marriage, and how things change then. I know some women disover they have a problem once they marry, and I know a few whose marriages crumbled after that. I guess I wonder what makes it so different than if the person was in a wreck and paralyzed and couldn't have sex because of that.

 

[SabrinaFair]

Thanks for posting that. I really hadn't thought about it that way in context to my problems (I suppose because no one knows I have a problem unless they're told or know me long enough, and you can actually see that the people in these situations have a problem of some kind). I sometimes wonder how it is for women who suddenly develop severe vulvodynia (vestibulodynia) during the marriage, and how things change then. I know some women disover they have a problem once they marry, and I know a few whose marriages crumbled after that. I guess I wonder what makes it so different than if the person was in a wreck and paralyzed and couldn't have sex because of that.

Sometimes it is hard because the other spouse can't actually "see" the condition so they believe it is their spouse willfully holding out, or that it is just a mental issue the person needs to get over. Sometimes it is just that they went into the marriage thinking all the parts were working, and when the parts don't work they don't have the communication, understanding, or strength to hold the marriage together.

The advantage you have is that you know about the condition going into it, so the person who marries you knows up front what the marriage holds in that regard. Hopefully they will have researched it to learn more, and you and they will have discussed at length what this means in your marriage.

Along with the physical issues, there are also fears, insecurities, etc. that can affect intimacy in the marriage. It would be good to be aware of those too.
Premarital counseling is always a good idea, and would probably help you both consider some things you hadn't thought about in advance.

 

[tashiseisei]

I can't have penetrative sex with my wife.

Sometimes I feel sad that we can't have that particular kind of intimacy, but it has never occurred to me to be unpleasant about it or blame her for the way her body was made.

I didn't know about it beforehand, but I don't think I would have felt any differently if I did. I wanted to marry her, not a part of her body.

 

[walant]

I would have happily and 13 years later still happily have married my wife.

 

[solosoprano]

I can't have penetrative sex with my wife.

Sometimes I feel sad that we can't have that particular kind of intimacy, but it has never occurred to me to be unpleasant about it or blame her for the way her body was made.

I didn't know about it beforehand, but I don't think I would have felt any differently if I did. I wanted to marry her, not a part of her body.

I would have happily and 13 years later still happily have married my wife.

 

[TheListener]

We have a situation in our marriage where we can't have much of a sex life. No more than a few times a year perhaps.

You just get used to it, you become good friends, you take up new interests and see how full life can be without it.

Funny thing is, since I took sex out of the equasion I can see how sex crazed society really is. Kinda like a sober people watching a bunch of drunks. It is everywhere...

 

[solosoprano]

We have a situation in our marriage where we can't have much of a sex life. No more than a few times a year perhaps.

You just get used to it, you become good friends, you take up new interests and see how full life can be without it.

Funny thing is, since I took sex out of the equasion I can see how sex crazed society really is. Kinda like a sober people watching a bunch of drunks. It is everywhere...

Good to hear that it can work for some couples.

 

[TheListener]

Good to hear that it can work for some couples.

Who said it "works"?

Look at my nervous eye twitch and my really short temper

Nah just kidding. Its not by choice and I live in the hope it wont be like this forever. I've just come to realise its not the be-all and end-all of everything. And I try not to think about it too much because I find myself getting bitter & resentful when I see happy couples & young families around. How I would love to be 'normal' but God has hosen this path for me, he has allowed it and so His will be done. But it is certainly not something just "works" easily, its very challenging.