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 makes me uncomfortable" isn't what I'm talking about there.
Not what I said. Sharing your feelings is fine. Controlling her behaviour is not.
Not really. No one is doing anything to him.
I'd be concerned, though, by the idea that his concerns should automatically be more important than her pain treatment.
Actually, I think it does help, in a way. Because it says the problem is not in her behaviour, but in his reaction, and that's where he has work to do.The OP made it pretty clear this bothers him. You can tell him it shouldn't...but that doesn't help him any, because it bothers him.
I still disagree that this is a valid use of the concept of boundaries. However, him trying to tell her she can't/shouldn't have massages because he doesn't like the idea is a form of control. It would be him trying to control her behaviour.I don't see how he can possibly control her behavior. She will either respect his boundaries and end the massages....or disrespect his boundaries and continue....and the potential damage to the relationship is her fault for her choices.
As noted, I think the issue is in his reaction, not her behaviour.His wife is engaging in physical behaviors with another man regularly that makes him uncomfortable.
It doesn't really matter if you don't think its an issue....it is. That's why he posted lol. Clearly it's an issue.
The OP says these massages are "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." And yes, this kind of pain treatment is common. At one stage, when I had a lot of back pain, I had a similar sort of massage (by a masseuse, in private) regularly to help keep the pain under control. It was very effective.I'm sorry...I didn't get any indication that this was related to "pain treatment". What sort of pain treatment is done by a masseuse in private? Why wouldn't it be with a physical therapist or doctor in a clinical environment if it were pain related?
Actually, I think it does help, in a way. Because it says the problem is not in her behaviour, but in his reaction, and that's where he has work to do.
I still disagree that this is a valid use of the concept of boundaries.
As noted, I think the issue is in his reaction, not her behaviour.
The OP says these massages are "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." And yes, this kind of pain treatment is common.
I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not. He is sexualising something that is not sexual.Imagine his wife telling a story about him saying that she learned the "guy's night out" he has every weekend that's described as "him and some friends drinking at a bar" was actually him and some friends going to a strip club where half naked women danced around?
He didn't lie to her...but he omitted some details and upon learning of them...she's uncomfortable. Would you tell her she needs to work on herself because this doesn't actually affect her in any way?
You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."Give me an example of a valid boundary a husband can impose on his wife.
Just any hypothetical example...doesn't have to be specific to anyone.
It's a reaction to her behaviour. But I'm arguing that the reaction is where the problem is.His reaction is something based on her behavior.
Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.If she's been doing this for some time...certainly she'd have seen a doctor by now.
I'm taking the OP at face value. He states these are as needed for stiffness and pain. He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety." In which case, she's not doing anything wrong.Let's not pretend to know exactly why these are happening.
I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not.
You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."
This is a helpful read on the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour: Decoding Relationships: Recognizing Coercive Tactics and the Boundaries-Control Dilemma - Terri Cole
It's a reaction to her behaviour.
Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.
He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety."
I am suggesting that part of the agreement to fidelity in marriage includes limits on engagement with erotic entertainment. (Exactly where those limits are might vary from couple to couple, by agreement). Breaching that agreement - breaking a solemn vow - does affect one's spouse.A moment ago....the distinction was "he isn't affected by her behavior".
Now it's the degree to which something is erotic?
No, I do not.Do you at least agree that the wife in the scenario I outlined isn't anymore affected by the husband's behavior than in the OP?
Again, boundaries are not something you impose on others.Is that a no? You can't think of a boundary he can reasonably impose on his wife?
It's closer to a boundary than trying to stop her getting massages.If he says I feel uncomfortable when you get massages so I'm leaving you the next time you do it, is that now a "boundary" since I framed him the way you did above?
That's not how I read the OP (although I would say treating, rather than curing).As of now, the best characterization is that they make her feel good....not that they're curing some medical condition.
If you think the OP is not being honest, then there's probably no constructive way to engage with the topic.I would suggest that if the confidence he stated existed....he wouldn't need to state it, nor ask for advice, nor have any issues with it.
I think the fundamental difference there is that a strip club is overtly erotic in its purpose. A massage is not. He is sexualising something that is not sexual.
You don't impose boundaries on others. Boundaries are more like, "I don't feel safe when you yell at me. If you do, I will remove myself from the conversation."
This is a helpful read on the difference between boundaries and controlling behaviour: Decoding Relationships: Recognizing Coercive Tactics and the Boundaries-Control Dilemma - Terri Cole
It's a reaction to her behaviour. But I'm arguing that the reaction is where the problem is.
Maybe she has. Maybe massage is a better treatment than chronic use of painkillers.
I'm taking the OP at face value. He states these are as needed for stiffness and pain. He states that he is confident that it does not involve, and will not lead to, "any actual impropriety." In which case, she's not doing anything wrong.
If I recall correctly (I remember reading some stuff about this at the time) she was a professional surfer. Pictures of her in a bathing suit were kind of part of the territory.I'm uncertain what sort of job requires the boundaries Jonah outlined above, but I can't think of one outside of swimsuit model that would necessitate any of those.
I am suggesting that part of the agreement to fidelity in marriage includes limits on engagement with erotic entertainment.
No, I do not.
Again, boundaries are not something you impose on others.
It's closer to a boundary than trying to stop her getting massages.
It is, however, still a deeply problematic response.
That's not how I read the OP (although I would say treating, rather than curing).
If you think the OP is not being honest, then there's probably no constructive way to engage with the topic.
If I recall correctly (I remember reading some stuff about this at the time) she was a professional surfer. Pictures of her in a bathing suit were kind of part of the territory.
That's not the point, though. The issue is not at what point in a developing relationship it might be appropriate to introduce boundaries. The issue is the difference between having boundaries, and trying to control someone.
Where does it say anything about this being in anyone's home?If you don't think there's anything possibly "erotic" about a guy oiling you up and rubbing your body alone in his home....you're certainly not understanding the situation.
That he broke his vow would undermine trust, for a start.Ok...in what way would she be "affected"?
I am acknowledging that most marriages have agreed boundaries on erotic entertainment.You seem fine with imposing boundaries on erotic entertainment.
In what way is it closer? It's closer because it's about managing his own behaviour, rather than hers.In what way?
It's attempting to control her behaviour through threats.How so?
Massage certainly can be, though. As I noted, I've had very similar massage treatment for ongoing back pain. It was very effective.Relaxation isn't a treatment category. I've never been prescribed relaxation.
I'm reading a whole different subtext. One in which he can't see his wife's body as anything other than sexual, even when she's engaged in an entirely non-sexual activity.I think he doesn't want to unnecessarily slander his wife. I'm respecting that...but I can also read the subtext here.
Where does it say anything about this being in anyone's home?
Can a massage be erotic? Sure.
But it can be, and often is, completely non-erotic.
By the OP's own characterisation, that is the situation in this case.
That he broke his vow would undermine trust, for a start.
I am acknowledging that most marriages have agreed boundaries on erotic entertainment.
In what way is it closer? It's closer because it's about managing his own behaviour, rather than hers.
Look, nobody's saying relationships shouldn't have dealbreakers. Infidelity, addiction, abuse, come to mind as obvious examples.
It's attempting to control her behaviour through threats.
I'm reading a whole different subtext. One in which he can't see his wife's body as anything other than sexual, even when she's engaged in an entirely non-sexual activity.
He had assumed the actual massage was in an open setting, and it turns out it's in a closed room. I still read this as taking place in a day spa, massage therapy type place. Where it is normal for the massages to be in closed rooms.From the OP....
"Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn,"
He also mentioned this wasn't a spa or something similar.
Where exactly did you think this was happening? A rented office? For just a massage table?
I have not actually been a patron of strip clubs, but it's hard to argue they're not erotic in intent.Same can be said of a trip to the strip club.
I disagree. I think he assumed that "professional" just looked different than it actually does.I think we can assume from the description that what he previously imagined was something more clinical and professional turned out to potentially be something more erotic.
Of sexual fidelity.What vow was that?
This is petty, but it's bugging me. A male massage therapist is a masseur. A female massage therapist is a masseuse.What's reasonable in your eyes here? Can he require the name and address of the masseuse to at least see if she's being honest about him being a licensed masseuse?
You might recall I actually suggested that he might book a massage of his own to gauge the setting and tone.Would it be acceptable for him to schedule his own massage to see if this guy only has female clientele?
That is so not how I read what is happening here.I am certain my wife knows that if she intends to get oiled up by some guy alone in his home we're done.
Nope.That's literally the same thing.
That's not obvious. Coercive control is very much a thing.Obviously he can only control his own behavior.
No, you don't. And ultimately, if this guy wants to end his marriage over this, he can. Nobody can stop him.Right. But you don't get to choose someone else's "dealbreakers".
From a Christian point of view, it's not fine. "I don't like that my wife gets (non-erotic, therapeutic) massages," is not actually a valid reason for divorce.You certainly don't have to agree with his....but if it's his, that's fine. It's his choice.
I disagree. Threatening someone with divorce is of a whole different order of behaviour, than leaving the room during a heated argument and picking up the conversation when the other person is able to engage safely and respectfully.Ok...so now what's the difference between your threat of "leaving the room" for yelling..... and his threat of "leaving the relationship" because she can't give up these massages?
Both examples are someone trying to control someone else's behavior.
And I think a therapeutic massage is no more sexual than walking the dog. And that he can't see that is exactly the issue.Ok...I think that's silly. I bet if she chose to relax by taking the dog on a walk, he probably wouldn't read it as sexual.
He had assumed the actual massage was in an open setting, and it turns out it's in a closed room. I still read this as taking place in a day spa, massage therapy type place.
I have not actually been a patron of strip clubs, but it's hard to argue they're not erotic in intent.
I disagree. I think he assumed that "professional" just looked different than it actually does.
Of sexual fidelity.
This is petty, but it's bugging me. A male massage therapist is a masseur. A female massage therapist is a masseuse.
I think it's quite reasonable for him to check out the credentials of the masseur, sure.
You might recall I actually suggested that he might book a massage of his own to gauge the setting and tone.
Nope.
That's not obvious. Coercive control is very much a thing.
No, you don't. And ultimately, if this guy wants to end his marriage over this, he can. Nobody can stop him.
However, we can certainly argue that him deciding that a massage for pain relief is a dealbreaker,
especially after years of them occurring with no issue,
and him acknowledging no infidelity or impropriety, is a tad unreasonable.
From a Christian point of view, it's not fine. "I don't like that my wife gets (non-erotic, therapeutic) massages," is not actually a valid reason for divorce.
I disagree. Threatening someone with divorce is of a whole different order of behaviour, than leaving the room during a heated argument and picking up the conversation when the other person is able to engage safely and respectfully.
And I think a therapeutic massage is no more sexual than walking the dog. And that he can't see that is exactly the issue.
Where did you go Chas?My wife has been going for massages for many years. I always assumed it was a spa setting with multiple people in the room. Turns out she is alone with a man for 50 minutes, door closed and shades drawn, covered by a sheet except for the body part being massaged, wearing only her bikini briefs, massage oil, everything except her bikini area and breasts are fair game for his hands directly on her skin. He is a licensed "massage therapist" and I have been assured it is completely non-sexual, just for relaxation and, as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck, that sort of thing. This has me upset. I feel like I should have been told years ago exactly what the circumstances were. Does this make anyone else uncomfortable? Am I just too insecure? I don't believe it will lead to any actual impropriety or infidelity, but I don't like the idea of another man running his hands all over her feet, legs, thighs, shoulders etc. in private using massage oils. Thoughts?
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. For a while I had a masseuse who had her own premises. While she did share them with other staff, I tended to be her last client of the day and I don't believe I ever saw anyone else on site. Completely alone, but still in a professional setting.I think you're wrong, as that would still be a "spa setting" and not alone completely.
Isn't it? Isn't the fact that this woman gets a massage for pain relief, not for sexual pleasure, precisely the point?It's not a matter of intent.
Well, we have some clues, due to the stated reasons for the massage, and that nothing improper is going on.We don't know what the masseuse intends.
Mmhmm. And what was the purpose of the stripping, if not some erotic intent?I've been to the strip club for a friend's celebration when I was younger....wasn't slightly erotic. It all depends upon the perception of the people involved.
You were asking why was getting a massage different than going to a strip club. I am saying that stripping is inherently sexual, and massage is not.Well I'm lost...I thought you were speaking about him.
My following comment was intended to explain further.You can at least try and explain the difference instead of disagreeing on no grounds.
No.You can absolutely destroy relationships by imposing unreasonable boundaries upon your spouse.
You can also destroy them by placing few to none.
Does that make sense?
The OP states that these massages were "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." That's pain relief.There's that framing again. Relaxation isn't pain relief.
He acknowledges that she is not doing anything improper or being unfaithful. But he can't stop reacting as if this is somehow a sexual thing. That is what makes me think he is sexualising something that just isn't sexul to the people concerned.Well what exactly do you think bothers him here? If it's not about anything sexually improper, erotic, or infidelity....what makes you think he's sexualising the issue?
I disagree. Largely because one is about "I am not willing to be yelled at," and the other is about, "I am not willing to let you do this thing that doesn't impact me."It's a difference of degree...but either way, you're denying an element of the relationship with the person. Leaving the room is a temporary element...divorce tends to be more permanent...but it's just a difference of degrees. Both are attempts to control behavior.
I have no problem with option two. By all means he can talk to her and explain why it bothers him, and they can talk through the various ways they might choose to go forward. What I had a problem with was people saying she should stop having massages, or he should supervise them, or that it's somehow sinful for her to do so; basically saying either that she was doing something inherently wrong, or that he had the right to control her decision about it.What would you prefer your husband do if a non-sexual behavior of yours made him very uncomfortable?
1. Shut up and mind his own business, any attempt to discuss this is abusive manipulating control and his feelings are invalid.
Or...
2. Explain to you why it bothers him so that a possibility of resolution exists?
These are not necessarily mutually exclusive things. For a while I had a masseuse who had her own premises. While she did share them with other staff, I tended to be her last client of the day and I don't believe I ever saw anyone else on site. Completely alone, but still in a professional setting.
Isn't it? Isn't the fact that this woman gets a massage for pain relief
Well, we have some clues, due to the stated reasons for the massage, and that nothing improper is going on.
Mmhmm. And what was the purpose of the stripping, if not some erotic intent?
You were asking why was getting a massage different than going to a strip club. I am saying that stripping is inherently sexual, and massage is not.
My following comment was intended to explain further.
No.
The OP states that these massages were "as needed, working out a stiff back or sore neck." That's pain relief.
He acknowledges that she is not doing anything improper or being unfaithful.
But he can't stop reacting as if this is somehow a sexual thing. That is what makes me think he is sexualising something that just isn't sexul to the people concerned.
I disagree. Largely because one is about "I am not willing to be yelled at," and the other is about, "I am not willing to let you do this thing that doesn't impact me."
Refusing to be yelled at isn't controlling the other person. Refusing to let someone do (insert benign activity here) is.
I have no problem with option two. By all means he can talk to her and explain why it bothers him, and they can talk through the various ways they might choose to go forward.
What I had a problem with was people saying she should stop having massages, or he should supervise them, or that it's somehow sinful for her to do so; basically saying either that she was doing something inherently wrong, or that he had the right to control her decision about 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?