The cheating heart

[Savage78]

Let us have a scenario.

A woman and a man get married, understandint that the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual.

Now lets talk sex, some times even if we dont feel like it, we need to be able to satisfy our partners as best as we can. So let us say that a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, when he asks why....the answer is alays the same.."I just dont want to".

So this goes on for, lets say 12 months, the only sexual gratification that this gentleman is receieving is the one he gives himself.

So here are the moral ossues:

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

This was an interesting conversation I had with someone and I thought I would share it. It can make for some good discussions as long as we dont forget our manners and play nice.

I am looking forward to some serious responses.

 

[kopilo]

Just my thoughts.

1) I'd say that a lot of humans have a natural instinct to have sex at one stage or another, ergo explaining the want.

2) Depends on the man.

3) If a marriage breaks down, the two parties are responsible in some form or another.

4) I do not know.

 

[£amb]

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

I think the issue becomes more of why the wife will not sleep with her husband. Is she witholding because of physical, emotional issues or just because she's "getting" back at him for a past problem.

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

It depends on the man. Is he willing to work things out with his wife or is he just going to give up and let his desires lead him. Not all men cheat on their wives even when it's a scenario like this.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

Could be both. It could be the wife's problem because she is not giving herself physically and lovingly to her husband. But then again, in this scenario, we don't know the true reason why she's witholding. Could it be the man's fault...who knows.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

Giving to each other is important within a marriage. You not only are sharing a physical bond, but an emotional and spiritual one as well. If someone is witholding sex because they can, then there's a bigger issue at large.

This was an interesting conversation I had with someone and I thought I would share it. It can make for some good discussions as long as we dont forget our manners and play nice.

I am looking forward to some serious responses.

These are just my thoughts and opinions. Of course, I don't have the "right" answers...

 

[quatona]

Hey Savage, how come I missed your deconversion from an ultra-conservative Christian to an atheist?

Let us have a scenario.
A woman and a man get married, understandint that the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual.

This understanding deserves a discussion of its own, but, heck, it´s just a hypothetical, after all.

Now lets talk sex, some times even if we dont feel like it, we need to be able to satisfy our partners as best as we can.

Is that part of the "understanding"of the hypothetical partners, or just your opinion? It´s at least discussable how this qualifies as "a need of the collective rather than the need of an individual".

So let us say that a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, when he asks why....the answer is alays the same.."I just dont want to".

First question that comes to mind: Why doesn´t she want to?
In considering the scenario this question would be in my focus.

So this goes on for, lets say 12 months, the only sexual gratification that this gentleman is receieving is the one he gives himself.

Ok.

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

I think his focus is a bit short. He´s concerned with his pleasure (his individual need) rather than finding out what the reasons are for the problems in his partnership. And here I find the lack of communication more of a concern than the lack of sex.

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

Depends on the man. In your scenario you say that he understands that the needs of the collective is larger than his individual needs. But interestingly you don´t mention anything he does in an effort to solve the underlyning problems of the partnership, but from your description his sexual pleasure is his main concern.
Btw., the information that the wife is frigid is a new introduction. So far you only said she didn´t feel like sleeping with her husband.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

Firstly, I have no interest whatsoever in blaming people, even less for their struggle in their private business.
Secondly, I think that both seem unable to act up to their own creed, in that they concentrate on the phenomena rather than the actual underlying issue.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage

You mean how important is the taking of the body in a marriage?
It´s overestimated, imo. I understand that it is important to a husband with a strong sex drive, though, to have his indididual needs satisfied. I understand how he could place his individual needs over those of the collective.

and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

I don´t understand the question.
"How reasonable is it to be able...?"makes no sense, to me, and
"To be able ... simply because he can." is a tautology.
What is it you actually mean to ask?

This was an interesting conversation I had with someone and I thought I would share it.

Sure. So what answers did you guys come up with in your consideration of this scenario?

 

[Coder]

My beliefs:

• Sexuality between spouses is a duty bound by the covenant of marriage; this is not to make it sound sterile and cold, but one of the exchanges of love and commitment within the bounds of marriage is sexuality. Outside of a medical condition that prevents sexual union, I find no acceptable excuse why sexuality would be omitted from the relationship.
• Also, I do not feel that sexuality should be the foundation of a marriage (or any relationship); although very important, sexuality may and will fade to a reasonable extent with age leaving couples without further connections unless they endeavor to build relations such as Spiritual and Intellectual.

Regards,
Matty

 

[Aradia]

They're obviously having communication problems.

 

[quatona]

They're obviously having communication problems.

The scenario also suggests that they hadn´t talked about this question before getting married, and they also seem to have not made sure they agree on what they mean when saying "the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual" and the implications of this creed. Lack of communication and communication problems all over the place.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A woman and a man get married, understandint that the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual.

Collectives don't have needs. Only individuals do.

Are the needs of the husband more important than the needs of the wife, or vice versa, or neither? This is what this boils down to.

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

Yes he is wrong in thinking this. Of course, his wife would be wrong in thinking that refusing to communicate will make things any better.

This is not an uncommon complaint in marriage. Women, for one reason or another, may lose their romantic feelings for their husbands, and then they will be uncomfortable having sex, and may refuse sex.

One possible reason for this, and not at all uncommon, is that when a woman reaches her sexual peak in her thirties, she will start to have sexual desires for men other than her husband. IOW, she might not be frigid at all, just uninterested sexually in her husband any longer.

Whatever the case, this feels very unfair to the man, who has not lost interest in sex, and feels that he has been cheated by trading sexual freedom for sexual commitment, only to find that this commitment has no expression.

The husband faces a choice: to stay and be celebate, to cheat, or to leave.

It's not an easy choice, but I don't think that cheating is the answer.

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

I think it is possible, however, probability is not destiny. The man as a choice.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

There's no way to answer this question without more information. It is possible that no one is to blame, and that incompatibility is the culprit.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

It may be important, however, I think that ethically speaking no one should play the martyr and act self-destructively. This would not be a healthy marriage.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Caylin]

Sexuality between spouses is a duty bound by the covenant of marriage; this is not to make it sound sterile and cold, but one of the exchanges of love and commitment within the bounds of marriage is sexuality. Outside of a medical condition that prevents sexual union, I find no acceptable excuse why sexuality would be omitted from the relationship.

If it is, do you think the man should take it from the woman?

 

[quatona]

My beliefs:

• Sexuality between spouses is a duty bound by the covenant of marriage; this is not to make it sound sterile and cold, but one of the exchanges of love and commitment within the bounds of marriage is sexuality.

As you have already noticed yourself, making love and commitment a matter of duty does sound sterile and cold. It even sounds oxymoronic.

Outside of a medical condition that prevents sexual union, I find no acceptable excuse why sexuality would be omitted from the relationship.

And you suggest to do what in reaction to this withdrawal without "excuse"?

 

[gengwall]

Let us have a scenario.

A woman and a man get married, understandint that the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual.

Now lets talk sex, some times even if we dont feel like it, we need to be able to satisfy our partners as best as we can. So let us say that a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, when he asks why....the answer is alays the same.."I just dont want to".

So this goes on for, lets say 12 months, the only sexual gratification that this gentleman is receieving is the one he gives himself.

So here are the moral ossues:

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

This was an interesting conversation I had with someone and I thought I would share it. It can make for some good discussions as long as we dont forget our manners and play nice.

I am looking forward to some serious responses.

Were you looking for a biblical answer? That answer is that no reasonable request by either partner should be refused by the other, whether they "feel like it" or not.

Never-the-less, the scenario does not contain enough information. Did this happen immediately into the marriage, or were they sexually active for a while and this change occurred? Certainly, if this is a new development, something triggered it. Discovering and fixing that should be the focus of the relationship for the time being.

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

No, he is not wrong - she should

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

Not necessarily, but sex within marriage is a defense against adultary. Taking away that defense is dangerous.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

Both. It always takes two.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

It is very important and it is not reasonable to withhold. BUT, if there are extenuating circumstances that are creating the withholding situation, dealing with those things should take priority. One assumption here is that the wife is "frigid" (meaning she simply has no sex drive). But there are many reasons, as have been pointed out by others, that one partner may withhold sex from another. If other issues are in play, then they need to be resolved before sexual expectations are considered reasonable. At any rate, if we take you literally that she is simply frigid, then it is not reasonable for her to deny his needs continually and universally. I suspect, though, that some compromise could be reached.

Any couples sexual model is a compromise and is ever changing. Different ages and seasons in life effect both men's and women's sex drives. A couple needs to be in constant communication so that misunderstandings don't ensue and grow into love and intimacy killers. But simply "not feeling like it" is not a good excuse to not meet your partners needs, sexual or other. Maybe once in a while, but not continually. The real question is: "who is the selfish one in this situation?"

 

[gengwall]

Some more thoughts - the need for sex is a biological reality and is therefor not inherently selfish. If you are hungry, is it selfish to need food? If you are tired, is it selfish to need sleep? If your bladder is full, is it selfish to need to "relieve" yourself? Hunger is a good parallel in this case. If I am hungry, I can certainly fix myself something to eat. That satisfies the need but it really is kind of anti climatic. On the other hand, I can invite my wife to make a meal together with me. We spend time together this way and it enhances our relationship. Now, she may not be hungry at the time herself, but there are other benefits to her and I spending this quality time together.

So, she can join me "in the kitchen" and our relationship benefits despite our difference in need. But what if every time I asked her to prepare a meal together, she refused saying "I'm not hungry?" In fact, what if we never ate together EVER in a whole year because she outright refused to ever join me? Of course, I am still getting my hunger satisfied because I can cook for myself, but my heart is not satisfied at all because I miss my wife.

Now, in this scenario, who is being selfish? I would say my wife is. Although the main motivator in my desire to "cook together" with my wife is my hunger, hunger in and of itself is not selfish. I mean, it isn't as if I'm demanding that she make dinner for me while I just sit there. I do have an eye to our relationship as well. It is good for us to spend this time together even if one or the other is not hungry. So, my overall goal is to strengthen the relationship, which is also unselfish. But my wife in this situation not only does not care about my hunger, she does not care about our relationship. Maybe she can go a long time without food or maybe she is secretly doing her own cooking on the side, or maybe even worse, she is eating out all the time behind my back. I don't know what she is doing for food but I do know it is motivated by selfishness.

 

[ACougar]

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

I would say that the refusal to have sex is a symptom of a larger problem. The couple should seek help with thier relationship.

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

If the man is not focused on identifying and resolving the underlying issues, then yes... odds are greater that he will cheat.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

This would require an understanding of the root causes. I don't think an unhealthy sex life is automaticly the fault of either spouse.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

If your body all of a suden starts running a 104 temperature, you'd go to a doctor and try to figure out what was causing this dangerous condition. I'd recomend the same for a marriage. Sex should always be freely given, not offered out of some sense of obligation or duty, it would be much better to have no sex at all than sex with someone who doesn't want sex as well.

 

[Savage78]

Excellent posts guys and girls.

To answer a few of the more popular question:

The woman just doesnt tell the husband why, she just says no and that she doesnt want to talk about it. As far as I know I am not aware of any medical or emotional problem they had very normal healthy sex before this particular time...the woman is approaching her 30s, they both are.

My advice to the guy was to ride it out, or force the conversation....however if he was goingto hook up with a person outside of the marriage he should do the honourable thing and leave his wife first. I think that is an honourable thing because then there is no lying, no deceit and no one being made to look the fool.

 

[alabaster jar]

I think we choose to do things for reasons, but rarely do we admit to our own lack of character. It's easy to say that our spouse is lacking in one way or another; it's far more difficult to look within ourselves and find where we are at fault.
And with all that said, I think sometimes we expect too much out of the supposed 'ideal' of modern marriages.

 

[bliz]

1) Is the man wrong in thinking that his wife should have sex with him occassionally even if she doesnt want to (remeber that the wife is point blank refusing to have sex with him, and refusing to communicae with him as to what the problem is)?

No. They should be having sex.

2) Do you believe that in this instance that it is very likely that the man will cheat on his spouse?

Unknowable. Depends on the man and his moral values.

3) Who do you feel is to blame more if the marriage breaks down, an amourous husband or a frigid wife?

Frigid??? That term is about 40 years out of date! Beside which, it has not been established that the wife is "frigid". But anyway... If the marriage were to break down, both would be responsible.

4) how important is the giving of the body in a marriage and how resonable is it for one parther to be able to withold sex for a prolonged period of time simply because hey can?

Hmmmmm. I didn't know that had been established. All we know is that the wife is saying that she just doesn't want to. There could be all sorts of reasons behind her not having sex with her husband beside witholding it just because she can. Question assumes facts not in evidence, your Honor.

No, it is not reasonable for one partner to withhold sex just because they can... but very seldom would that be the reason. There might be anger about something, extreme disatisifaction with the sexual relationship, emotional issues... who knows? But if one spouse cannot get the other to talk about it, there are even bigger issues that how much sex they aren't having.

 

[ACougar]

Excellent posts guys and girls.

To answer a few of the more popular question:

The woman just doesnt tell the husband why, she just says no and that she doesnt want to talk about it. As far as I know I am not aware of any medical or emotional problem they had very normal healthy sex before this particular time...the woman is approaching her 30s, they both are.

There are larger issues here than the lack of sex... trust, fear, power, something else is going on and it should be discovered and dealt with.

My advice to the guy was to ride it out, or force the conversation....however if he was goingto hook up with a person outside of the marriage he should do the honourable thing and leave his wife first. I think that is an honourable thing because then there is no lying, no deceit and no one being made to look the fool.

The only honorable thing (assuming there is still love between the man and the woman) for the man to do is to ride it out and deal with the underlying issues when the opportunity presents itself. The least dishonorable (but not honorable thing, unless there is no love and no children between the man and the woman) is for the man to leave the wife in search of someone he can be happier with....

If there are children thier needs trump his desire for sex. If there is still love between them it's more important to honor that love than to fulfill his sexual desires.

 

[Asimov]

Let us have a scenario.

A woman and a man get married, understandint that the need of the collective is larger than the need of the individual.

I disagree with this notion.

 

[Bombila]

I'm shocked that some posters have suggested that the wife should have sex whether she wants to or not. If a couple starts a marriage having regular intercourse, and then one partner starts refusing without giving reasons, something is very wrong. The husband (or wife) needs to find out why, not guilt the partner into unwanted, probably uncomfortable, possibly painful sex.

I do have a suggestion in regard to physical aspects. Many men are appallingly ignorant about womens' reproductive systems, often having only the vaguest notion of how their partners' bodies work, and their wives will know this about them. Often these men will be squeamish about hearing about 'womens' problems', and their wives will know this. If you are that kind of man, get over it. Get a book - there are lots, although you may have to go to a women's book store - and learn about the subject. Let your wife/partner know that you have done this, and then maybe she will be able to talk about the problem she may be having.

 

[gengwall]

I'm shocked that some posters have suggested that the wife should have sex whether she wants to or not. If a couple starts a marriage having regular intercourse, and then one partner starts refusing without giving reasons, something is very wrong. The husband (or wife) needs to find out why, not guilt the partner into unwanted, probably uncomfortable, possibly painful sex.

I do have a suggestion in regard to physical aspects. Many men are appallingly ignorant about womens' reproductive systems, often having only the vaguest notion of how their partners' bodies work, and their wives will know this about them. Often these men will be squeamish about hearing about 'womens' problems', and their wives will know this. If you are that kind of man, get over it. Get a book - there are lots, although you may have to go to a women's book store - and learn about the subject. Let your wife/partner know that you have done this, and then maybe she will be able to talk about the problem she may be having.

Well, I think the clarifying point is whether she doesn't want to (indicating a definate objection) or just isn't in the mood. My feeling was that the OP was leaning toward her just not being in the mood. There is a significant difference between not needing sex, but still wanting it because it strengthens the relationship and therefore still willingly and freely engaging in it, and objecting (not wanting) to and denying sex completely because of some other issue in the relationship. I suggest (at least it was true of me) that those who say she should still have sex do not mean it should be forced in any way. I believe the point is that a spouse who understands the importance of sex in the marriage and especially of their partners sexual needs should want to have sex even if they don't personally need it at that time.

At any rate, it seems clear that there is some disfunction in our example couple's relationship and that is what needs to be addressed.