Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not a "temptation" to want to be genuinely loved.Are women not tempted to want to be loved for the physical temptation they represent? It goes round and round.
The only problem I see with this is the idea that men are peculiarly affected by this. They aren't. A constantly rejected woman is going to face the same issues as a constantly rejected man. Your average woman's range of what "sex" entails might be broader than your average man's, but both need to be wanted, that's for sure.
Porn is an easy target to rail against, though. It's easy to point fingers and say "you shouldn't do that!" Much harder is to look down deep and examine your own heart and the heart of your spouse (wretchedly honest mirror that every spouse is!) and soothe what's there with kindness and patience and wisdom.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
That's why I have learned that as a man with few options its best to find a woman with few options. Then both try a lot harder at the relationship.
The most messed up dynamic is when one partner is getting hit on constantly and the other one would be out in the cold if they were left.
And I find your view to be depressingly self-absorbed. Though I suppose it's a protective measure.
Don't let your troubles harden you, friend.
There's a lot gained in the "point of marriage" but sexual rejection should never be part of it.
If any man's whole identity is tied up to sexuality, then he has a problem.There's a difference to a man's sexuality. I can't adequately explain it but it seems woven into his whole identity-calling. It just seems that way to me and I see a lot of men suffering,often in silence. And I myself have been in their shoes,the knot in the stomach,the lost disillusion from being sexually rejected. There's a lot gained in the "point of marriage" but sexual rejection should never be part of it
You're very graceful,SeeingEyes. I live in Newark OH, where in the heck is Backwoods???
Oh but it IS tied up to his identity and that was exactly my point. I wouldn't say it was the TOP of his priorities for that would be idolatry.
Then "he" has worse problems than rejection. We are all sexual beings, but how often a person has sex should not be part of their "identity".
I don't know that I agree completely. Like, if your husband just stopped telling you that you were beautiful, that would certainly take a toll, no? Sex is just a physical manifestation of that.
Our interactions with others do affect our identity, and sex is a rather significant interaction. (Though, if our idea of ourselves comes entirely from outside sources, we're doomed.)
I don't base my marriage on if or when my husband tells me I am beautiful, and I don't consider sex to be based upon that. I also don't base my identity on my sexuality. I'm a lot more than a body 'in heat'.
Ah, but this wasn't about bowls of soup. It was just sex. Not kindness, consideration etc.Right, but you do in fact have a body, and that body is part of who you are. And the love that your husband shows to your body (whether through sex or through bringing you a bowl of soup when your sick) is an important part of your marriage and hence, a part of who you are.
But those are literal bodily needs. You can die from being cold and hungry. You don't die from lack of sex. Kindness and love is another thing.Perhaps I'm getting too philosophical for this conversation, but I think that the tendency to divorce the physical from the spiritual is a mistake. James said that telling someone who is cold and hungry to stay warm and well fed without offering cover and food is useless. And when the crowds got hungry, Jesus didn't tell them to pipe down and be satisfied with spiritual bread, but he fed them. And surely that affected the crowd's view of Jesus, and in turn, that affected their view of themselves (they "became" people that someone was willing to feed).
I disagree. "Others" are not involved in sex. Sex is not a life or death issue, and it's not a whole part of my identity. As I get older and sex becomes less - becomes it does as you age - it doesn't make me any less of a person. So, say, for instance my husband became impotent (he's not, just saying), I wouldn't bug him to take Viagra or any of the other drugs, because that would not be good for his heart and could risk him leaving this earth a lot sooner than otherwise. So if there came that point, where sex was no longer taking place, would our identities be changed? Would we no longer be husband and wife? Would I be a different woman and he a different man? I don't believe that to be true, because our identities as husband and wife are based in a lot more than sex. Hence, that is why I would bring him a bowl of soup if he was sick.I think that all these things are connected. And sex falls under that umbrella of "how others treat me".
Ah, but this wasn't about bowls of soup. It was just sex. Not kindness, consideration etc.
I don't limit my giving to things that literally prevent death, neither do you, neither did Jesus. Those people weren't starving, just hungry.But those are literal bodily needs. You can die from being cold and hungry. You don't die from lack of sex. Kindness and love is another thing.
I disagree. "Others" are not involved in sex. Sex is not a life or death issue, and it's not a whole part of my identity. As I get older and sex becomes less - becomes it does as you age - it doesn't make me any less of a person. So, say, for instance my husband became impotent (he's not, just saying), I wouldn't bug him to take Viagra or any of the other drugs, because that would not be good for his heart and could risk him leaving this earth a lot sooner than otherwise. So if there came that point, where sex was no longer taking place, would our identities be changed? Would we no longer be husband and wife? Would I be a different woman and he a different man? I don't believe that to be true, because our identities as husband and wife are based in a lot more than sex. Hence, that is why I would bring him a bowl of soup if he was sick.
Typically not so much to a sick person. Maybe it's just me but when I'm sick, sex isn't the top of my agenda.Why do you say "just sex"? Sex is certainly a way to demonstrate kindness consideration, etc.
Nonetheless, they were physical needs.I don't limit my giving to things that literally prevent death, neither do you, neither did Jesus. Those people weren't starving, just hungry.
I never said it was a non-issue ever, and bear in mind that the person who initiated this dialogue said that it was more a male thing than a female thing - your argument seems to be that both genders feel as strongly about sex, and therefore would be equally damaged by rejection. Which was my point in the first place. Sex is certainly a part of my fabric, but it doesn't inform my identity to where rejection would kill me, but nor would I take well to having sex removed from my identity entirely for no good reason.I don't consider "sex" to be limited to "bumping uglies", though. (Just to clarify.) Even if his ability for intercourse goes out the window, you would still be physically intimate with him in a way that you wouldn't be with any other man, and that would affect his view of his wife, which would in turn affect his view of himself.
These things are all connected. Sex is not something that should be put on a shelf over there somewhere as though it is an irrelevant add-on to our self-perception. It isn't. Should someone's identity be completely tied up with sex? Certainly not, that's big trouble. But it's not a non-issue, either. It's brightly colored thread in the fabric of who we are.
I never said it was a non-issue ever, and bear in mind that the person who initiated this dialogue said that it was more a male thing than a female thing - your argument seems to be that both genders feel as strongly about sex, and therefore would be equally damaged by rejection. Which was my point in the first place. Sex is certainly a part of my fabric, but it doesn't inform my identity to where rejection would kill me, but nor would I take well to having sex removed from my identity entirely for no good reason.
There's a difference to a man's sexuality. I can't adequately explain it but it seems woven into his whole identity-calling. It just seems that way to me and I see a lot of men suffering,often in silence. And I myself have been in their shoes,the knot in the stomach,the lost disillusion from being sexually rejected.
I have kissed honey lips
Felt the healing in her fingertips
It burned like fire
This burning desire
I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
Well yes I'm still running
You broke the bonds and you
Loosed the chains
Carried the cross
Of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believed it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?