christalee4 said:
I've read through part of this thread, and can agree with some of the views. But I have to say, Argent, that you tend to simplify men's needs a bit, don't you think.
I'll ask you to consider the adjective/ qualifier I chose to use in the OP: best
I never said it was the
only way, nor did I say sex was the central issue of, or basis for, marriage.
You'll have to forgive me for not composing a dissertation on the foundation of marriage and present it as thread starter.
christalee4 said:
It sounds like you are saying that men's sexual needs are down to a primitive need, like scratching, and if they don't get their itch scratched, then they are not happy spiritually (?) and mentally. I think relationships and life can be more complicated than that; I think there are men out there who may "get" a lot of sex (and I think it's sad to think of those terms being used so frequently, like women "giving" and men "getting" ), but they may not be happy spiritually or mentally. They might just be having "medication" sex to alleviate their unhappiness - one poster mentioned that he was faking [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with his wife.
Well, first of all, I wouldn't use the word "down" to categorize a primitive needs. If we find it necessary to classify "primitive" needs and "sophisticated" needs, I think it serves us better to give each category its due, rather than elevating one above the other. The "primitive" ones deserve just as much consideration as any other.
Also, I would not demean the God-given gift of human sexuality by equating it with an "itch". As annoying as an itch is, scratching or not scratching it has no true impact on our relationship with God in the context of sin and righteousness and salvation, or our role of life partner with another human being of the opposite sex whose sexual response is different, or our obligation to be proper stewards of our reproductive capacity. I really don't think I'm the one who is simpifying things here.
I also think that you have taken this discussion beyond the scope of the OP. The other concerns you raise, i.e. sexism ("getting" and "giving"), quantity vs. quality, and "medication sex" are all important issues, but again, they are beyond the scope of my OP. Please feel free to start a thread about each of these issues, although I can't imagine that they have not already been discussed in this section numerous times.
christalee4 said:
I agree that lack of regular sex can be frustrating for BOTH a man and a woman. But I don't think it is the end-all and be-all of psychological frustration. Living in stressful world, wrapped up in consumeristic type of society, financial worries, worries about the state of country, employment, spiritual numbness and lack of connectivity to each other as human beings and family is more of a culprit. With all that, it's tougher to "get it"! .
I agree with you that lack of regular sex can be frustrating for BOTH (emphasis yours) a man and a woman, but again, as I stated in a post in this thread: I can't speak for women. Female sexuality was not the subject of this thread. I also suggested that someone start a thread from a woman's point of view. Again, this is beyong the scope of my OP.
I also never said sexual satisfaction is "the end-all and be-all of psychological frustration". I did say in a post here, which perhaps you didn't read, that sexual satisfaction for a man contributes to his being able to address all the responsiblities that God has given him in this "stressful world." I didn't say that lack of sex was the basis for psychological frustration. Certainly the litany of challenges you mention do make a major contribution to that. I just think that sexual satisfaction enables a man to confront them better.
christalee4 said:
The general cultural belief that men are built to be horn-dogs and women basically tolerate it, "close one's eyes and do it for England" (as Victorian mothers used to coach their daughters as brides to be) is rooted in ancient traditional belief, and frankly it's hogwash. Women were not thought to have real sexual desires, and if they did, they were "bad women". Did you know that before battery-powered massagers became popular, that physicians in the 1900's used electric massagers to "relieve" women of "hysteria and psychological depression"? And before that, from Roman times to before the Industrial Revolution, well to do women were manually relieved of "hysteria" by physicians or midwives. Women were later told by Freudians that if they did not climax with traditional intercourse with their husbands, that they were immature or had phallus envy. Even though much of this has changed with the sexual revolution, there still is a belief amongst strict traditionalists that married women, especially if they are mothers, are too pure for lustful shenanigans.
I really think that you and I see sex differently. I don't consider a man's desire to have sex and to have it regularly qualifies him as a "horndog". God created men with a very strong sex drive, and a physical need to experience [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. "God didn't make no trash". This is the way men are, and it is profoundly different to women. I am only speaking for men here. I also do not see women as being required to "tolerate" it. Marriage and sex are much more than that. We are to have sex to the glory of God, as absurd as some people think that idea is. Sex is a physical union of service of each spouse to the other, and it is supposed to strengthen their emotional/spiritual union. If it is ever felt by one spouse or the other to be exploitative, then there are other problems in the relationship far beyong the bedroom.
Again, I find the 19th and early 20th century information regarding female sexuality better suited for a different thread. Having studied in Vienna, I am well aware of "fin-de-siecle" attitudes and practices by Freud and his comtemporaries and predecessors.
Please do not think that my opinon is based on the sexist/traditonalist notion that sex is a purely male appetite.
christalee4 said:
If some wives are able to let go of their inhibitions cultivated from years of training that sex is bad, and only bad women enjoy lots of variety (and some men need to let go of this idea too, that women are either holy mothers or prostitutes, and oh, my wife wouldn't want that!), and if couples communicated more openly, I am surely there would be fewer cases of harmful sperm buildup.
I never said anything about "harmful sperm buildup". I do think that I explained reasonably well what contributes to a man's sex drive.
Again, I find your focus on female sexual liberation, to which women are very much entitled, in my opinion, to be better suited for it's own thread. The focus of this thread is the role that regular sexual intercourse between a husband and wife plays in the husband's attitude as he confronts life.
I have another thread here asking women how a man can show affection to a woman, specifically in a non-sexual way. Although my two examles are admittedly erotic in nature, neither was meant to result in sexual intercourse. I didn't ask what is the best way a man can encourage his wife, but the two are related.
.......
