In the discussion on the last post Empathologism mentioned that the biblical instruction to husbands and wives not to withhold sex is often framed as something shameful. He described one white knight husband having a violent emotional reaction to hearing this part of the Gospel from the pulpit:
Later that couple was with us and the guy was so angry he would have punched the preacher because in his words, “how dare he suggest she must open her legs at my demand”
Infowarrior1pointed out that this can place one in a difficult situation:
Here the difficult part. I recall on a christian radio show a woman weeping that her husband supposedly was supposed to help her and love her(she was a broken woman by the way had bad history) felt entitled to her body and raped her. To then say that it is the woman’s obligation to do so would be in the minds of many the acceptance of rape.
This is the same point I made in Reframing Christian Marriage (cropped version of full table):
This is so predictable because the Scripture itself is painfully clear. There simply are no serious objections to it. This is why those who do try to argue with it make such fools of themselves.
The problem is those of us who are inclined to argue logically and rationally will often fall into the trap of misunderstanding what others are doing. It is critical to understand what is happening here. This started with instruction about marriage from the Bible. Those who disagree with the Bible then change the frame to a subtle or not so subtle accusation that anyone who accepts the Bible must be a perverted wife raping bastard. Again, what else are they going to do?
The key is not to get suckered in to arguing logically in response to their reframe. This is (was) a discussion about the Bible’s teaching on marriage. Don’t get drawn into debating an absurd and often passive aggressively implied accusation that you are a pervert. Simply by agreeing to this reframe you have ceded the argument to them in the minds of nearly everyone observing. This trap works because you want to argue logically. This is a good thing, but you first need to move the frame back to the topic at hand. To do this, call out their argument for what it really is while reframing the discussion back to the topic at hand:
Yes, I know, parts of the Bible can be very shocking coming from our feminist culture. It can take some work to get to a point where you aren’t ashamed of what it says simply because it offends feminists. Sometimes it takes courage to stand by God’s Word.
Note that there is nothing cheap about this (unlike the original reframe). They are rebelling against the Word of God, and are suggesting that it is shameful that you aren’t. Pointing out their rebellion and shame of the Gospel is not only appropriate but an act of Christian kindness. How else can they repent from something so serious? Biblical marriage is something of immense beauty; don’t let others go unchallenged when they suggest it is shameful.
The basic rule is if someone is arguing a point logically, then you should also argue logically. But if someone is using a reframe, especially a cheap reframe, you absolutely need to deal with that first and not carry on as if that was a valid intellectual maneuver. Once you have done this you should of course be prepared to carry on logically discussing the original question.
The best way I’ve found to respond to this kind of inane bullshit is to work in an agree and amplify, making sure to keep logical arguments going but put in enough emotions that the person arguing and those listening get swept up in it.
For example, after the part of biblical teachings being shocking to feminist society, turn it back on her
“You’re absolutely right that your husband is supposed to help and love you. If you have a bad day you go to him for comfort, correct? But, like your example, you’re right in that he has free will and is the leader of the household. But if he wants to deny you that and you force it upon him for physical or emotional comfort, he could charge you with sexual or verbal harassment. You would be wrong to do so and must trust his leadership to tend to your needs as god tells him to when god tells him to”
Bam. You now have an argument that shows how ridiculous her objection was while also changing it again to now being about men’s leadership as pertaining to sex in marriage.
Its not the most elegant, I admit, but I hadnt planned on discussing this today till I read the post and crafted it on the spot. Any man discussing ideas contrary to modern churchianity should have some rough responses prepared for the very predictable attempts to shame or derail back to emotional feminist topics of the enemy’s strengths. Dont let them. Stay within the strengths of truth, logic, and biblical teachings
I think the risk Leap is in jumping forward back to the logical argument. You absolutely should be prepared to do that, but you have to make sure you let the reframe sink in and focus on that until they stop rebelling. If you continue otherwise you still are accepting their rebellious frame.
I’m inclined to simply drop the ‘H-Bomb’—that is, I describe them as heretics and insist that they repent. There’s a serious advantage in escalating there first. Ask them to explain when they say they aren’t heretics how nearly 2000 years of Christian tradition is wrong and THEY are right. Put them on the defensive and pound them into the ground. Any pastor that doesn’t agree with you isn’t worth the cloth he wears.
Usually just agreeing with the Bible is enough to get them to reveal their hand. When someone asks if a wife should have sex with her jerk of a husband when he asks for it and you say ‘yes’. Then they act all shocked and stuff and then usually the fun begins. Dalrock stopped the ‘fun’ from occurring last time though. Really disappointing.
excellent rebuke. I’m going to use it.
I find that debating logic is nearly impossible with anyone who is not red-pill. Everybody else is living in lies and skews reality to suit them. A legit argument cannot be carried out with such a one. Their skills of deception and denial are legendary, and they are not interested in truth anyway.
That’s the great thing about the bible, when God has said something that is tough to accept.
I think a good secondary argument is to question whether Jesus is Master, in all authority and dominion, to them… or is he is the LJBF Jesus that gets disrespected at every turn and is never obeyed or followed. This outlook is rather the key to everything else. If they concede that Jesus is Lord and Master, you have a much better framework to conduct further discussion.
If that hamster kicks in with “yea, hath God said?” attitudes, you know that you have a wolf in sheep’s clothing, rather than an genuine soul with a heart to serve God, accepting the tough truths and sacrifice that He requires.
Obedience or rebellion.
Guide them to the truth about obedience to God, or at least sniff them out for being the rebellious souls they are underneath. You can help them, or avoid them, or at least give them the rebuke they need… but you certainly must be vigilant not to lose hand in the discussion by getting sucked into ridiculous rabbit-trail arguments.
I find it incredibly interesting that a man wanted to punch a preacher for telling him (the man) that he had a right to sex with his own wife. How far do you have to shove your head into your own colon to be a white knight against yourself when your preacher says it is right and good to have sex with your own wife?
At any rate, on the etymology of the word “rape”: It originally meant to take something by force that did not belong to the taker, hence it was applied to robbery or theft by force. It came to be used in the modern application because a woman was having something taken from her by force by someone who had no right to it. Under English Common Law in the late middle ages the penalty for rape against a married woman was that the rapist had to pay a fine to her husband, since it was his property that had been taken.
“Marital rape” was not recognized as a crime in ANY U.S. state until 1975, and not in all of them until 1993. It is a wholly post-modern invention of the feminist movement, with no legal recognition anywhere in the world until the mid-20th century.
Now, as to the matter of property…. I Cor. 7 clearly states that the wife’s body belongs to the husband, and vice versa (there’s equality for you). Thus, each spouse’s body is the property of the other. For rape to occur, one must take something he does not own. So if ANY act of marital sex is rape, ALL acts of marital sex are rape…. either you own each other or you do not. If you own her, and she owns you, you cannot take what is not yours, for it is yours. If you do NOT own her, and she does NOT own you, then any sexual act, consensual or not, is taking what is not yours, and hence rape. Just as a note, yes, consensual sex can be “rape” under modern criminal law, see for example age of legal consent.
The whole Bible is being re-framed though, it’s not just the marriage duties part of it. It now also requires that you ‘love’ your neighbour unto death, which is absurd. The idea of tolerance has also gone to the extreme. Both of these ideals are based in reciprocation and not in appeasement. However, both have been turned on their heads and are now being used to beat Christians into submission.
” If you do NOT own her, and she does NOT own you, then any sexual act, consensual or not, is taking what is not yours, and hence rape.”
Every woman is a potential rapist.
Oh, this is exactly the tool I needed for discussions that I have with other women on what biblical submission really means! Perfect. The next time I get that stupid submission = doormat fallacy tossed my way, I have a quick way to take care of it without getting sidetracked into a long, pointless discussion about doormats.
Good post, but most of the time I’d sooner not be bothered to argue with anyone who has feminist leanings. It’s required the investment of hundreds of hours of my life to become reasonably acquainted intellectually with the failings of feminism and the need for male headship (from a biological understanding) over families. (NOTE: It only took me a few years of being a kid to sense that something was terribly, terribly wrong with the state of gender relations, but acquiring knowledge is an adventure of its own).
I don’t see how I could relate all of my learnings to someone who has spent the last several years of their life focusing on becoming skilled at justifying their selfish desires. I can’t see a debate lasting much longer than an hour or two in most cases, and I can’t imagine that I would get very far with anyone focused on proving me wrong in that short amount of time, no matter how logically I approach it.
So reframe or no reframe, as much as I’m not ashamed of my beliefs, I don’t see how being open about my beliefs in polite company is going to do anyone any favours. I think I’ll stick to talking to the men I encounter who have a serious interest in the truth.
Fair enough Dalrock.
Its hard because most of the ‘agree and amplify’, dismissive, or outright ignore policies I’d use also lower the status and leadership of her husband. Obviously that works against our purpose. Thinking a bit more, the best I can do is a smirk with a dismissive
“Yes, because any husband having sexual needs is a rapist and any woman with needs of comfort who nags is breaking harassment laws.”
Then just jump back in to the topic without allowing a response – best if you can quote some scripture and bring it back to biblical teachings before hamsters recover. Punish emotional argument with scorch and burn tactics, salting the earth behind you so they dont want to revisit it. Reward intellectual argument with pleasant engagement
If you’re going to argue with a broad, emotions will be involved SOMEWHERE. If you dont want them to be within the arguments and thoyghts she uses, you have to make sure they’re directed at something or someone else. That or follow Mentu’s advice – don’t argue with broads or gods
How far do you have to shove your head into your own colon
Well past the sigmoid, into the first turn of the transverse
Doormats are more welcoming that the churchian wife
Dalrock, I need you to clarify your position.
Here’s the scenario: a Christian couple marries, both know what the Bible say regarding marriage, both understand their obligations as man and wife; in particular it is clear to her that she has to satisfy the sexual needs of her husband.
All is well and dandy, until the day she decides for some reason not to put out anymore. Is she wrong? Probably. Should she be encouraged (by her pastor or whoever holds spiritual authority on her) to revisit her position? Sure.
But what if she is obstinate? Then is the husband authorized to take by force what he wants from her?
@Leap of a Beta
True. But she is challenging the status of not only her own husband but every husband there. If her husband is permitting this or actively supporting it you can’t support him in this without throwing yourself and every other husband under the bus. However, it is entirely appropriate to remind her that she should remain silent on issues like this in church and her husband as the spiritual head of the household should explain the Scripture to her later in private (1 Cor 14:34-35).
Yes. That is it.
@Julien Sorel
You are doing exactly what I’m saying not to do. She is in open rebellion, and that is the point. The command is very clear. What the husband’s recourse is to a willfully rebellious wife is a valid discussion, but first things first. This is why it is a mistake to even start arguing that it is valid for a husband to expect sex in marriage at this point. This isn’t the real issue. They are trying to shame you into denying biblical marriage. This is ground worth fighting over. If you skip past it it will only appear that you have stipulated the point. Don’t do it.
To put it another way Julien, the instruction is clear, and the response is “So what are you going to do about it?” Don’t treat this as a legitimate desire to understand Scripture. It simply isn’t. Treat this for what it is, outright rebellion.
Its good you mentioned the part about him not being tempted by sexual sin. Without hair splitting definitions of the word tempted, we know that this could be claimed at any time with just about any man. And it is.
On one of the other recent entries (J and K, lower the boom)here someone posted a blog url for a woman’s blog. That woman has written that SHE can attest to the fact that her husband is healed because he “never experiences even remote thoughts of or about sex unless he and her and in physical proximity”…like the same room. Well, I mean just ask him, he’ll tell ya. And I will tell ya his price of admission
Just a little side-bar, not to get off track, but for any newer people who are reading we should be careful to note that “raping” your wife is illegal in the United States. Even if you believe you have the spiritual right to do this, don’t rape your wife. You could end up going to jail. Ok, back to the actual topic.
Side point about “Logic”: few actually do it well. I generally have to teach people how to have a discussion with me. Mostly as “If A, Then B & you’ve accepted it, I’m going to mock you severely if you complain about what you just said yourself is true bothers you”. You’d be surprised how much that happens.
@Dalrock:
I’ve not seen Julien comment before, so they might be intentionally trying to trap with the argument. Though you nicely showed how to detail with it. The “withholding sex” isn’t the issue at hand, it’s the outright rebellion to his headship. Thus, it’s what has to be dealt with. And you don’t get “willful submission” via force, so that entire argument chain is voided due to False Assumption of the Premise.
Dalrock:
“the response is “So what are you going to do about it?” Don’t treat this as a legitimate desire to understand Scripture. It simply isn’t. Treat this for what it is, outright rebellion.”
Please spell it out for us non-Mensa types.
Response to whom?
The response to the husband married to this depriving wife is, I think: “your wife is in open rebellion against God and is flagrantly disobeying His Word by refusing to have sex with you. Your wife is in open rebellion against your authority as her husband.”
The response to the wife is “you are in open rebellion. you’re sinning against God and are in flagrant disobedience to His Word by refusing to have sex with your husband. And you’re sinning against your husband and disrespecting him.”
Thoughts?
For those who might not know when a reframe is being pushed on them, the words above are key, and common.
“I” – the ultimate arbiter in the sophist’s (Julien) world
“need” – overstatement as attempt to transfer the burden of the argument to Dalrock, when the burden is actually on the sophist’s ultimate arbiter. Also known as, “passing the buck”, or, “being irresponsible”.
“you” – an attempt to force scripture–the Word of God–out of the frame, and isolate Dalrock, as if the argument were Julien vs. Dalrock, instead of Julien vs. God.
“to clarify” – implication that the frame is unclear. Also: completely passive-aggressive, i.e., “I didn’t say it was wrong…”, or, “I’m not saying it doesn’t exist…”; laying the groundwork if future crawdad-ing is necessary.
“your” – reselling the notion that this contest is between Julien and Dalrock, and not Julien and God. Very important not to get Him involved.
“position” – the frame itself, the boundary, the map-point.
[D: Good analysis, even if we stipulate that Julien is being sincere here.]
A husband’s financial obligation to support his wife (I Timothy 5:8) does not make her a thief.
A wife’s sexual obligation to her husband (I Corinthians 7:5) does not make him a rapist.
@Deti
The most common argument against the Scripture in question focuses on “So what are you going to do about it”. This is how Julien framed the question. Note that there was no overt objection to the reading of the Scripture in Julien’s example. The challenge is being subtly framed as a desire to understand Scripture. Treat the challenge for exactly what it is, a defiant call of “So what are you going to do about it?”
As for who to respond to, whoever is making the claim. In Julien’s case it is somewhat difficult to tell exactly who is making what argument, but it doesn’t matter. The key is to not be deflected away. As this very discussion shows, this is extremely difficult because we are all ready to jump into what we see as the follow on question. But in this frame it isn’t a follow on question. It is more rebellion. Address that, and lock your jaws on it, first.
I’ll offer an example to show how absurd this line of argument is. The “So what are you going to do about it?” line of argument is only reserved for the obligations of wives in the Bible. No man uses this line of argument. Imagine a man saying “The Bible says I have an obligation to love and protect my wife, but what are you going to do about it if I don’t?”
The basic rule is if someone is arguing a point logically, then you should also argue logically.
Not necessarily. If you are arguing with someone who is not convinced by logic – e.g., pretty much all women on the face of the Earth — then you should not respond with logic even if they are trying to use it on you. At the very least, your logic should be coupled with a powerful appeal to emotion.
[D: Good point, but not what I meant in context.]
I’m surprised that whether or not a wife is obligated to have sex with her husband is even debated. The answer is obviously yes. However sex with an unwilling and unenthusiastic partner isn’t something that most men would even want. If she isn’t in the mood for sex it is likely to be unpleasant for both of them, and potentially painful for the wife. I don’t see why the husband would bother asserting his rights in that particular scenario, but he can if he wants to.
[D: Yes, that is a perfect example of how to frame those who believe in biblical marriage as perverted wife raping bastards.]
Here is another way to describe what is happening. If you tell your child they have to clean their room (or whatever), and they respond with “Or what?”, this isn’t an intellectual discussion on punishments. This is defiance, and a challenge to what was just said. In the case of wives submitting to their husbands and not denying sex, the “Or what?” response is defiance of the Bible (not you or I, as Cane pointed out above). Call this out for what it is, and don’t be distracted by the inevitable attempts to shame you. Only a coward is ashamed of the Bible.
T:
This is exactly the problem here.
I’m surprised that whether a man has a duty to love and support his wife financially is even debated. The answer is obviously yes. However, forcing a man to support his wife is something that the wife, the church, and the government will do even if he does not want to support her, even if he cannot support her, and even if she divorces him without cause. None of these things matter — he must still be divested of his money and resources. The wife can assert her rights to his money even if she is no longer married to him, because she can.
See the problem?
The man has a right to sex with his wife, except when he doesn’t because she won’t submit to it or doesn’t “feel like it”. She has an obligation to give him sex, except when she doesn’t want to fulfill the obligation.
The man has an obligation to support his wife and that obligation will be enforced by any means necessary, even if he is unable and unwilling to do so; and even if he no longer derives any benefit from that support.
@Dalrock
Thanks. I want to say that–as a rule–I take any challenge that contains some amount of passive-aggressiveness as automatically insincere. Sincere folks have a different tone. I’m sure I get this wrong sometimes, and I’m sure it very often puts lots of people off, but it keeps my discussions honest. I’d rather get real anger, or pushback than be sidled up to.
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
fools despise wisdom and instruction.”
Thus the Book of Proverbs starts, and with very good reason. Solomon isn’t just paying homage to God, or trying to appeal to the sensibilities of his local Jewish bookstore chain. He really means that the wise man must take as foundational that fear (respect, concession to, to give way) of the Lord is of utter importance for any true understanding. What Julian attempts to do above (sincerely or not) is to entice Dalrock to give way to Dalrock rather than God. Bad as the subtle attempt to reframe is revealed to be, it is even worse: It’s an invitation to idolatry.
A right without the ability to enforce that right is no right at all.
A right without a concomitant remedy to redress the deprivation of that right is no right at all.
A “right” enforced at gunpoint and with a jackboot on one’s neck is tyranny.
This is going to be a LONG thread…
Another fun point to dealing with “Frame Control in a Discussion”: the “Buts” or “Howevers”. Someone will concede a point, then proceed to reframe what was conceded into something else. Oddly enough, I’m a lot better at this in real-time, but, in that situation, I have my hackles up and I don’t have time to think and contemplate (and over-read) what someone wrote. Plus the benefit of intonation in the voice.
But (haha), while T’s follow on clause is correct insofar as not being actually important to the topic as it misses the issue that the wife can take that money she was told not to touch out of the account and spend it, but the payment for her car is still due and I’m sure she’d hate to deal with the RepoMan.
It should be noted that I like to use these same tactics against Academic Types. Actually, those types (the higher the degree, the easier it is), will almost always conflate Questions and/or Book Knowledge for Insight. Then you just nail them to the wall, so long as you maintain the frame of the question at hand. Generally with copious mockery of their intellect. (It’s so easy to unsettle them, it’s quite fun, if you’re in the mood to do it.)
@ D – My point was that those who believe in it are not wife raping, perverts. I was thinking about the real life application of these principles. I don’t know why rape is even brought up when most women are in no danger of it. Those who are actually married to a man who would force them to have sex because of that scripture likely have a whole host of other marital issues that have nothing to do with Biblical marriage as that scripture says nothing about forcing someone to have sex with you.
[D: You took something holy and made it sound dirty. Why something holy strikes you as dirty is your issue. I hope you get help.]
@ deti – men aren’t forced by the government to support their wives because of what’s written in the Bible. I don’t think that it makes sense to compare sex and financial support anyway. Men are also commanded not to deny their wives sex and the wife has no legal means of enforcing that either.
[D: You took something holy and made it sound dirty. Why something holy strikes you as dirty is your issue. I hope you get help.]
I don’t think that I did, but I won’t argue it with you.
@deti
The problem is this isn’t really the discussion. As I said, while there is a pretense of believing in the Scripture it is mixed in with the kind of thing T did above. The basic argument is either an accusation of physical force or “But if she isn’t in the mood then it would be creepy for you to have sex with her”. The irony is a wife submitting to her husband even when not (initially) in the mood tends to find his unashamed claiming of his right as her husband as extremely sexy*. It is a clear sign of his “alpha frame” as well as his possession of her in exactly the way women want to be possessed. But omegas can only frame this from the mental perspective of an omega. They are right, if they, as omegas were to insist in the least the wife would find the experience incredibly creepy.
*At worst it is an opportunity for a loving wife to show her love to her husband in a way only she can. Only if a wife sees her husband as sexually repulsive is the experience actually a bad thing.
“@ deti – men aren’t forced by the government to support their wives because of what’s written in the Bible. I don’t think that it makes sense to compare sex and financial support anyway. Men are also commanded not to deny their wives sex and the wife has no legal means of enforcing that either.”
— T
You misunderstand what men and women have to offer each other and what they desire most from each other. Sexual and financial obligations are compared against each other because these represent the two most valuable assets offered by a wife and a husband, respectively. A woman who refuses her husband sex is committing an error as grave as the man who refuses financial obligation to his wife. The difference between the two situations is that the woman has the backing of governmental force; the man doesn’t.
Let’s rephrase this a bit: women use the government to financially RAPE men. But you seem to think that’s okay, because after all, it’s not quite SEXUAL rape. As long as rape ain’t sexual, it’s okay!
Am I not correct in thinking that the last sentence of T’s post at 2.46 pm is directly contradicted by the last sentence of T’s post at 2.52 pm?
‘Julien Sorel’, by the way, is, of course, the hero of Stendhal’s novel The Red and The Black – The Red being the Catholic Church.
When a husband or ex-husband goes to jail for not being able to afford alimony or child support, they will probably be physically raped anyhow. Bring on the holy!
“When a husband or ex-husband goes to jail for not being able to afford alimony or child support, they will probably be physically raped anyhow. Bring on the holy!”
— Feminist Hater
B-b-b-but! Men can’t be raped, silly. Even by other men. Why do you hate women so much? Why do you not want women to be a protected victim class? God wasn’t angry at Sodom because of the homo, but because they wanted to rape Lot’s daughter! All hail my female pastor! She’s a heckuva grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl!
@ D – we are in agreement here. Under the right frame and circumstances it could be sexy or at least not unpleasant. And usually the people involved in the marriage know whether or not that scenario would be welcome. The men who know that it would not be, likely wouldn’t push the issue. Basically in real life application most women are in no danger of marital rape. So again, I’m not sure why people are so focused on the issue whenever that passage is brought up.
The issue is a mine field if left to drift where it is wont to drift. Even Deti demonstrates this. Dalrock makes a good point about if the women finds him repulsive (“him”…..not Dalrock, phwhew)
she may loath his touch, but otherwise whats the problem with sex that she INITIALLY didn’t want, but not because she has the flu or something?
A whole discussion once ensued about us doing things we otherwise do not want to do, and how to do it in the the right spirit. The writer made a silly reference to cleaning toilets. The predictable response?
“Who wants toilet cleaning sex?” and it went down from there, emphasizing how very controlled you must be in how you respond to these things, including not responding at all.
T says:
So again, I’m not sure why people are so focused on the issue whenever that passage is brought up.
Because it emotional short-circuits any counter argument about the real issue, which is that many wives don’t care to follow the bible on this issue.
I should point out that before feminism reared it’s ugly head into marriage, turning it into Marriage 2.0, and completely disenfranchising men from being able to stand up for their rightful interests in marriage, that married men could stand up for their interests in the marriage and have them dealt with as fairly and equitably as the wives issues. Consequently, this is really the issue more than wives not putting out (a specific issue of concern, but not the source of the problem). The answer to the “What are you going to do about it?” question regarding the wife not putting out has been rendered into “nothing”. Men have no power, especially within their own marriages, especially if he appeals to God. With the feminist Church and the State backing her, all the response will be is “maybe if you love her enough”, “maybe if you sacrifice to her enough”. Pressure will never be placed upon a woman to correct her wrongs before God. Goes back to the J & K thing (and Marriage 2.0 thing) of a woman’s adultery being a man’s fault. The problem is widespread rebellion against God, pure and simple.
In light of this, I should describe how this issue was dealt with in true Marriage 1.0 times. It was historically consistent that a wife demonstrating that she is willfully refusing to put out was easy grounds for a for-cause divorce against her. It was dealt with as aggressively within a God-fearing church as a man beating his wife or any other genuine (not Marriage 2.0) abuse. The lack of children after an appreciable amount of time was always an easy giveaway, too, and the church community would question the husband and wife both if this was the case.
Coincidentally, this is one of the chief issues I see that pushes me away from the idea of marriage in the Christian realm.
@ soga
“You misunderstand what men and women have to offer each other and what they desire most from each other. Sexual and financial obligations are compared against each other because these represent the two most valuable assets offered by a wife and a husband, respectively. A woman who refuses her husband sex is committing an error as grave as the man who refuses financial obligation to his wife. The difference between the two situations is that the woman has the backing of governmental force; the man doesn’t.
Let’s rephrase this a bit: women use the government to financially RAPE men. But you seem to think that’s okay, because after all, it’s not quite SEXUAL rape. As long as rape ain’t sexual, it’s okay!”
I understand your point, but this still seems like an apples and oranges type of comparison to me. I don’t think that the government is attempting to back a biblical principle when they enforce financial support. They do it for practical reasons. Both men and women are subject to those type of laws. Neither sex has their biblical right to sex enforced by the government.
@T:
The point is that the topic is “Rebellion against God & Husband”, and yet you want to crib around the theoretical aspects of enforcement of a specific subset of the commands to spouses. This is a combination of both “Forest for the Trees” and “When did you stop beating your Wife?” argument digressions.
And, more than likely, you’re not intentionally going that way. That’s part of the way you’ve been taught to approach topics like this. Actually, it’s pretty much the way most people talk about most issues, which is why I tend not to like to talk to most people.
Julien Sorel: …a Christian couple marries, both know what the Bible say regarding marriage, both understand their obligations as man and wife; in particular it is clear to her that she has to satisfy the sexual needs of her husband. .. she decides for some reason not to put out anymore.,,,
But what if she is obstinate? Then is the husband authorized to take by force what he wants from her?
As Mike posted on the other thread:
No. The opposite of this is that a woman has a right to use violence to compel her husband to support her. Both things sought without consent are the realization of an imperfect right by force. An imperfect right is a right one has, morally, but which cannot be realized in the real world consistently. For example, children have an imperfect right to a stable two person household.
Now if one spouse makes the household incapable of functioning, the other spouse should have a right to seek legal redress. For example, in your scenario eventually the husband ought to be able to seek a civil divorce with cause which should ideally deny her a stake in the assets and limit custody of the children due to her malfeasance.
Oh, and on the general “can you clarify?” stuff, a point:
Most of the time the “technical response” is something like: “Do you have a Brain?” “If yes, then you don’t need a clarification; if no, please Pray to God for one.” Half of what they’re doing is Reframing. The other half is distracting the point. Nail them for the attempt. 🙂
T:
You’re not looking back far enough. The entire foundation of Western law and society is the Judeo-Christian ethic: The Ten Commandments; the Mosaic Law in Leviticus and Deuteronomy; Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), the relationship of husband and wife (Eph. 5).
At first the husband’s support obligation was biblical, as was the wife’s obligation to provide sex. Both were enforced as legal obligations up until about 1950 or so in the United States. Divorce reform led by feminism abolished the marital sex obligation and applied sexual assault laws to husbands while leaving fully intact the husband’s support obligation. (Later legislation provided that wives and mothers have equal support obligations to those of husbands and fathers; but let’s be honest here: Men bear by far the lion’s share of financial support obligations.)
“They do it for practical reasons. Both men and women are subject to those type of laws. Neither sex has their biblical right to sex enforced by the government.”
— T
That’s interesting, because when you factor in female employment, there shouldn’t be any need for alimony or child support anymore. Practicality’s got nothing to do with it. Having holdovers from a bygone era that are no longer relevant is not practical.
Nevertheless, in terms of what men and women have to offer each other and what leverage they CURRENTLY hold over each other, men are very much getting the short end of the stick here. It’s not apples and oranges. Marriage used to be a give-and-take deal, now it’s just give-and-give for men, and take-and-take for women… all with the full cooperation of the church and the coercion of badged governmental officers. When women stop financially raping men, then they have a legitimate, non-hypocritical case for being “sexually raped” within marriage. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say that one kind of rape is okay, but another kind isn’t.
The point of this entire discussion is that when a woman refuses her husband access to her body… she is going against Scripture. Against God. An obligation that is only an obligation when you feel like it is not an obligation at all. But oh boy, wouldn’t it be nice if financial obligations worked this way too? I have an obligation to pay my electrical bills, but wait! What if I just didn’t feel like paying my electrical bills? That’s raaaaaaaaaaaaaaape.
T:
Think of it this way.
A woman denies her husband sex. Is this moral? Is it right?
A man refuses to support his wife. Is this moral? Is it right?
Most in the blue pill world respond to the first situation with “well, it depends” or “is he attractive enough” or “is he loving her enough” or “is he making her feel loved”.
In the second situation, the blue pill world has no reluctance in answering with a resounding “NO!”
Red pill: the response to both situations is “NO!”
His right to sex from his wife is scriptural. But her refusal to follow that scriptural command is excused, ignored, and has no redress.
Her right to her husband’s financial support is scriptural. But his refusal to follow that scriptural command brings down the full moral and legal force of culture, church and state upon his head.
Moreover, government couches its support enforcement against husbands in moral terms: “He made the babies. It’s only right and fair that he be required to pay.” “It’s the right thing to do.”
Soga, that was not the point of the article. I think we need to step back. The article was not about 1 Corinthians or marital rape even though both were brought up. The article was about reframing. Which is exactly what T has done. Consciously or not, this thread has devolved into a debate about marital rape, financial obligations, legal precedent, blah, blah, blah.
It seems Dalrock initial point can be summed up as: Don’t feed the trolls. Present the truth and let it stand on its own merits. Don’t engage in intellictual debate with those who simply wish to obfuscate scipture with emotional.
Nice article D.
Ya’ll have a great day.
Dalrock,
This latest post involves ‘marital rape’. My opinion may be found in one of my Spearhead posts: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/30/gay-marriage-a-culture-war-proposal/
Some of the commenters disagreed with me, and some said they had never thought of this issue before.
A couple of years ago, some of the feminist organizations were up in arms because a change to the law in Afghanistan would permit husbands to ‘rape their wives’ . The actual law involved recognition of the differences between the Shi’ite and Sunni sharia. In terms of Afghan traditions this was very liberal and pluralistic. Re. rape one of my sons, who was imbedded in the Afghan National Army told me that he went into a pro-government village after the Taliban had vacated, and was confronted by a sceaming burkha clad woman with a 6 – 8 month old baby girl whose intestines were protruding from her vulva. The Taliban had raped all of the pre-adolescents in the village for being insufficiently islamic! That is rape, not marital rape! First world problems.
As an aside, I once found a guide to confession (1920’s vintage), left near the door of a Parish I used to attend in Central Ontario. It was divided into ten sections for each commandment. Under ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ was a list of sexual sins. Unreasonably refusing your spouse was between adultery and having sex with animals. The 1920’s Catholic church was still male friendly.
mispelled intellectual – I fail at life
“mispelled intellectual – I fail at life”
But you succeeded in pointing out the swerve.
@ soga – whether or not alimony or child support is needed or practical depends on the financial circumstances of the couple in question. If the man and woman earn the same amount and share custody equally then there would be no alimony or child support. We will have to agree to disagree on the idea of financial obligations and rape being equitable. And again, most of the time there is no rape occurring in marriages anyway.
@ deti – I agree that it is not moral or right to deny sex in marriage. It is wrong no matter who does it as both men and women have a Biblical right to sex in marriage. I think that bringing up financial support only clouds the issue of the right to sex in marriage.
My opinion of the married women who complain about their husband’s sexual urges are fueled by the context of many of my friends, who after a short time married, don’t like their wives any longer.
Ladies, if your husband is looking to sex you up, you really ought to take it as a compliment. He’s not out banging the girl he met last week at the lunch counter. He still finds you desirable and attractive. Ride him for all he’s worth and enjoy it.
And fellas, if you get done with your wives, and feel you ain’t done a righteous job…
hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djP-IxDJS1c (not safe for work – nc17 rated, but relevant)
Seriously, I don’t understand this at all. Why would anyone (male or female) get married and then complain about one of the few real benefits of marriage?
As for the feminist who is alluding to fat men, I agree with this. Both men and women should make an effort to take care of themselves, just like both should make an effort to support the relationship financially (if you’re not going to work outside the home, then take the homemaker role seriously and do it as you would a job).
Just because women tend to be more forgiving of extra poundage on a dude, doesn’t mean he ought to let himself go completely. It’s more than just being sexually desirable, it is a basic issue of self respect. Being fit and healthy is a gift you give yourself, as well as your partner or spouse. Athol Kay wrote a good article, some months ago, about spending time doing physical fitness as a couple, though I couldn’t find it on short notice, it’s worth reading.
We will have to agree to disagree on the idea of financial obligations and rape being equitable.
Oy….he didn’t equate financial obligations and rape. He equated the point of a gun ENFORCEMENT of such obligations to rape, equating done in a very narrow and specific sense.
This is another inadvertent technique (Im not saying you are using it) of those who argue these things, to mismanage analogies. An analogy needn’t depend on all things being analogous, only that very specific concept being illustrated, and in this case his comparison holds when limited as he intended it.
Because it emotional short-circuits any counter argument about the real issue, which is that many wives don’t care to follow the bible on this issue.
Church leaders aren’t failing as Christian ministers; they’re succeeding as leaders of (sometimes large) organizations. From the church singles’ group (“You want relationships now and not when the girls are done w/ the carousel? That means you want God and something instead of just God, sinners” – which is really aimed at the beta men because the alphas will go after most of the women, who don’t have to go after anyone) to this, the church isn’t failing to resist feminism, it is embracing it because passive, beaten down betas are easier to control. Men who take some sort of action to get what they want are harder to predict. Who said they’ll turn us into beggars because they’re easier to please?
An easier to control congregation makes life easier for those who ‘lead’. If most of the male half of the congregation, in or out of a relationship, is miserable, that’s their problem.
Financial and sexual obligations are equitable, though. That’s an absolute, certain fact for which you have to be an absolute fool to deny. They are equitable in that they are both obligations each spouse shares with each other. Bringing up financial support illustrates the manner in which refusing to oblige when you don’t feel like obliging is wrong, whether or not that obligation is sexual.
It illustrates that the blue pill world has a double standard for certain types of obligations. It does nothing of the kind to cloud the right to sex in marriage. There is only willful ignorance which clouds it. Let he who has ears hear and he who has eyes see.
We’re done here.
JLT says:
Church leaders aren’t failing as Christian ministers; they’re succeeding as leaders of (sometimes large) organizations.
I would say you are correct in this. The bible has become something of an embarrassment to them and they spend a great deal of time explaining away scripture, rather than preaching.
If most of the male half of the congregation, in or out of a relationship, is miserable, that’s their problem.
Unfortunately over time it becomes everyone’s problem. It creates a miserable life for the women who quite bluntly don’t want to marry the men they spent so much time forging. It creates financial obligation for other men who must support the women who are having kids without the ability to support them, and ex-wives who want public cash. It also damages male productivity which is fueled in no small part by the hope for a wife and family and if that is no longer a viable option, they can live as bachelors for much less. That lost productivity is never seen by the economy as many young men just give up on women as far as a meaningful relationship goes.
@Jehu on January 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm, @ Feminist Hater on January 4, 2013 at 12:22 pm, @Samuel Solomon on January 4, 2013 at 12:32 PM —
Just beginning to start posting on the manosphere instead of just lurking.
Have any of you ever read up from this site?
http://dontsayno2012.blogspot.com/
(A woman married 21 years who tried the experiment of *never* saying no to sex with her husband, and blogging the results.)
Quite eye opening — perhaps an example to be given to women motivated by the Holy Hamster to deny sex because (insert rationalization here).
One interesting point brought up is that often, if sex is begun despite initial reluctance, by a few minutes she is *quite* into it.
One other point, from a Red Pill Guy perspective — there is a joke about the so-called “Schlessinger Limit”, which is defined as the average duration of intercourse, five to seven minutes.
If you go significantly longer than that, it generally makes the activity a more exciting and fulfilling proposition for the wife…
Unfortunately over time it becomes everyone’s problem.
I meant it isn’t specifically church leadership’s problem. They don’t have to care; they just have to ‘lead’. I’ll spare everyone the angry rant about the cult of leadership in the church and the rest of society – lets just say natural alphas aren’t necessarily your friends.
@grey_whiskers on January 4, 2013 at 4:25 pm
— in other words, as found elsewhere on Teh Interwebz (NSFW, but funny and succinct)
http://ridewithblaze.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/put-it-down-like-a-king/
(Not an endorsement of any of the rest of that site, as I haven’t read it. But the pic and caption are priceless.)
@8oxer on January 4, 2013 at 4:04 PM —
Just because women tend to be more forgiving of extra poundage on a dude, doesn’t mean he ought to let himself go completely. It’s more than just being sexually desirable, it is a basic issue of self respect. Being fit and healthy is a gift you give yourself, as well as your partner or spouse. Athol Kay wrote a good article, some months ago, about spending time doing physical fitness as a couple, though I couldn’t find it on short notice, it’s worth reading.
As one greeting card said,
JLT says:
I meant it isn’t specifically church leadership’s problem. They don’t have to care; they just have to ‘lead’. I’ll spare everyone the angry rant about the cult of leadership in the church and the rest of society – lets just say natural alphas aren’t necessarily your friends.
And arguments about scripture won’t change that because scripture had nothing to do with their behavior to begin with.
@ T
“men aren’t forced by the government to support their wives because of what’s written in the Bible. I don’t think that it makes sense to compare sex and financial support anyway. Men are also commanded not to deny their wives sex and the wife has no legal means of enforcing that either.”
You sir, are a feminist. If not on all issues, then certainly on this one. That or easily distracted by thoughts of boobies and vaginas being plundered by those asshole rapist husbands that you’re arguing it’s ok for the government to insert itself into biblical marriage on a financial front, but certainly not on a sexual front.
Men’s bodily rights are in their money. We put our blood, sweat, and tears into the world; and the world currently rewards us with paper encapsulating those sacrifices. When men are able to wipe our blood, our sweat, and our tears off our money, ridding it of all my bodily fluids we’ve had to go through to earn it, then maybe we’ll stop viewing it as a right for us to keep it, and theft or rape for the state to take it from us against our will to give it to a woman who isn’t equally required to give up her body for us.
The state isn’t right to force women to have sex. Nor is it right to force men to pay women for divorce/child theft. Both are raping the minds, bodies, and hearts of our society. One is simply legal rape at this time.
So, either man up or get out. But stop being a ‘nice’ sheep to society standards. Look deeper at what the Biblical teachings are, and look at how the state and society has corrupted those by making parts of it socially acceptable/legal, but denying the reciprocation from what the other sex desires is so awful you’re willing to cut off your manhood, turn over your leadership, and smile as you let it happen.
“Actually, it’s pretty much the way most people talk about most issues, which is why I tend not to like to talk to most people.”
+1
From Paul: those whom the Lord loves, he rebukes. You love your wife, you care enough about her, then you are supposed to provide leadership by rebuking her when she gets out of line. That is the alpha thing to do in the context of marriage. Thank you Dalrock for providing a valuable example of the proper context.
Of course the next step may have to be going Athol on her if she continues to resist your rebuke.
@ grey_whiskers – thanks for linking that blog.
@ leap of a beta – the government doesn’t assert itself into Biblical marriage but into civil marriage. I think that you are being a bit dramatic about how men earn their money. Some are sweating, bleeding and crying but most are sitting in air conditioned offices beside women who are also working. The comparison between sexual and financial obligations ( or financial rape for the overly dramatic) simply doesn’t hold.
The Biblical right to sex in marriage is not enforced by the government for men or women. Nor should it be. Marry a Christian, make sure that you are in agreement on the issue before you get married and don’t look to the government to help you get some if you’ve chosen badly, as there is no practical reason for the government to help you with your sex life.
T says:
@ leap of a beta – the government doesn’t assert itself into Biblical marriage but into civil marriage.
So if a Christian marries, the government won’t enforce any legal orders against him? If in fact it will enforce such orders, then how are they not inserting themselves into Biblical marriage?
That’s a good point that isn’t discussed much: when did sex become such an all-or-nothing thing? People seem to think that either you’re in the mood and energetic with all the right equipment and timing and it’s mind-blowingly awesome, or it’s horrible and degrading and painful. No in between. Would it be so terrible if sometimes it were just a chore one person does for the other’s benefit?
I’m trying to think of an analogy that won’t trigger emotions like the “financial rape” ones…. Let’s say I marry a blind woman, and during our engagement I make a commitment to her that every evening I will read her favorite blogs to her (let’s just pretend the technology doesn’t exist for her to do it herself). Now, on some occasions, this might be a very pleasurable experience. I might like some of the same blogs, so I’d enjoy sharing them with her. Discussing them would bring us closer together. I’ve got a good voice, so reading to her could get her motor running for when I’m ready for a different kind of fun. Sometimes it might feel like a downright spiritual experience.
However, there are going to be nights when I’m tired, or cranky, or have ten other things I’d rather be doing. If I’m true to my word, I’m going to go in there and read to her like I promised, even if I’m scowling the whole time, because it’s what she needs from me and what I promised her.
What would be so wrong with that?
@T
“the government doesn’t assert itself into Biblical marriage but into civil marriage. ”
If a man can’t have a biblical marriage without a civil one, then it has inserted itself into biblical marriage.
You continue to rebel against the notion that the government has put itself higher than religious rights and beliefs, when clearly it does so by enforcing partial contracts of marriage. You continue to berate men striving to find a place for your enshrined, unassailable “christian marriage.” You then turn around and say it’s not a christian marriage but a civil one, and that christians striving for a christian marriage are just shit out of luck if their wife gives into the temptation of divorce fantasies or stops being sexually active with their husband. Either way they’re required to pay forward to the marriage (whether it’s still there or they’re divorced), but not have rights to the benefits.
Again, you’re a feminist, socially blind to the deeper currents of how the laws and social constructs impact the relationships between men and women, or a troll. None of them are particularly things worth being.
But your loopy logic and mental masturbation to reach your conclusions is endearing to watch. It’s like watching a train wreck, or a pig rolling around in its sty.
@sharrukin – the government could not care less about a person’s religious views on marriage. Husband and wife will have to work that out. The government enforces laws. If a marriage is Biblical and the couple wants the government out of it then the government stays out. If they invite the government into their marriage then the government is in it.
“The comparison between sexual and financial obligations ( or financial rape for the overly dramatic) simply doesn’t hold. ”
— T
You just don’t quit, do you? What part of “an obligation is an obligation whether or not you’re in the mood” do you not understand?
I know I said I was done, but this kind of stupidity needs to be rebuked swiftly and harshly. Anything less, and the stupidity spreads like some kind of contagious virus. Actually, stupidity is probably too mild a word to use here. I’d go with heresy. I know heresy has a tendency to spread when it’s not put in check.
Off topic, but I thought I’d share this. http://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/aaad/thecarriediaries/17-bad-things-men-did-on-sex-and-the-city-8e5c
One of the worst things a man did on Sex and the City? He was over 30 and single.
@T
No, we aren’t in agreement at all. There is nothing shameful about what the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth. If a woman finds honoring her marriage vows disgusting, that is shameful. If a man assists her in rationalizing this out of insecurity of his rightful position as husband, that is shameful. A man not handing his wife sexual denial as a tool to lord over him isn’t shameful, even though you continue to frame it as such.
T says:
The government enforces laws. If a marriage is Biblical and the couple wants the government out of it then the government stays out.
No they don’t stay out of it. What country do you live in that this is true?
Are you kidding or trolling? In some states, you don’t even have to be married; just sharing a residence for a certain period of time is enough for the government to declare common law marriage and get involved.
I don’t get the “I refuse to have sex with you” line, I get the litany of excuses. My head hurts, my back hurts, the kids wore me out, I feel weird, my stomach hurts, I’m exhausted, my hormones are all messed up, I am too tired..etc.etc etc.
Not sure how to defeat that. I have also been told “I have no obligation to have sex with you, even though you are my husband”. I consider that to be her breaking our marriage vows.
If the government is involved in a marriage then one or both of the spouses have contacted the family courts or some other goverment entity and asked that it be involved. Government officials are not just showing up at people’s houses unprovoked to tell them what to in the bedroom, or how to handle their affairs. Even if the couple or one of the spouses decides to dissolve their civil marriage the government is only as involved as they are invited to be by one of the spouses. You are free to set up your own terms for marriage and divorce Biblical or otherwise and abide by them as long as you both agree and neither of you requests government intervention to determine the terms.
@dalrock – No, we aren’t in agreement at all. There is nothing shameful about what the Apostle Paul wrote to the church in Corinth. If a woman finds honoring her marriage vows disgusting, that is shameful. If a man assists her in rationalizing this out of insecurity of his rightful position as husband, that is shameful. A man not handing his wife sexual denial as a tool to lord over him isn’t shameful, even though you continue to frame it as such.
Ok. I don’t think that it is shameful. I just don’t think that there are many instances where men are forcing women to have unwanted sex in marriage. I think that most men don’t insist that unwilling wives have sex and that the focus on rape when discussing sexual obligations in marriage is strange.
“Yes, I know, parts of the Bible can be very shocking coming from our feminist culture. It can take some work to get to a point where you aren’t ashamed of what it says simply because it offends feminists. Sometimes it takes courage to stand by God’s Word.”
At this point, the wife responded “Well God will just have to forgive me.” Yes dear, I hope He does. We’re separated now.
@Cane Caldo
I can understand this. I try very hard not to assume the worst in these things, both because of the ease of misunderstanding someone else’s motives and also because small degrees of passive aggressiveness are so easy to defeat without having to take them on. I think it was Looking Glass who pointed out that my response to Julien works either way you read his/her motives. Another recent example of how I choose to handle this would be AnonT on the Joel and Kathy post. She showed up with a suspicious story. I can’t prove it isn’t true, but as others have pointed out it has a bit of a questionable feel to it. Still, she offered the best possible argument in Joel and Kathy’s favor. I saw this as a gift even if she didn’t intend it that way, since it was an opportunity to fully take apart their best possible defense.
I also often find myself trying to de escalate others who are so angry at me personally that they can’t get their logical argument out. To do this I ask similar clarifying questions to the one that Julien did, but without the sophistry you so astutely pointed out. I do this because I honestly want to hear their argument, either to learn something new or address it. But I’m more beta than you, and trying to finesse what should be acted on firmly is always a potential risk for less alpha men. However, there are times when the frame absolutely must be attacked head on. This is why my response to T was so different than my response.
With all of this said, I also meant my comment in another way. I was reinforcing the strength of what you wrote. Your analysis of the way Julien framed the issue is right whether Julien intended it that way or not. I’m very happy to assume they were all honest mistakes and I hope Julien will stick around, but the truth of what you wrote still remains. No malice is required for the framing to be problematic.
Lastly, this point was especially on target:
“The government enforces laws. If a marriage is Biblical and the couple wants the government out of it then the government stays out.”
What? Um… no words. sure buddy.
@T
“Ok. I don’t think that it is shameful. I just don’t think that there are many instances where men are forcing women to have unwanted sex in marriage. I think that most men don’t insist that unwilling wives have sex and that the focus on rape when discussing sexual obligations in marriage is strange.”
Seems like it might be time to begin parsing.
Dalrock was talking about the opposite–not men forcing women, but women withholding and men giving a pass on that. You even quoted him before you replied to the–unstated–inverse. Do you see it?
And then you go on and on about how strange it is to discuss rape in this context. All the time continuing to ignore that the point under consideration is not forcible sex, but more about acquiesence to the withholding and how objectionable *that* is.withholding and how objectionable *that* is.
bb
Something that drives me insane with most people, who are simply not capable of rational debate. If they give three points, I have the consideration and politeness to reply to all 3. But then they typically distort half of one thing I said, ignore the others, and bring up a raft of ridiculous new points. I’ve come to the conclusion that many people simply a) aren’t intelligent enough b) don’t have sufficiently refined critical thinking skills to debate on this seemingly straightforward level. It’s refreshing whenever I read posts like yours, who do so well, and greatly appreciate my commenters who do so as well, even if I don’t agree with them.
I ‘m a little confused, first of all spousal rape is just a terrifying mortal sin, at least that much should be intuitively obvious. Next, it seems like the original point is just to emphasize that women meed to understand that a normal marriage includes the marital debt. While the husband should NEVER force his wife, he would be possibly justified in seeking a divorce or annulment (barring something physiological) if his wife just abandons the marriage.
If it is a terrifying mortal sin, why hasn’t it been condemned by Christianity as a whole for centuries? Why is is just now in the past three decades illegal? It was invented in the 70’s. Michael, in which church is it a mortal sin? St Friedan’s Cathedral?
T writes: The comparison between sexual and financial obligations ( or financial rape for the overly dramatic) simply doesn’t hold.
I made the comparison originally. Explain to me how it was irrational or unjust, please.
Some chicks probably have days where they don’t want to bang, just like some dudes have the odd day where they don’t want to go into work. Most of the time, functional married people ought to be expected to do their part for the relationship, even if their baser natures are urging them to slack.
That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.
FYI, since T is new I double checked to see if this was the same commenter as AnonT who showed up the other day defending Joel and Kathy. It isn’t, but from looking across her comments I would say it is safe to say she doesn’t accept the biblical command to wives. This is really the point of the post. She doesn’t accept the Scripture but doesn’t have a rational way to argue that it doesn’t mean what it says. So she tried to shame me and others. Note that once I pushed back effectively on this she quickly let that go and claimed not to disagree with me after all.
For context on where she is coming from, here is her very first comment on the site:
Here is her second, responding to the tactics Joel and Kathy propose:
And her third comment:
I mistook her for an omega man at first, but it turns out she is a feminist woman. In my defense, the two can come across nearly identically on this issue. Omega men tend to use the exact same shaming argument on the topic of wives withholding sex that she did. Her being a feminist is ok since there is no orthodoxy required to engage in the discussions here, but the dis-ingeniousness is noteworthy.
I’ve found when someone won’t listen to a logical (or moral) argument, reframing it to point out the logical consequences on a pragmatic level sometimes works. One example –
“Dating that married person is morally wrong” just bounces off.
“If they would leave their spouse, who they swore an oath to before the God and the State, why wouldn’t they leave you when someone better comes along?” is more likely to get through.
It’s still a logical argument, but it hits on an emotional level.
@Michael
I ‘m a little confused, first of all spousal rape is just a terrifying mortal sin, at least that much should be intuitively obvious.
Is it as obvious to you the terrifying mortal sin that is a wife’s rebellion?
“For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord.” – 1 Peter 3:5-6
Anything short of this reads to me that woman has not put their hope in God – what kind of terrifying mortal sin might that be? Which acts of rebellion remain acceptable against someone who is your lord?
I refuse to work at “hitting them on the emotional level” if it happens, fine, but I’ll not be party to that pandering. To be clear pandering was not your motive…I get that….but it’s the effect. It negates whatever HIT you score.
@ dalrock – I did not shame anyone for their beliefs on a wife’s sexual obligation in marriage. I actually said that wives and husbands were both obligated to have sex with each other and that witholding sex is wrong. My first post in this thread made it clear that I think the obligation is there. What shaming are you talking about? I don’t see how my stating that marital rape is uncommon and is an odd thing to bring up in this context is shaming. Was there something else?
The refusal may or may not be the original sin in the chronology of the marital discord. I submit it usually is an original sin in that way. Frankly it boggles my mind, still, that that problem is so prevalent. Look at the broken glass a woman will crawl across to get to the paramour and steam the motel windows, yet the guy who, if little else, is there, working, coming home, doing the stuff of life? She can’t be bothered. It is PROFOUND rebellion, even if she is not actively screwing around….odds are, she would. I do not mean to raise infidelity, I mean to raise the conflicted mess that is the sexually denying woman.
@8oxer
“T writes: The comparison between sexual and financial obligations ( or financial rape for the overly dramatic) simply doesn’t hold.
I made the comparison originally. Explain to me how it was irrational or unjust, please.
Some chicks probably have days where they don’t want to bang, just like some dudes have the odd day where they don’t want to go into work. Most of the time, functional married people ought to be expected to do their part for the relationship, even if their baser natures are urging them to slack.
That’s my position, and I’m sticking to it.”
I agree with you that functional married people ought to do their part even if they feel the urge to slack. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree on the rest as I’ve already explained what I think about it.
I compare apples to apples whenever possible. I think that a woman refusing sex in marriage is like a man refusing sex in marriage. Both have a biblical obligation to have sex, both are in sin when they don’t meet this obligation.
If its possible for you to rape your wife, you married the wrong woman
@Sarah’s Daughter:
To expand on what you said, a woman who submits herself to her husband in this manner tends to get treated very well by the husband. But many seem to have this modern knee-jerk reaction to the idea of “submitting” where they immediately think of a black slave and his cruel white master who’s all too happy to whip the slave.
That’s not the picture being suggested by Scripture. The picture is that of LOVING submission which WINS OVER the man’s heart. After all, does Scripture not also have this to say?
1 Peter 3:1-2 – “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.”
This is how a husband knows that his wife is his crown (Proverbs 12:4). Such a wife is worth far more than rubies (Proverbs 31:10). This isn’t slavish submission, this is loving submission done out of reverence for the Lord and the natural order of His creation, and out of love for her husband.
Michael wrote, “I ‘m a little confused, first of all spousal rape is just a terrifying mortal sin, at least that much should be intuitively obvious.”
At the risk of tediously repeating what I stated earlier, there is no such thing as spousal rape. Rape is the theft of something that does not belong to you. You and your spouse belong to each other. You cannot steal that which you own by right.
The current civil laws of “marital rape” did not exist until the 1970s, and run contrary to common and Western law of millenia. The current laws of “marital rape” were introduced by feminists associated with the “free love” movement, who wanted to do away with marriage altogether. Asserting that there is even any such thing as “marital rape” is a denial of Biblical teaching on marriage and an embrace of atheistic feminism.
Accusing a man of rape for having sex with his own wife is the same as accusing him of breaking and entering for walking in the front door of his own house.
empathologism wrote – I refuse to work at “hitting them on the emotional level” if it happens, fine, but I’ll not be party to that pandering. To be clear pandering was not your motive…I get that….but it’s the effect. It negates whatever HIT you score.
To expand on my example above… if it gets them thinking logically – “What if they do the same thing to me?” – and they amend their behavior, I call it a win. Ideally, they would start thinking morally as well, realizing that if the result would be bad for them, it’s also bad for other people, but I agree that’s often too much to hope for. But it’s still a win to me.
@Soga on January 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM:
This is how a husband knows that his wife is his crown (Proverbs 12:4). Such a wife is worth far more than rubies (Proverbs 31:10). This isn’t slavish submission, this is loving submission done out of reverence for the Lord and the natural order of His creation, and out of love for her husband.
What’s fascinating here, is that the reaction of the feminists and the Jezebels towards submitting to a husband, is quite similar to the reaction of atheists towards submission to God:
“I’m not going to give up my life for a man. Why should he tell me what to do? Marriage is just sexist, we should be free to love whoever we want, whenever we want.” (feminist)
“I have my dignity, I’m not a slave, I’m not going to cower in fear, I’m my own person.” (atheist)
And yet — submission to a husband, like submission to God, doesn’t *require* fear or loss of identity; there is lawful, willing, *loyal* obedience as well — contrast a dog and its master.
The Dog loves and trusts Master; and genuinely wants to please for the sake of love and the sake of the relationship. On the other hand, dogs seem to know when they’ve done something wrong, and react accordingly:
Innocent and Guilty Dog
It sometimes makes me wonder how much of the fuss directed towards authority is nothing more than a guilty conscience chafing against being caught.
You are way to polite Dalrock. The correct response is “how often do you rape yourself?” After all the shocked looks and stuttering, this is followed by “the Word states husband and wife are one flesh, do you believe this?”
If they do, then obviously there can be no rape. If they deny the bible they aren’t Christian, and you don’t need to bother with them.
They are a brood of vipers, everyone needs to stop being so nice!
Dalrocks post is ironic to say the least ….
What is the difference between with a relationship & a marriage you can walkout of anytime with a divorce for cash prizes & stripped of your goods
Divorce is the ultimate reframe of a lifetime commitment
What is the point of a contract you can easily walk out of wiyj bribes to destroy that contract
Divorce reframed a lifetime commitment to something you can walk out of
There was a time when marriage benefited society thanx to divorce it harms the very ppl who initiate it
Only a deliberate act of social engineering could turn something of great benefit to something as destructive & damaging to society
Feminism IS marxism
First they went after the families, marriage & children
Then they went after small businesses & the communities
Feminism speak the language of communism & marxism schools of thought for a reason
There’s a reason the U.S mirrors the destruction of the family in communist states
Feminism is a social phenomenon
Divorce is a social phenomenon
ALL social phenomenona require massive wealth to propagate through a resistant public
ALL social phenomenon require deliberate planning to overcome generational resistance of hundreds of years of tradition
It is statistically impossible to destroy a traditional patriarchal in just 50 years
The ultimate reframe is the rise of a compulsory $1 an hour wage already instituded in Britain
Destroy marriage & you create the ultimate dependant on government
The single mother & her children
& those who don’t capitulate will be promoted as rapists, pedophiles & stripped of their rights
The rise of the $1 slave is the reason we have mass funding & destruction of the family
Women worship culture, men fight against culture, government enslaves through refraining morality & ethics
Subversion is always deliberate & it’s effects premeditated
The $1 dollar slave is the single mother of the future
The $1 dollar slave is the family of tomorrow
You cannot have damage so great as divorce unless it has a very deliberate effect
The $1 dollar slave is already here, it’s called child support
@mackPUA:
Even if you happen to be a happy go lucky atheist yourself, you should probably be able to understand that for people who are not, there’s a profound difference between “relationships” and marriage. I mean, this isn’t exactly rocket science, is it?
And we’re all aware that the state currently disincentives marriage for any man, to the extent that you actually have to be more than a little… eh, optimistic, let’s call it… to even consider it in America these days. Of course the easy conclusion is to drop all that and just use women for your enjoyment as the slabs of meat that the vast majority of them are.
But for some of us, that’s not really a satisfactory conclusion. Because in the current climate, getting a bunch of eager whores to polish your wiener is no great feat. To find a woman – even, or, tragically, especially, a self-professed Christian one – who’s worthy of being considered marriage material is akin to playing Russian roulette with 5 bullets in the chamber. Those of us that would actually prefer a marriage to a never ending string of bitches are somewhat disappointed with that.
But rest assured that you needn’t tell us marriage in America today is a horrible idea for men with at least a double-digit IQ. We know.
So there we have it: T at 08.09 requires compulsory sex from men, but I have always maintained that ‘it’s my body’ – and frankly and indelicately I just do not get a hard on without cause. Can she be correct however? for only yesterday we learnt over here that it was possible to be a consecrated Bishop of the Church of England, yet in a relationship or civil partnership with another man (who knows’ perhaps another Bishop?) provided that they remain celibate. What exactly is the Biblical position on that! for surely the general Synod of The Church can hardly be mistaken. Either way, I passed the Bridal Shop on my perambulations this morning and observed a young woman looking somewhat pensive as she tried on her Bridal Dress. She wasn’t fat, nor ugly, and I choose not to believe that she is anything other than good wife material. Lots of small children out with their parents this morning – its damp and overcast – and thus rather mild for the time of year.
Grey Whiskers
Off topic but thanks for posting that vid…..I cracked up watching it. Confessed uber dog lover here, and that’s classic.
Women worship culture, men fight against culture, government enslaves through refraining morality & ethics
Excellent way of stating how liberalism is a skid greaser for feminism and the converse. Regardless when one is in front of the either, they slide down the slope enjoined.
Well said Mack. I’ve written about it before about the connections and collective goals of feminism, communism (probably all socialism), and atheism. The destruction of the family is always part of it.
“which”, not “when”….one
@empathologism on January 5, 2013 at 7:30 am —
The video was quite on-topic if you interpreted it in light of the accompanying post: the illustration of guilty vs. innocent responses to an accusation.
(“The world hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil.”) — John 7:7
But I’m glad you liked the comic relief.
@Alpha Mission,
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
Great list of quotes compiled by Sarah’s Daughter:
http://sarahsdaughterblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-poison-of-vipers-is-on-their-lips.html
Guys— Let’s not chase T away. A good learning tool, it is.
observed a young woman looking somewhat pensive as she tried on her Bridal Dress
Why pensive? Like a game show, it is the gateway to cash and prizes
The video was perfectly on topic…..and it was also hilarious. My 21 year old daughter and I shared a good moment over coffee and watching it. That’s priceless.
Maybe this is what we need in churches these days…
@JHJ
I read him as saying exactly the opposite. He seems to be quite aware of the profound differences between “relationships” and marriage. He is merely pointing out that what is being passed off legally and to a large degree morally as the latter is in fact the former. I don’t see this as a challenge to the ideal of biblical marriage, but as a criticism of the rampant corruption of the ideal being passed off as the real thing. To the extent that I’m reading him correctly there, I don’t disagree.
@mackPUA
Squirrels!
The introduction of the American squirrel (as in the video) more or less killed off the native and smaller British red squirrel. Some squirrels are very tame – such as those in The Regents Park – and will take food from your hand though they are not very bright as the pigeons promptly dig up the acorns the squirrels bury; but those squirrels on Hampstead Heath, are, I find less tame: thus the squirrels (in The Regent’s Park, more familiar with humans) evolve.
Every protestant church I’ve been to is full of women and limp wristed men who cry like john boener. Are there any manly churches?
@T M,
There are no perfect churches. All churches have blind spots.
Consider one of these:
http://www.ncfic.org/
Pingback: » Reframe as ad hominem (or shift the goalposts) - Dark Brightness
Thanks for the link, Bee. I can’t take credit for compiling the list, a commenter over at Vox Popoli did that, unfortunately I have no idea who it was or which post it was from to give them credit. It was a long while ago that I saved it in my documents,
@Stymied
@Soga
To expand on what you said, a woman who submits herself to her husband in this manner tends to get treated very well by the husband. But many seem to have this modern knee-jerk reaction to the idea of “submitting” where they immediately think of a black slave and his cruel white master who’s all too happy to whip the slave.
If I could invite any woman who questions the power of submission to live in my shoes for one week, she would never question it again. She too would stand in awe of God’s amazing protection wrapped tightly around a couple who have truly become one. She would smile and laugh more than she ever has and have her heart bursting with a love she’s never felt before. She would honestly hate her own self for wasting so much time in rebellion – I did.
Late to the party, haven’t read all the comments.
T wrote: Basically in real life application most women are in no danger of marital rape. So again, I’m not sure why people are so focused on the issue whenever that passage is brought up.
First, I am glad you recognize this, even though you still validate the concept of marital rape, which then still gives it all the necessary power of gubmint and john-laaaah. A claim need only be a claim to bring down the full weight of white nuts all over the unsuspecting husband.
The reason that people become so focused on that particular issue is that (and I believe this is ideology-agnostic – we all can do it) the argument must be taken to its absurd and illogical extreme so that if one disagrees, they can be branded and thus dismissed. (deference to Dalrock and commenters for explaining this in more detail here.)
“You’d ban abortion for rape victims???”
“”
I have said several times in the ‘sphere that sexual refusal is a hot button for me. I am bittersweetly glad to see that so many of my observations over the last 15 years or so, most of which was churchian, are corroborated amongst the folks here – “spiritual sex”, “lustful desires”, etc. No one I have ever met has been willing to take this on. Well, one pastor did. Once. Briefly. Aside from that, not only were my desires dismissed, but they were even used against me by one pastor when I challenged the actions of a visiting speaker, relative to the attractive female members of the congregation. Not only myself but others I found out, were all creeped out how dude was referring to young women, picking the hottest ones for individual ministry. “Based on the things you have told me about your marriage, I think you might be overly concerned.”
Further now, many women at many times don’t know how much they want to have sex until they are actually engaged. How then, does a man get that motor running without crossing the line into sexual assault? Answer in the current climate? he can’t.
@ coffeecrazed – I think that marital rape is certainly possible. Sexual intercourse forced on a person is rape. Luckily men are in even less danger of being accused of marital rape than women are of actually being raped by their husbands.
Luckily men are in even less danger of being accused of marital rape than women are of actually being raped by their husbands.
I don’t know what planet you live on, but a quick trip to the divorce courts anywhere in North America will disprove this handily.
Over half of the men who wind up getting divorced have all sorts of bizarre accusations printed up, and often read out openly, and these usually include “marital rape”.
I’m sure a tiny fraction of these accusations have some basis in fact. The vast majority seem to be concocted bullshit that has become the SOP in a divorce trial. This is evident when you see the judge or commissioner rolling his eyes or fighting off sleep during the list of the male’s horrible “rape” accusations. They’re so common, even the people hearing the case accept them as utterly meaningless.
@T
Please read what Boxer has written. He says it all so much more eloquently than I.
@coffeecrazed
The mechanisms work differently in men and women.
Men: Desire => Interaction with partner => Arousal
Women Interaction with partner => Arousal => Desire
In the US, 8oxer’s assertion is testable by the simple and obvious method of sitting through a day or two of divorce court / family court proceedings. All one has to do is go to the right place, sit quietly and pay attention.
Apparently even that small effort is too much for many people, such as White Knights, and a whole lot of average women.
Someone should remind them what Jesus said about what will happen to those who are ashamed of Him before men…
Pingback: “I Do” means “Yes” | Something Fishy
Oh man,..you’re gonna love this one Dal:
http://imgur.com/a/lVbsQ
[D: Make it stop!]
Sunshine Mary says:
Just a little side-bar, not to get off track, but for any newer people who are reading we should be careful to note that “raping” your wife is illegal in the United States. Even if you believe you have the spiritual right to do this, don’t rape your wife. You could end up going to jail.
But this is the point. There is no rape of a wife in marriage. It is another changing of terms to fit feminist lawlessness. Therefore the only recourse is to divorce her, because if she has held this idea that she controls her body, when Scripture says not, then she never validly made her marriage vows before God – and the man if free.
It will not get any better, only worse. This is kind of a first shot across the bow that there is no marriage, and if the man does not end it quickly she will end up with everything he has, for mental cruelty, or some such b.s. reason.
Another awesome post Dal and I liked your table. I’m posting before reading the comments so excuse me if this has been touched on. My wife and I are both believers, married almost three years. Initially she didn’t understand the importance of frequent married sex. I was in Hell the first year of marriage with the 1-2 sex episodes/month
.
I went to the young couples pastor at church who was an Omega, married about 15 years or so (told me him and his wife didn’t have sex much either and it was ultimately her decision) and only saw him that one time for advice. I fought with the idea of divorce because I was tired of living a sinful life of having sex out of marriage and wanted this to work. My wife and I waited til we were married to have sex by the way. She had one previous partner.
She’s familiar with the verse you mentioned in your opening and the sex has increased but to be honest, it really sucks. She has a ton of stipulations and rules which destroys the passion and spontaneity of it. Plus the fact that she jumps out of bed immediately afterwards to “clean up” kills the mood—oh, and there’s the pressure to “hurry up and c*m” thing that I hate. I’ve never been a porn watcher in my life (never interested me) but these last few months have gotten into it. Is this what Christian marriage sex is? I can’t talk about this with my guy friends. The sex feels like a duty she’s fulfilling. Any input is appreciated.
@Tacomaster:
You’re going to hate this, but I’d put huge money on the “(s)he had one previous partner” is likely a lie. It might not be too much higher, but the likelihood will complicate matters.
At minimum, we can say a few things: 1) she doesn’t burn passionately for you (since you probably just tagged yourself as Beta, that’s “Beta Bucks” lurking around) and 2) she wants to keep complete control of sex in your marriage. She is in open rebellion against you inside your marriage, and you’re at a high risk of Divorce. You, at the moment, are your utility to you wife, at least in part of her brain. You need to be very mindful.
Before you push for massive changes, a warning, as well. Make sure you’ve contacted a lawyer and that your finances are set so you take the least impact in a divorce. Getting that squared away at least puts you in a position so you know what could happen if she decides to blow things up.
Next, keep reading around here and others parts of the manosphere. You have a lot to learn. RG3’s place (not the real one, he’s just a big fan) http://offensewins.com/ might also be good. Changing yourself will “force” a whole lot of the changes, but you’re also going to upset the applecart. Don’t expect this to be the smoothest of transitions.
Or, put your head in the sand and hope that her whims don’t take her somewhere else, especially once (if) you have children.
I’m with Dalrock: that was just painful to read.
The author, Bill Gothard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gothard ) is an example of how socons older than about 45 or so don’t have any clue about what is happening on the ground. In their mind it is still 1955.
Greenlander…..yes us old men trad cons are lost , still thinking I Dream of Genie is too titillating.
Oy, swipes like this are actually reflective of another demographic who seem to have no clue whats happening. Sheesh.
I wanted to add, lead with your ideology, it makes ducking the punch tons easier.
@ tacomaster – this is why it makes no sense at all to point to some Bible verses about sexual obligation if you want a good sex life. She’s obligated, she acknowledges it and now what? She lies there,, still not wanting sex but having it. No fun for anyone. She’s not attracted to you. Figure out why and fix that.
@T
“She’s not attracted to you. Figure out why and fix that.”
No. You are describing female headship. Fixed.
@unwonblingpivot – finding out why your wife would rather visit the dentist then have sex with you is female headship? Lol, if you say so. OK then. He can continue to have teeth cleaning sex.
@T
You simply cannot resist attempting to dominate. It’s extremely unattractive.
@Unwobbling pivot – if you say so. I suppose you have a suggestion for how taco master can improve the quality of his marital sex life that don’t involve increasing his attractiveness to his wife?
The dentist is more attractive to her because she has lost her hypergamy restraint?
Actually, here is whats happening,
Buried in that little quote is all the information you need (actually in a word, newness), T, that is the motive for NOT having sex with hubby. If you think there is present some fix that relies on the husband you are …..well we know you are, deceived.
@T
“@Unwobbling pivot – if you say so. I suppose you have a suggestion for how taco master can improve the quality of his marital sex life that don’t involve increasing his attractiveness to his wife?”
My first suggestion would be for him to ignore you.
A better option is to be encouraged by the example of SarahsDaughter.
t
To my mind, a strong (Godly) frame says to “What are you going to do about it?” with, “Dismiss you from the polite company of fellowship with God under the obedience He requires in recognition of what God has done himself”. Recognizing the condition of disobedience and rebellion should really help crystallize this point in our minds, the denying obstinate wife is striking out at her husband in the place that it will hurt him most in their relationship and the feminist will state that not only does she have a RIGHT to do so, but that she is OBLIGATED to do so in order to bring her man in to submission as is good and proper in the world as it is.
I come from a tradition that practices a form of shunning, a recognition that a person has broken fellowship with God and that pretending that they haven’t is doing them a disservice. What is ignoring a wives passive aggression and rebellion to the authority established over her?
I think we need to let it soak in, both into us and to our wives, repeatedly if necessary. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and their is no room for it in the Body of Christ or in His house. That goes for US as men AND them. Feminism is nothing more than rebellion against the authorities that God has established. How as husbands (and men) do we go about countering it? How do we redeem and restore? First we need to realize the scope of the problem.
There is rarely a suggestion that will make the man more attractive to his wife because the dynamic that suggest is just one big shit test. Ok sure, if he stinks…bathe, if he is obese, loose weight….etc…..but its silly to assume those things when sexual denial is present in a huge percentage of Christian marriages.
Check this out: http://www.ivillage.com/married-sex-survey/6-b-165966
Must be his fault.
Did they?, Its a trick question to put a nice veneer on the survey
Are they kidding? Celebrating that half the women recall that the pool boy was hotter in bed?
Poor dears
Maybe that best sex dude
If only the man would DO something to make himself more attractive, right?
The whole thing is framed as a win. Not surprising since, as T illustrates, when looking at sex through the lens of it being pay for performance—what can HE do to fix it—-then they can say look here this number of guys have adapted the right Pavlovian response set.
@IArtLaughing – but she’s not in rebellion. She is fulfilling her sexual obligations and not enjoying it.
Cheerful Heart T……giving grudgingly is not giving……rebellion indeed. The mere act of giving is to be enjoyable.
Because being obedient to God is such drudgery? Is that your testimony?
But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
(2Co 9:6-8)
I would also add, that a Godly wife has purposed in her heart and before witnesses to submit her body to her husband. To renegotiate is as covenant breaking as adultery.
@empathologism
Not knowing you personally, I am unable to judge.
I concede that it’s possible that you are unlike 99% of your Baby Boomer Christian brethren, in which case I salute you.
Sex for these women is predictable and boring because they have taken over as head of the family. They decide when sex happens and in what form. Then, of course, since women usually do not know what they really want, they are bored with their own repeated choices. AND SO IS THE HUSBAND.
A truly submissive wife will let her husband decide what he wants to do next, and in most cases, she will not be bored and it won’t be predictable.
Unless he is a Christian pastor, hee, hee. I remember some years ago the pastor of the woman’s church my wife attended giving a sermon to men, telling them to be more considerate of their wives emotional needs. So, what prompted this White Knight sermon?
After 25 years of marriage, this loser discovered that his wife loved it when he rubbed her feet so he felt compelled to share his vast new knowledge with the other poor sinners who naturally had no idea of such things, not being ordained ministers. [/sarcasm]
A minor marital game report.
I have done some game with my wife in the past, not important things, just minor stuff that came to me. One is when she leaves on the bus to go to the border to visit her grandson for some weeks, I tell her to give me a big propaganda (advertising) kiss. Implying when the local talent see me giving her a big kiss at the bus they are naturally going to come running. Heh, heh.
But, the latest was I started giving my wife a sound slap on her fanny when I do give her a kiss. The first time she acted surprised. The second time I did it, she snuggled in closer. Now, once in a while, she gives me a sound slap on my fanny. And, yes, it does turn me, on, too.
Some young men think their lives will be over at a certain age. I guarantee you, if things go well, you can have a satisfactory sex life within marriage well into your 70’s. It is more complicated, but it still works. It’s all in the attitude. Yours and hers.
Things did get slow for a while. Until her cousin started telling her about the young women who told him they wanted me in their bed. Seriously. It is now well established that you are much more attractive to your wife if she knows young hotties want you. I can personally vouch for that. 37 years of marriage, faithful.
@T – Your entire frame is inverted. Your prescription violates the principle (crude as it may be): Pussy is a good servant, but a terrible master. Your advice is to encourage a man to allow himself to be pussy-whipped. The vagina reigns supreme. Be a slave. This is slavery every bit as much as porn addiction would be–and you essentially promote this form of slavery. Within marriage no less.
Nevermind that Christ died to set us free.
BTW, to clarify:
Porn addiction is a violation of a similar principle. “The penis is a good servant, but a terrible master”
“Your wife is not attracted to you, figure out why and fix it.?
So basically all a woman has to do is cultivate a deep and abiding disinterest in the husband she promised her body to and she can convert him into a slave. Well, that was easy. Yep,that is the sex denying strategy for marital domination in a nutshell.
Also, T ignored the fact that I was ignoring her. My initial comment didn’t have anything to do with her derail so she tried to derail that too.
@Tacomaster
Thank you. Don’t let her frame it as “her not understanding”. This is as others have pointed out manipulation and rebellion. Withholding sex is the go-to method Christian wives are using to try to get their husbands to “submit”. If there was any question as to what happened in the first year, your description of what is happening now removes any doubt:
To point out what she is doing, imagine if “you didn’t know” that part of your role as a husband was to work to provide for the family. As a result, you played video games during the first year. Then due to the magic of “communication”, you realized that you have a responsibility to provide for your family, and set about going through the motions of providing, but not as men are wont to do (seriously work or at least seriously look for work), but with a never ending series of complaints, always managing to make the quality of your work so close to unacceptable that any boss would be insane to want to keep you around. Or more simply, imagine if every time she wanted a hug you sighed loudly, said “ok lets get it over with”, and once it was “done” you pushed her away and ran to the shower, frantically scrubbing yourself as if she had “girl cooties”.
Her rebellion is absolute because she is not only rebelling against the Scripture, she knows she is in rebellion. This is one of those cases where the coverup proves the intent better than anything, especially since she continues both to rebel and to do everything possible to cover this up. Her response to the verse isn’t a sincere “I’m not convinced”, it is “What are you going to do about it?”. This is as I mentioned above an extremely common form of rebellion on both this topic and headship, and the two are very closely related. In her case what are you going to do about it refers to her deciding to put on this intentionally hurtful* bit of “I’m a poor abused wife with a creepy husband” bit of theater. She wants to frame this as you not being able to restrain your own baser urges, but the reality is your desire is pure and this is her not restraining her own baser urges (Gen 3:16). Don’t ever let this fool you; in doing so you would be failing in your role of headship and you will also be failing a shit test. As Roissy explains, that you know it is a shit test and fail it anyways actually makes the failure far worse. Men tend to think that since we at least saw what she was doing we would get partial credit, but the opposite is true.
You’ve already gone to your pastor and he was sadly but predictably of no help. This is a disaster because your marriage is in absolute crisis. The bright side here is that it doesn’t sound like you have any children yet. Whatever you do, don’t have any children with her until/unless she has truly repented and committed to being your (biblical) wife. This is the most important piece of immediate advice I can give you. If you fail this shit test and give her children in the process your hole will get 10x deeper. If you don’t understand how much more power she will have if that happens both over you and to harm your children, let me know and I’ll explain that in detail. Right now you are complaining of chemical burns due to being soaked in gasoline. If she gets pregnant this is lighting a match. There is also a very good chance she has this in mind, because she is demonstrating that she doesn’t want to be married to be your wife (in either the secular or biblical definition). She wants something else out of the deal. Legitimacy and support for her children is very likely why she married a man she is at least pretending she ranges from having no passion for to (if we were to believe her theater) finds sex distasteful with. What women in this position will often do is “suddenly” realize how much they want to have sex with their husband once they want to get pregnant. At this point, all of T’s shaming arguments go straight out the window and somehow she is able to perform for reasons other than the stars somehow aligned and she is in the mood. Somehow when she has the objective of getting pregnant, having sex with her husband to achieve an objective other than strictly her immediate sexual desire will become no problem whatsoever. In fact, knowing that she has an obligation to have sex with her husband could very well (for that moment only) become truly sexy for her. She might not actually be faking it when she suddenly becomes aroused by the idea of “get pregnant” sex. Wives knowing they have an obligation to sex their husbands generally find this very sexy. Unfortunately unless she has a profound change of conscience and truly repents for her rebellion here this effect will only occur long enough for her to bring hostages (children) into the deal.
You should learn game and understand what makes husbands attractive to their wives. I would start here, and then follow the resources linked from there (or find ones you like better, the manosphere is full of game advice, and different approaches resonate better with different men and women). But do not allow this to become framed as you need to improve for her to honor her marriage vows. Read all of T’s comments in this thread and my responses to her to understand how this will be framed and why it is wrong (use your browser search feature to search for “T says:”, “Dalrock says:” and “@T”). One question I can’t answer for you is at what point rebellion becomes biblical cause for divorce. Unfortunately your pastor isn’t interested in what the Bible has to say on marriage, probably because like nearly all other Christians he has become ashamed of it in our feminist age. This is tragic.
The next post I have in the works should also help to clarify what is going on here. What you are going through is extremely common.
You will be in my prayers.
*Acknowledge the obvious truth to yourself that she is intentionally hurting you here, but do this from a frame of noticing that someone is punching you in the face is acting hostile. Don’t approach her with a conversation of how much this hurts you, and don’t think that way in your mind. You wouldn’t tell a mugger “you really hurt me when you just punched me in the face and demanded my wallet”. This will be perceived by him as laughable weakness, and rightly so. Wives very quickly fall into feeling contempt for their husbands when they perceive them as acting weak when they should simply put down the rebellion. Also remember that she wants you to put down her rebellion deep down. She is miserable being in this state. Again my upcoming post should help explain this.
@Tacomaster..Plus the fact that she jumps out of bed immediately afterwards to “clean up” kills the mood
Years ago, men called this sperm attack, a misnomer. But, yes, some women view semen as some sort of lethal, toxic substance, and the slightest drop really messes up their mind.
It does not necessarily correlate with low enjoyment of sex, as one would expect.
A few years ago, a study showed that women who had unprotected sex generally were much more content than those who didn’t. Which agreed with my long-term theory that hormonal transfer during sex tends to be much more satisfying to both men and women than the orgasms themselves.
If women were smart, they’d rub that stuff into the skin on their stomachs.
That also brings up interesting thoughts about women who swallow, no?
Anon, age 70.
Athol Kay points that out in his book “Married Man’s Sex Primer”. It’s the testosterone in the semen that is doing the trick. Testosterone makes all of us feel better. Do we think God is saying something there? I do.
@empath – I agree that she should be cheerful about it, but being cheerful isnt going to make her husband any more sexually attractive to her, or make the sex any more of a turn on. I can’t think of any reason that a wife would turn down repeatedly a pleasurable sexual experience with her husband. I can only assume that either the experience as not been pleasurable in the past and she has no hope that it will improve or that she finds her husband so unattractive sexually that sex with him can only be obligation.
@ Unwobblingpivot- I don’t suggest that he be a slave to her whims, but he should make sure that he is a sexually attractive man with reasonable bedroom skills. Basically before you place 100% of the blame on someone else and absolve yourself of responsibility for the problem, make sure that you’ve done enough. Do members of the opposite sex in general find tacomaster attractive? if not then the problem might not be his wife.
If a woman complained that her husband didn’t find her attractive, I wouldn’t tell her to read him some Bible verses and wait for him to change. I would tell her to make sure that she was attractive in personality and appearance first and to make an effort to attract him.
@T
“Basically before you place 100% of the blame on someone else and absolve yourself of responsibility for the problem, make sure that you’ve done enough. Do members of the opposite sex in general find tacomaster attractive? if not then the problem might not be his wife.”
As you attempt to order us men around, you make yourself highly unattractive. Why would that give any of us any confidence in your advice on enhancing attractiveness?
I have demonstrated the rebelliousness of your approach with my previous comment, yet you sweep it away and go right back to your original approach.
The basic idea is that you continue to operate on the same dynamic that we see in the Fall. I’ve got this tasty thing here and I want to be the leader. You can have some of it, but it will require you follow my lead to get some of it.
We know that’s a dead end. Christ came to fix that. To keep playing that game is an affront to our salvation. And to our Savior.
Freedom. The truth sets us free.
@Soga: You said, “That’s not the picture being suggested by Scripture. The picture is that of LOVING submission which WINS OVER the man’s heart. After all, does Scripture not also have this to say? 1 Peter 3:1-2 – ‘Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.’”
One of the lowest points in my marriage came when I pointed out to my Christian wife (who refused to deposit “her” earnings into our joint bank account and refused to have sex with me because, though I am also a Christian, I wasn’t spiritual or righteous enough to be worthy of her respect), based on the 1 Peter passage you’ve cited, that even if I were an unsaved, ungodly husband, God would require her to be submissive to me as a means of changing me . . . and her response was: “Maybe it’s easier to live with an unsaved husband.” Six months later she filed for divorce for the second and final time.
@garyb: You said, “At this point, the wife responded ‘Well God will just have to forgive me.’ Yes dear, I hope He does. We’re separated now.”
Sorry, man. I hope and pray your separation brings her to her senses before it becomes a divorce. Didn’t happen for me, despite pastoral and professional Christian counselor admonishments to her that she was in the wrong. Immediately after the divorce was final, she met (online) and fell in love with a guy (whom she married one year later) because he used to be a lay pastor, talks a good spiritual game, and presumably hasn’t ever looked at pornography (or, much more likely, has successfully lied to her about it). For her, those criteria outweigh his two previous divorces, his affair with the woman who became his second wife, his physical assault on his second wife while their divorce was pending, etc. Unbelievable (non)reasoning.
@Dalrock
Don’t let her frame it as “her not understanding”. This is as others have pointed out manipulation and rebellion
I’m so glad you said this. I have been speaking of my prior rebellion as “not understanding Biblical submission.” This is dishonest and a subtle way I’ve attempted to relinquish my responsibility to my rebellion. I can read. I can understand the clear meaning of 1 Peter 3. It was never lack of understanding. It was rebellion to the commands of God that I didn’t like.
Dalrock said: “She wants to frame this as you not being able to restrain your own baser urges, but the reality is your desire is pure and this is her not restraining her own baser urges (Gen 3:16).”
Man, I wish I’d read that 15 years ago (or more). I knew deep down that my desire for my wife was not a base urge but was instead a God-intended desire. But I couldn’t seem to communicate that successfully to her, and either no one else (books, teachers, pastors, counselors) tried or they weren’t any more articulate or persuasive than I was. Perhaps the key to what I (wrongly?) perceived as my inability to communicate and/or her lack of understanding was the absence of the second part of your statement: neither I nor anyone else ever told her that her mindset was a failure to restrain her own baser urges. I didn’t take it far enough in my own thought processes. Won’t happen again.
@unwobbling pivot – I certainly don’t expect you to have read every single one of my posts, but I have already conceded that a wife does owe her husband sex. He shouldn’t have to do anything other than be her husband to get it. Even if he is fat, smelly, a premature ejaculator, emotionally unavailable, or generally terrible in bed she owes him sex as long as they are married, even if he makes no effort to improve any of those things. (Not saying he is those things, obviously) But according to tacomaster she is having sex with him. Just bad sex that she doesn’t enjoy. I don’t see that as a submission issue, as she has already submitted. It is clearly an attraction issue or maybe a sexual performance issue. Even dalrock told him to learn what attracts wives to their husbands amid all of his other advice, so I don’t see why my saying figure out what you can do to be more attractive to wife is “ordering” men around or a rebellious approach.
I think that marital rape is certainly possible. Sexual intercourse forced on a person is rape.
How can someone write two sentences, one after the other, that are directly and obviously contradictory? If “sexual intercourse forced on a person is rape” (and I agree with that), then “marital rape” is impossible, since each spouse said “I do” during the marriage ceremony. No forcing involved.
James B. Oakes:
If “sexual intercourse forced on a person is rape” (and I agree with that), then “marital rape” is impossible, since each spouse said “I do” during the marriage ceremony. No forcing involved.
You (and others) are failing to distinguish between a right and its enforcement. I’ve noted this before and I note it again now: it is possible for it to be morally wrong for the wife to refuse and, at the same time, for it to be morally wrong for the husband to physically force her.
Suppose someone has possession of a loaf of bread that I own. It is perfectly coherent for someone to claim that I have a right to the bread, on the one hand, but that it is morally wrong for me to shoot the person who has it in order to recover what is mine.
Whether one agrees with this moral understanding is a different matter, of course. But it is perfectly coherent to hold that, at one and the same time, the wife does moral wrong in witholding sex and at the same time the husband does moral wrong in physically forcing her to have sex (raping her).
Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is elementary ethics.
I saw Zippy Catholic respond and hoped he was going to take issue with Dalrocks advice to Taco (to withhold sperm until his wife improves their sex life). I can’t argue from the Bible-only Christian perspective but I do know that from the Catholic perspective that contraceptive sex is bad medicine for marital problems. I was hoping someone (other than me) might engage Dalrock on this matter.
@Gabriella
I’m saying something different. This isn’t about his “sex life”. His wife is in open rebellion against her role as a biblical wife. Bringing children into such a marriage is an extremely bad idea, and it is from a practical matter extremely likely to end up in divorce. I am saying deal with the rebellion before bringing children into the marriage. She is in rebellion, and like so many others your response is “so what are you going to do about it?”. From a Catholic perspective this would seem like one of the rare cases where an annulment is justified. She rejects the biblical role of wife and has from the very beginning. She married him under false pretenses and only after the wedding did he find out she rejected this (because he was chaste prior to marriage). Plus, they don’t have any children. It would be better if the church can intevene and convince her to honor her role as a wife, but his church isn’t interested in biblical marriage, as he described.
@Zippy
Suppose someone has possession of a loaf of bread that I own. It is perfectly coherent for someone to claim that I have a right to the bread, on the one hand, but that it is morally wrong for me to shoot the person who has it in order to recover what is mine.
How far do you want to take this poorly thought out comparison (geesh, we’ve gone from cheetos to now a loaf of bread)? Suppose someone has kidnapped your daughter, is it morally wrong for you to shoot the person to recover what is yours? Did I go too far? Okay, how about an intruder in your home about to steal all of your possessions? Still morally wrong to shoot them to protect what is yours?
Funny how that pesky Bible talks so much about this issue. As if it is of MUCH greater import than flippin cheetos and a loaf of bread.
One more thought Gabriella. I recall you writing previously about separation. Would you agree that this could be an option for a husband with a wife in open rebellion against the biblical role of wife? Would he need to continue having sex with her during such a separation?
I read Tacomaster’s comment with sadness (and more than a little recognition).
Taco, I have been there.
You’ve gotten good advice. I echo fully what Dalrock and Looking Glass have said.
I suspect this is about you not being attractive to your wife. Perhaps you were at one time and she is no longer; perhaps she never was attracted to you. I know you are hurt. But you cannot approach your wife from the standpoint of injury. Instead you should tell her in no uncertain terms that her conduct is not acceptable. She’s not acting like a wife. She’s being not only disobedient, but defiant and rebellious.
The thing to do here is a gradual shift from her frame to yours. You will need to construct a frame.
You should detach from her, emotionally and sexually. Stop having sex with her. Stop touching her, hugging her and kissing her. Stop telling her you love her. If she tells you she loves you, don’t respond in kind. Simply say “OK” or “Thanks”.
You should no longer concern yourself with her feelings or emotions. Do not respond to her emotional displays. Do not try to console, explain or mollify. Do not show her your emotions. YOu don’t need to take on a completely flat emotional affect. Instead simply be emotionally guarded, as you would conduct yourself at work.
Do not make any major decisions in which you would need her input, such as a major purchase of a car or house, or sizable expenses, or changing jobs. Those will have to be delayed until your marriage is under control.
Increase your decisionmaking without her input. You don’t need to ask her permission to buy a new work shirt or shoes, or a six pack of beer. You don’t even need to tell her you’re going to do it. Just go do it without excuse or apology.
At some point very soon you will need to tell her what’s going on. You will need to spell out for her that she is withholding sex from you, that she obviously doesn’t like sex with you, that this is not acceptable to you, and that you don’t intend to live in a marriage like this. You need to make clear this is a grave threat to your marriage, and that it could be the end of her marriage to you. With regard to the last sentence: DO NOT SAY THIS TO HER UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO DIVORCE HER. You need to be ready to walk this all the way out, because divorce very well might be the only workable solution in the face of an intractable spouse who either cannot or will not change.
This all needs to be in the frame not of you increasing your attractiveness or what you are going to do. All this needs to be squarely in the frame of her rebellion, disobedience, and disrespect for your and your marriage. Do not deviate from that frame. Do not be lured into a discussion of your shortcomings. That can be discussed another day. Today the topic is Wife’s disrespect and rebellion, and the threat it poses to this marriage. Do not be lured into navel gazing about her emotions, feelings or problems. They very weill might be at the root of the disrespect; but today the fact of the disrespect, rebellion and disobedience needs to be at the forefront of the discussion and the potential consequences.
If you have this kind of discussion with her, do not talk about being hurt or injured or your feelings or your emotions. Show controlled anger and firmness. Turn the frame back on her: “What are you going to do about it?”
After this you will know whether she is willing to take steps to remedy the problem, or if you need to move toward ending your marriage.
Sarah’s Daughter:
How far do you want to take this poorly thought out comparison (geesh, we’ve gone from cheetos to now a loaf of bread)?
It isn’t a comparison or analogy. It is a counterexample, and it has nothing to do with Shiela Gregiore’s ridiculous cheetos analogy.
The proposed principle is that because the husband has a moral right to willing sex from his wife due to her previous commitment on the wedding day (call this Right[1]), he also has the moral right to forcible sex as his enforcement of Right[1] when she refuses to perform (call this Right[2]).
Several people have asked (quoting one of them) “How can someone write two sentences, one after the other, that are directly and obviously contradictory?”
They aren’t contradictory. A right to X does not imply a right to enforce X in any manner that one sees fit.
I used property as a counterexample (not an analogy) to remove the emotion and introduce logic into the discussion. The right to a piece of property does not imply a (different) right to violently enforce the first right in any manner that the owner sees fit. Examples can be multiplied, but those examples would not be analogies: they would be counterexamples.
The right to X does not imply a right to enforce the right to X in any manner that one sees fit. Again, this is elementary ethics, and if people cannot see past the particulars in order to grasp this very basic point they probably ought to take a few steps back and spend some time thinking it through.
Gabriella:
I saw Zippy Catholic respond and hoped he was going to take issue with Dalrocks advice to Taco.
There is far too much daylight between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of marriage for me to even begin to address many of the claims made in here on the subject. For example, from the Catholic perspective the allowable circumstances for real, ontological divorce are NEVER, PERIOD. Doesn’t matter what she does: if you are validly married, that lasts until death and you must not attempt to remarry someone else. I say “attempt” because no second Christian marriage is ever valid … pagan (non-sacramental) marriages are dissoluable, however. But now I am off into the weeds of the specifically Catholic (which is to say true, hah) understanding of Christian marriage.
This doesn’t rule out separation in grave circumstances though, so it isn’t clear to me that Dalrock’s advice can’t be adapted to the Catholic understanding of marriage. From a Protestant frame Dalrock’s advice is just about the best I’ve seen. His answers to women on about.com are a thing of beauty.
I’m not eager to take the debate on because I don’t personally understand the protestant perspective on biblical marriage. For a Catholic a biblical marriage is a fertile one.
Taking the problem at face value though- IE the problem is taco’s bad sex life – then it makes no sense to make it worse by withholding his semen..because semen in vagina is -objectively speaking- a big part of GOOD sex. It’s procreative nature is biblical and unifying and therefore spiritually edifying, and the semen itself has anti-depressant properties. In fact, when I read Taco mention the “clean-up” after I couldn’t help but think that perhaps the act of sex itself could improved..i.e. by doing it the way that doesn’t usually result in as much clean-up.
Dalrock then reframed the issue as not being about the sex specifically, but about what the bad sex represents- that the wife is behaving unbiblically and therefore not committed to a biblical marriage. It isn’t the terminology I would use (because I am still not totally sure what the protestant definition of a biblical wife is) but I can agree that her passive-aggressive reaction to his advances is indeed sinful which suggests that she is lacking in virtue. What doesn’t make sense is that his husband should behave less virtually in response to his wife’s behavior. As zippy keeps saying..two wrongs don’t make a right. Now I am coming from the perspective that him denying her an enjoyable sex life is as wrong as her denying him one. (He even said to not give her sex when she asks for it while fertile).
What I can agree with 100% is that a person who questions the validity of their marriage should separate and keep celibate until unbiased third parties can decide whether a valid marriage ever existed. Whether Taco’s situation justifies separation I am not sure about. If she continues to act passive-aggressively I could see some wisdom in at least mentioning it as a possibility.
@deti and Tacomaster: I’ve been there as well. My advice agrees with Dalrock’s and agrees and disagrees with deti’s. I agree that you definitely do not want children added to the equation, for their sake and for yours. Your heartbreak, should the marriage end, will be much greater if you have to suffer not only your personal pain over a broken marriage but also theirs over a broken home.
I agree wholeheartedly with deti’s assessment of your wife’s sin in this situation, and with his encouragement that you identify it as such to her. Where I differ is in the prescription for addressing it. After you have identified it to her as sin and given her an opportunity to repent and change, if she does not do so, it’s time to take it to the church, in one or more ways. One way is by going to a Christian counselor with her (if she will agree to do that). You’ll need to find a counselor who understands that God does not excuse her from marital sex based on her subjective feelings. Hopefully, you’ll see progress through the counseling. But if not, you’ll have done what you could. Another route, either in addition to or subsequent to unsuccessful counseling, is to go to your church leaders — pastor, elders, etc. — and seek their intervention. I hope you’re in a church that recognizes her behavior as sin and will treat this as a matter of church discipline. She should be corrected in private with 2 or 3 leaders and given the opportunity to demonstrate change. If she does not respond, the church should either publicly discipline her by removing her from membership or they should authorize you to divorce her on biblical grounds, or both.
The above assumes that a Christian counselor will do the right thing and that your church will do the right thing. They may not. But you will have given them and your wife the opportunity to do the right thing.
What you do next is a tough call. I believe that if your wife refuses to change she has given you biblical grounds for divorce. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should actually divorce her, or even talk about it as an option. If you had children, I’d strongly urge you not to divorce her even though you have the right to, for the kids’ sake and for Christ’s sake. It would be very difficult cross to bear (believe me, I know), but your kids would be better off and you would be making a sacrifice for Christ’s glory. This is where I believe I dropped the ball. My wife had a long history of such infrequent and unenthusiastic sex that it might as well have been sexual refusal, culminating in a 2-year period of absolute sexual refusal. Thankfully, our Christian marriage counselor at that time (eventually) told her flat out that her sexual refusal constituted biblical grounds for divorce and that her complaints about me did not. This was in the context of endorsing my ultimatum that she either agree to resume sex and to begin working on her sexual issues (jointly with the counselor) or we would sell our house and separate for a time to see if that provided any motivation to her. Unfortunately, she neither changed nor sat still for the separation; instead, she ambushed me with a divorce filing. As the time for the intended separation approached (and before I knew she was filing for divorce), the counselor encouraged me privately to drop the separation threat and to take up the cross of remaining with her even if she never changed on this issue. Because I was out of town at the critical time, I found out about the divorce filing (from our daughter!) before I had a chance to tell her that I had changed my mind about the separation consequence.
My regret at this point is not about challenging her sin, but in ever telling her that a possible consequence would be a separation and that her behavior constituted biblical grounds for divorce. Having now been through the divorce process itself, having seen her subsequently seriously alienate our youngest son due to her overriding fear, having seen the pain inflicted on all 4 of our kids to date — both the 2 older ones who now have to somehow juggle two separate visits whenever they have time away from work or school (or whenever there is an event such as a graduation) and the 2 younger ones who have to shuttle between two households, and having seen my ex attempt to make her divorced life better by rushing into an ill-advised (actually, just plain stupid) remarriage, I strongly believe that everyone would have been better off if I had never considered separation or divorce as options. (Of course, this assumes that she wouldn’t have gone ahead and filed for divorce eventually anyway, which is not a safe assumption by any means. The consensus is that she was looking for an excuse; it’s entirely possible that she would have used some other excuse too.)
I will say that my after-the-fact conclusion is almost exclusively due to the kids’ interests. If we were childless, as you are, I would have a much more difficult time saying that I wish I had promised to stay regardless.
As for your treatment of her in the meantime, here again I disagree with deti. My understanding of scripture is that you’re called to love her as Christ loved the church, whether she violates her marriage vows or not. But this is also an area where my actions did not coincide with my advice. I treated my wife almost exactly as deti advises. I didn’t do it intentionally as any conscious exercise of Game (I’d never heard about Game at the time); instead, it was just my normal, human reaction to her sexual refusal. But it never worked either. I don’t know whether actively loving her in spite of her sin would have had a different result. I doubt it, given how entrenched she was in her sin and how bat-shit crazy she has been since she filed. But I wish I’d tried that approach so that I could say I did, and because it would have made me more Christ-like regardless.
Praying for you, Tacomaster. As one of our (several) marriage counselors used to tell me with a smile, “It sucks to be you!”
Gabriella:
One meta issue is that there are few things in Heaven and Earth that I am less inclined to talk about, especially on line, than the graphic details of anyone’s sex life. I’m not passing judgment on people who do; but it isn’t my cup of tea.
Bro. Tacomaster:
I agree strongly with David J. on not threatening, nor even mentioning, divorce. The chances are excellent that your wife is already thinking on this, but if she isn’t, she will be as soon as you mention it’s an option. Women all know, very well, that they have advantages in filing first, and that’s why they usually do so. The minute you let her know that the option is on the table, she’ll probably start making plans to use it.
If I were you, I’d start planning for this eventuality very quietly, while overtly trying to work on the marriage. Planning now, socking away money somewhere she can’t find it, and figuring out your legal situation may be the difference between having somewhere to go once the hammer drops or sleeping in a shelter. In the mean time, I would work hard to keep up appearances. Keep trying to work on the marriage and go to counseling. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst, it’s just prudent.
Best, Boxer
@Gabriella
Leaving aside the (important) issue of birth control, from what readers have shared I don’t think my basic interpretation of submission/headship and denial of sex are contrary to Catholic doctrine in a broad brush sense (in the most recent posts or in the table here. I would be interested either way in understanding where they are different.
This is a very strange charge to me. If you go back and read the comment itself as well as the OP and my comments upthread I think you will see that my frame was very consistent in pointing out that this is about rebellion and not his sex life.
@Zippy
Thank you for the kind words. You may also like my advice to this man.
I thought you were trying to come at the situation from multiple angles- IE fix the problem as well as prevent getting deeper in if the problem is unfixable. In either scenario you proposed solution (contraceptive sex) seemed problematic.
Dalrock:
You may also like my advice to this man.
Hah, hilarious and true, the best combination.
In regards to the “Catholic problem” I don’t see contraception as being as bad for a relationship as open fraud and rebellion. If a spouse is in the process of destroying the relationship, contraception seems more like prudence than disobedience in its own right. Here is another angle, should a Catholic use contraception when involved in an adulterous affair? There is a bigger problem than contraception going on…….
@Gabriella
I made it clear that I don’t have the answer on when/if divorce would be appropriate. I don’t know what I can do but be open about that. This is something he will need to work out according to his faith. As Zippy pointed out if he is a Catholic the answer is never. However, annulment might be an option, and I think separation is something to seriously consider whether Catholic or Protestant.
But nowhere did I propose contraceptive sex as the solution, which is why your charge continues to baffle me. My advice was to deal with the rebellion before bringing children into the marriage. If he is a Protestant and believes contraceptive sex is permitted, this could be how he chooses to proceed. If he is Catholic, again the option of separation would seem to be the way to do this.
You tell him that it is a shit-test that he must win, and then explain how. Among your prescriptions is that he deny her contraception-free sex (i.e. his sperm) unless she repents of her sinfulness.
Lets review the verse in question.
1 Corinthians 7
4 A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is.
Is his sperm not his body? So if he denies her it, is he not sinning?
This is why I don’t understand the protestant biblical marriage theology you espouse. The lack of mutuality baffles me.
I Art Laughing:
In regards to the “Catholic problem” I don’t see contraception as being as bad for a relationship as open fraud and rebellion.
It doesn’t matter. Contracepted sexual acts are intrinsically immoral: they aren’t immoral because of their effects on the relationship, such that they would be morally acceptable if those effects could be mitigates or become low priority for some reason.
@Deti, Dalrock, David, Looking Glass, and 8oxer, thank you all for the terrific advice and personal stories. I’ve found it challenging to find Christian men in my circle of friends to talk about these issues with (primarily because I know their wives or they deny this problem even existing). I’ve been working nights, 7pm-7am, these last few nights so I’ve had some alone time in prayer and to just meditate on the Word (thanks for referencing scripture). I’m off to bed. I will also reread all of these more thoroughly. It’s hard to read some and then have to stop to take care I patients, etc.
@Tacomaster:
One follow up point:
You’re on a brand new journey. Your options are to turn back now and pray you don’t get crushed until the grinder of the Divorce Mill, or press forward to whatever the future may hold. But, you are only responsible for you. You can’t “save” your wife from the issues she’s created.
Further, it’s going to take a lot of work and a lot of time. Scripture will help a lot. I also like to point out reading Proverbs closely, along with Jesus’ parables. First is obvious (wisdom), but the second is less. Note how Christ deals with them. It’s quite literally “Holy Frame Control”. Or the “foundation” language in Isaiah 28:16.
Even for all of the trouble, we have plenty of proof it works. Or the marriage ends, as it always was going to. So, keep the Faith, keep working at it and we pray the immediate outcomes are good. As for finding another man to chat with about these things, the trick is to know what an Alpha looks like in Church that’s an older man. They’d likely have a better handle on the intra-marriage stuff, minus the newer terminology.
T asks
I can’t think of any reason that a wife would turn down repeatedly a pleasurable sexual experience with her husband.
Oh, that is easy. In addition to the rebellion issue Dalrock, Eti, and others have brought up, there is another answer: she’s pining for an “alpha cock”. Maybe it is in her past, maybe it is in her present, but there is another man who thrills her much more than her husband, and she’d really rather be having sex with him. She may be an “alpha widow”, or she may be having some kind of affair – maybe an emotional affair that does not (at this time) involve sex – but it is entirely possible she wants a different man in her bed. That would explain all of the behavior, most especially the sudden rush to “clean up” afterwards. And it could be true that she only had “one” other man before marriage, and he was her dream alpha (or alpha enough) that she still yearns for.
Now, all of this behavior could also be explained by her being a low-sex-drive woman who finds some physical aspects of The Act to be distasteful to her, some women are like that – shower before, and shower afterwards. One of my friends years ago confided to me how embarrassing it was to her in high school when she figured out that she could tell at night if her parents were having intercourse, by the pattern of shower use (most people don’t take 2 showers at night 15 minutes apart).
But, in the modern, Facebook, “I Am Special” super-high self esteem world, a pattern of behavior such as Tacomaster describes in the first 2 – 3 years of marriage raises serious red flags of possible “alpha widow” status, or an affair of some sort, or even both – perhaps she’s been contacted by a man from her past, and while she’s not having a physical affair, her heart is yearning for him.
This hypothesis is testable. However, the testing must be done very carefully, and involves probing into her phone records, her social media pages, any text records, and so forth. That probing will raise “don’t you trust me” ‘issues in and of itself, so all the advice Deti gave certainly applies. However, Tacomaster has a right to protect himself from any of several bad situations that may come to pass, or may already exist.
Gabriella,
Dalrock very, very clearly made the point preventing pregnancy because of the harm that would be done to adding children to a shaky marriage. That you believe that all sex should have the possibility of pregnancy and that Dalrock had previously given advice in regards to shit tests are totally irrelevant to this point.
Turn it around. Do you believe that in Tacomaster’s position, where children would add considerable governmental firepower to his wife’s future attacks on him, that he should give her this at this time? Should Tacomaster take action that will knowingly be detrimental to his own future welfare given the marriage’s current climate?
I agree that having children would be imprudent if his marriage is in serious jeopardy. That means celibacy or (if agreed upon) a very strict method of natural family planning (periodic abstinence).
If he believes his marriage is salvageable then NFP might fix the sex life on multiple levels..1. by improving its function (keeping the semen where it belongs) 2. by introducing compulsory abstinence for a week or two at a time and therefore giving his wife a “break” to help her heart grow fonder (I find that this is the case with myself and many of my friends) and proving that his principles are greater than his desire for sex.
Unlike Athol Kay, I believe the NFP using husband’s demonstrate both alphaness and Christ’s love on multiple levels.
If he doesn’t believe it is salvageable then the only responsible thing to do is to separate and practice celibacy.
Dalrock has frequently noted that a promiscuous woman proves herself an unfit mother because she jeopardizes her future children’s future by allowing the potential that they will be fatherless. I agree with him 100%. He doesn’t make exceptions for sluts who use birth control because..obviously..birth control isn’t without risk. If Taco’s marriage is doomed to failure then celibacy is far more prudent than contraceptive sex. It is also much holier..because as I repeatedly note..denying his wife his sperm (if she requests it) is a sin.
Anon Reader:
T said: “I can’t think of any reason that a wife would turn down repeatedly a pleasurable sexual experience with her husband.”
1. Rebellion/defiance. The wife does not want to submit to her husband.
2. Pining for alpha cock, real or imagined, past or present.
3. She has had, or is having, an affair, emotional, physical or both.
4. Bad prior sexual experience involving the activity at issue.
5. She’s just not attracted to her husband — either she never was, or she is no longer.
I think the most common reason IME and based on what I’ve read is number 5: women are marrying men they just aren’t attracted to.
Most of the time, the sexual experience involves fellatio. To put it bluntly, these men want their wives to suck their c*cks and these wives can’t, won’t or don’t want to. I think if a wife is refusing this, there is something going on, and usually it is just that she doesn’t want to perform fellatio on a man she doesn’t have the hots for.
@Gabriella
You simply aren’t paying attention. Part of her performance of “I’ll do it, but you’ll regret it” is:
Look, I understand that you really really want to catch me in something to prove what a big meanie I am, but this one just isn’t the opportunity you have been dreaming of. Don’t worry, because we all screw up eventually. Good things come to those who wait.
“she jumps out of bed immediately afterwards to “clean up””
Gabriella, taco’s wife is doing this after sex because she doesn’t want to have sex with him for whatever reason. She’s doing this because she doesn’t want to submit.
She is doing this because she resents the fact that she has to have sex with him. So she removes all the evidence of it immediately afterwards, in turn so she isn’t reminded of the icky thing she just did.
Can you really not see this?
So she removes all the evidence of it immediately afterwards, in turn so she isn’t reminded of the icky thing she just did.
What Deti said is the essence of what I thought might be going on, that this woman might find sex itself repulsive.Taco happens to be the unfortunate recipient of her disgust with all things sexual.
Elspeth:
either she doesn’t like sex at all, or she doesn’t like sex with her husband.
Whichever story you believe, something is very wrong there.
An easy way to tell whether Mrs. Taco is unattracted to Mr. Taco versus having a sexual hang up that she needs help getting over is to observe whether she is bothered by her own behavior. Does it bother her that she is so freaked out by having his semen on her? Is she trying to get over that hang up? If not, then it’s him and not his semen that is turning her off.
You can see this difference clearly in the comment thread of this post on Christian Nymphos (note: this site has very sexually explicit talk but espouses Biblical sexual morality); some women are bothered by their hang ups and want to get over them to please their husbands. Others clearly have no intention to give up their rebellious ways.
People are getting lost in the weeds here, again, I see, fighting the Reformation Wars again.
Basically, Dalrock’s advice is sound as a practical matter regardless of one’s ecclesiastical affiliation — namely that bringing children into a marriage that is troubled in this way would be a disastrous mistake and fairly irresponsible. Whether that calls for contracepted sex, celibacy or separation is an issue of confessional allegiance and one’s moral perspective based on confessional allegiance, but regardless of how it is managed, pregnancy should be avoided at this stage until the marriage proves healthier.
In terms of working through the issues that are causing these things to happen, there are various options. Dalrock has offered good practical advice here as well, and it’s well worth investigating and internalizing the things he has referenced there.
I would personally add that (1) counseling is almost never a good idea, Christian or otherwise because 90% of counselors will take the wife’s frame and run with it — it’s the basic paradigm of marriage counseling that you get the man to change to appease the woman (due to the theories that underlie how counseling is thought, almost all of which are quite feminist in content — even trad-con-feminist for the Christian counselors) and (2) if you begin to feel like things may actually be going south at some stage, that’s when you begin to prepare for the worst legally — hopefully you will never need to use that preparation, but a key mistake men make is that they wait too long to do this and then are flat-footed when it hits the fan and that leaves them at a huge disadvantage. It doesn’t seem to me like this is the time to do that, but if you get the sense that things are slipping southward in the future, that’s the time to make some contingency planning with an expert — whether the contingency is separation or divorce or annulment based on ecclesiastical affiliation.
Deti, I’ll agree with your list, but as we both know, point #2 and #3 often lead directly to #5.
Tacomaster really needs to find out what is underneath the hood, so to speak, because based on what he has told us, at this point Gaming her is just a bandaid or a splint. IMO there would be very different approaches to a woman who is an alpha widow vs. a woman who has some serious issues in her past, such as sexual molestation as a child / young woman (not VAWA defined, but real). I’m ruminating over some ideas that have been with me for a long time, that evo-bio seem to support, one of those ideas is the notion of “sexual imprinting”; a person’s early and/or most intense sexual experience tends to color their view for a very long time, possibly for life. Another reason why low N matters. Someone who was sexually molested as a child or young person, who had an intense reaction to that experience, can react in all manner of ways unconsciously later on in life.
Counseling’s also not a good idea because whatever you say to the therapist can be discovered in a later divorce suit and used against you. Sure, there are confidentiality laws, but these can usually be circumvented or a loophole found.
Taco, you probably don’t need to see a lawyer. But you should do the following:
1. Start separating out cash and socking it away in locations known only to you.
2. Pack a “go bag” with clothes and essentials, and keep it in a safe place where you can get to it easily.
3. Keep the originals of vital papers (real property deeds, car titles, wills, trusts, bank account statements) in a safe place.
4. Surreptitiously do a little digging into your wife’s activities. Make sure you know where all the money goes. Check the account balances. Go through the credit card statements and the phone bills with a fine toothed comb. Get explanations for unusual or large purchases, cash withdrawals, or phone numbers that don’t look familiar. Be mindful of where she goes, who goes with her, what she does, and who she does it with day in, day out, month in month out. Get and review copies of her medical records, especially her gynecologist, and look askance if she refuses to sign releases to get the copies. Check her email and social media: Is she talking to old flames? Friending, emailing or facebook messaging old boyfriends or men you have never heard of? Put a GPS on her car. Examine her car: everything look in place? See any odd or strange items in it that weren’t there before?
Consider her habits. Has she undertaken a serious weight loss or health regimen? Changed her grooming, especially her pubic hair? Does she have new clothes, jewelry or lingerie you’ve never seen before? Is she secretive, reluctant, aloof, standoffish? Does she disappear for hours? Taken a new interest in “Girls Nights Out”? Ditched old friends and gotten with new friends? Is she very interested in your comings and goings, i.e. asking with pointed precision when you’ll be home and when you’ll be leaving for work, when you’ll be out of town for business, etc?
Thank you for clarifying Zippy. I vote for abstinence then.
Dear Sunshine Mary:
Priceless insights in this thread, and this is particularly notable.
Does it bother her that she is so freaked out by having his semen on her? Is she trying to get over that hang up? If not, then it’s him and not his semen that is turning her off.
This seems like a particularly cruel way to shame him as some sort of passive-aggressive revenge for the sex he demanded — aside from the already oft mentioned fact that she’s trying to paint the whole encounter as a victim/victor duality.
O, that poor dear woman, having this beast violate her in such a brutal way. *sniff*
It’s very sick to see a fun, natural and (at least in the marriage context) wholesome activity as sex between committed husband and wife become some sort of whiny rage/shame fest. This woman seems to have a lot of psychological problems.
Best, Boxer
I Art Laughing:
Thank you for clarifying Zippy. I vote for abstinence then.
Agreed. Abstinence has practical advantages too, because self mastery is always more powerful than lack of self mastery. A wife’s power in using sex as a weapon is inversely proportional to the husband’s self mastery. A man who is in control of himself cannot be manipulated by others.
I am still confused on how taco’s wife is in rebellion. He says he wants sex, she has sex, doesn’t like it and takes a shower after. Does submission mean faking it in this case? Should she be pretending more enjoyment then she actually feels?
Regarding Taco’s Wife- there are several issues. 1. her disgust of the sex 2. her vocal disgust for the sex. The first issue she may not be able to help but the second issue is very clearly passive-aggressive and a sin against charity.
For the record- disliking sex is not a sin. Refusing sex or making it terrible on purpose is certainly a sin.
Since one is a sin and the other is not the issues need to be dealt with separately and differently. The issue of her sinful actions should be addressed with a harsh verbal reprimand and an explicit instruction to behave with enthusiasm during the act, as well as a demand for making significant compromises in the “rules” department. Her dislike of sex can be dealt with at a separate time.
Possible reasons for her dislike of sex
-anger over other issues in the marriage
-lack of attraction for husband
-previous trauma
-prudish beliefs
-low-libido for physical reasons (thyroid, depression, etc)
-low-libido because of medications (BC, anti-depressants)
-disgust with her body
-repressed anger over issues not related to the marriage
-painful sex
-husband having unreasonable expectations
-performance anxiety
Possible reasons for her ruining sex on purpose
-poor self-control and self-discipline
-desire for husband to give-up trying to have a good sex life
-desire to revenge a perceived wrong her husband committed.
-contempt for her husband
Because the issues are separate you should take a strong stand against one, but address the other issue with patience and understanding.
Possible ways to improve sex
-Have her drink a few glasses of wine
-More cuddles before hand
-Clitoral stimulation before penetration
-Address any underlining medical issues
-Address any underlining emotional issues
-Tingle-generation gestures of affection (smacking her butt, the 10 second kiss, talking dirty, etc)
If you have strongly condemned her sin, and patiently worked to fix the libido problem, and she doesn’t at least start to try and enjoy sex then you know your problem is a wife who has contempt for you and you should probably separate.
T:
Should she be pretending more enjoyment then she actually feels?
I’m not really religious and won’t quote the bible about this, but it’s plain that the marriage is in trouble.
Suppose your husband quit his job and decided to hang out with his friends in the garage all day? You nag him into going back to work, but he’s so resentful that every time he gets home from work he refuses to touch you or talk to you.
Obviously there’s a lot going on, and none of us know the whole story. I don’t believe Mr. Taco is entirely blameless (there’s no such thing as “one bad partner” in a couple, after all) but I think that his wife’s passive-aggressive counterattack (framing sex with her husband as gross) and her reframing of marriage along the lines of a victim/victor duality lay the blame largely on her end.
In short, yes, she should quit acting like it’s some sort of disgusting chore. She should start faking it. Men fake it all the time (most of us really don’t want to kill ourselves working for some woman, but we do that stuff anyway).
Relationships are a game of give and take.
My issue with Dalrock is that I think his advice is not Biblically sound and is actually advocating a very Unbiblical view of marriage. I’d have a problem with it whether it was addressed to Taco or any other random person. Here is a quick rundown of my objections for the sake of clarifying and then I think we can agree to disagree. I am not here to argue as I am not really up to it emotionally (DHMIAG!). I just want to challenge people to think more critically about what the Bible says especially since it is our marriages and our eternal souls that are at stake.
-You don’t fix a problem of bad sex by changing its function to make it objectively worse. If you must prevent children find a way that neither corrupts the act, nor corrupts the bodies involved (I.e butting wifey on the pill and ruining her hormonal balance). Even if that is not what Mrs Taco’s problem is..it is objectively bad advice because it makes sex something other than it was intended by the Creator to be.
-A sinful spouse does not in fact nullify a marriage. You can have a pretty horrible marriage that is still biblically valid. There are many actions worthy of separation but exceptionally few that warrant divorce. Divorce means you have given up on grace.
-He seems to assume a wife’s bad behavior is a conscious shit-test gearing up to a divorce and/or proof they are incapable or unwilling of living Christian marriage. Often bad behavior is unconscious pattern of behavior that can be changed by just one person behaving differently.(i.e. maintaining frame until the other person breaks). You don’t throw in the towel at the first wif of dysfunction. Almost everyone has some dysfunctional patterns that are discovered early in marriage. That is why it is considered a miracle for anyone to make it past the first 7 years. The latter 5 frequently suck.
-If you’re wife asks for your sperm you are Biblically required to give it if you are currently living married life. It can be argued that from the protestant perspective you can withhold a portion of your body if agreed upon, but I don’t think you can argue that you can live a biblical marriage and withhold any part of it against the other persons desires. You can, but you would be sinning by defrauding the marriage debt.
-Contraceptive sex is still risky so if it is of paramount importance to avoid children, then the only good option is abstinence.
That is it..in a nutshell. I don’t really care of Dalrock is a big meanie-head so long as he is a theologically accurate meanie-head.
And my issue with you is that you seem to be deliberately ignoring both the reality of the real world and what Dalrock actually said.
Taco’s wife does not want to have sex with him. She makes a point of mentioning how she does not want to and does not like to. Dalrock’s advise boils down to:
1) Do not bring kids into this situation.
2) If her attitude suddenly changes, be wary that she has an ulterior motive (namely, bringing kids into it).
That is sound advise regardless of your theological particulars. It is sound advice regardless of the actual reason Mrs. Taco might claim to be a causus belli. And Dalrock has made it clear that we’re looking at big-picture-save-the-marriage-or-at-least-save-yourself, not “just” make fun with teh sexy time!
Yet you continue to make theological tangents relevant to neither Dalrock’s nor (presumably) Taco’s belief systems, and you continue to throw out all sorts of possibilities as to what ‘might’ be the cause of this strife, without offering any practical advice for a man who stands to lose much. You do not appear to have any sense of empathy or recognition of the urgency of the issue beyond platitudes designed to make you appear like a moderate. Yet, happily enough, your advice would have enormous practical benefits for Mrs. Taco. Convenient, that.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/dont-be-tricked-into-responding-to-a-reframe-with-an-intellectual-argument/#comment-66503
Boxer,
While I generally concur with that it’s unlikely in a difficult marriage that one of the parties is perfectly blameless for the difficulties of the union, there are definitely times when either one of them has crossed a line (e.g., physical abuse, adultery) that either can’t be defended at all or is so disproportionate to the other’s misconduct so as to invalidate the mutual fault presumption.
Unjust denial of the marital embrace (or making it so unpleasant so as to hurt the other) is far closer on the continuum of sins against one’s marriage to the two examples I proffered above, so Tacomaster gets the benefit of the doubt in my book – especially in an anonymous internet forum where the penalties for forthrightness are minimal.
Taco – I don’t have much advice to offer except to concur with the low opinion of marriage counseling. It is shot through with all manner of modernist claptrap namely feminism. I can offer my symapthy – been there and done that. It sounds very trite, but it will eat you up inside.
Peace and prayers to you.
@T
She is in rebellion, she is failing to honor her husband by not be gracefully filled by the Holy Spirit (in my opinion). She shouldn’t fake anything but she should repent of not honoring her husband and seek God’s help in changing her ways. By not doing this she is saying that her attitude and lack of concern for her husband and willingness to confront her own sinful nature makes her a rebel.
If the husband decided to quit his good paying job and took a part time position flipping burgers would we expect the wife to remain silent on this? What if he did nothing but complain about work and how his wife spent the resulting money? Should he fake liking to work?
Dear hurting:
Unjust denial of the marital embrace (or making it so unpleasant so as to hurt the other) is far closer on the continuum of sins against one’s marriage to the two examples I proffered above, so Tacomaster gets the benefit of the doubt in my book – especially in an anonymous internet forum where the penalties for forthrightness are minimal.
While I definitely sympathize with your point of view, you’re essentially making a feminist argument here.
Ms. Tacomaster, who doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, goes into all sorts of theatrics in thinly veiled ways to promote an image of victimhood. What you’re doing in this article is promoting Mr. Tacomaster as the “victim” of a frigid wife. In my opinion, that’s bullshit.
Brother Tacomaster is very responsible for the situation as it stands, and he admits this himself (though not so overtly as to be unmanly). He’s been coddling and tolerant of a person who holds him in contempt, and has thus inaugurated an infinite feedback loop of dysfunction in his own house.
Fortunately, he’s wiser than most, as he seems to realize that this isn’t ideal and has thus come here to get some feedback. I know of married couples who have lived in this sort of hell for years, so he’s to be commended for that. Unfortunately, he seems to have “empowered” his wife to the extent that divorce may be imminent the minute he changes his position to anything other than her doormat.
It is manly to accept responsibility for one’s own mistakes, and he should fully own this one. It is his fault that he put up with this shit for so long. I’m forced to simultaneously admire him for his idealism while I pity him for his sufferings. His presence here gives me high hopes that he will (unlike so many others) actually learn from his mistakes, rather than repeating them.
While I would never suggest that anyone make decisions based upon popular opinion, particularly when the opinion is a bunch of quasi-anonymous commenters on an internet blog, I think Brother Tacomaster has been given some good advice from many (yourself included). He should (to steal a phrase from the peripatetics) deliberate at length, and act decisively.
Best, Boxer
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/01/09 « Free Northerner
Wow, I’ve never had a discussion about my semen before lol. What I was saying is that she doesn’t embrace the moment. There’s no embrace/cuddling after ejaculation. The steps go in this order–ejaculation, she immediately reaches for something or goes to the bathroom to wash up. When I talked about her having rules and requirements I didn’t want to go into much detail earlier but her rules involve where we can have sex (bedroom 90% of time), position (missionary 95% of time), time of day, etc. I’ve tried various locations like parking the car somewhere, her parents house when they’re gone for the weekend, making out in an empty theater, etc and get shot down. I’m at the point where I don’t try new things because I know the answer is no and I’ll just get upset inside (no longer voicing desire for anything beyond bedroom missionary so I won’t get mad). Then I think about one of my exes and do the stupid comparison thing which I’ve been praying about. My point is I married (one of many reasons) so I could have guilt-free, God-approved sex with my wife. I imagined marriage sex as an all-you-can-eat buffet where you can try different things with your best friend that you love and are spending your life with (strange analogy?).
T asked if I was attractive. I’ve never had a problem getting a girlfriend and I’m pretty outgoing. My wife has seen women flirt with me.
Someone asked/suggested me doing oral on her. Yes, I do that every time. No hangups with that. She doesn’t even have to ask.
I’ve asked her several times in the past and once this week if she has any fantasies or anything she’d like to try. She states she has no fantasies and that the sex is good and wouldn’t change anything. Is it possible she really likes this and it’s just me? Just a thought. I know the sex is bad. How come she doesn’t know?
Thanks for all the advice guys. I really do appreciate it.
Pingback: Tacomaster Desires Steadfast Love | Things that We have Heard and Known
Taco:
Sounds to me like your wife is a skittish introvert and you are an extrovert. Introverts generally hate surprises, public displays of affection, and are content with little outward stimulation. That isn’t the same thing as your wife holding you in contempt. She says she does indeed like the boring sex. That is a whole lost more than what a lot of men around these parts get. It sounds to me like more of a mismatch of personality types.
My husband and I have a similar mismatch and we handle it by him giving me a warning *most the time* and only surprising me every now and then. He knows that surprises send me into an emotional tail spin so I am much more amendable to a situation (even one outside my comfort zone) if I have at least a 20 minute warning, though a days warning is better.
So my advice is to not surprise her. Tell her what you expect “we are going to make out in the theater”. If she can adjust to the idea before it happens she might not react so badly.
If I am right and she is an introvert matched with an extrovert then it would be a good idea for both of you to study about your inherent differences as it will help spare hurt feelings on both sides when the other persons behavior seems to make no sense.
This doesn’t mean she isn’t sinning when she says things like “lets get this over with”, it just doesn’t sounds like the overwhelming problem is that she is repulsed by YOU..sounds like she is just easily over-stimulated.
Which is good news because things will improve (but slowly). It is quite possible she doesn’t think it is bad at all because she has a much much lower threshold for pleasure, and much of anything over that is overwhelming.
Taco:
“My point is I married (one of many reasons) so I could have guilt-free, God-approved sex with my wife. I imagined marriage sex as an all-you-can-eat buffet where you can try different things with your best friend that you love and are spending your life with (strange analogy?).”
People have many different reasons for getting married. Most men get married to have easy access to sex with an attractive partner — easy in the sense that it takes minimal effort to get her into bed. Women have very different reasons. Some do marry for love. But in my opinion and experience, the primary reasons a woman marries are security and affirmation — security being provision for her short term and long term needs and comfort (and by extension, those of her children); affirmation being that she is shown worthy to herself and the world of having locked down the investment and commitment of a man. Most women don’t marry for sex or for love.
The things you mention — rules for sex, refusal to try new positions or locations, jumping up after sex immediately to clean herself, and her telling you the sex is good for her — suggests she isn’t all that into sex with you and isn’t very attracted to you. It isn’t normal for a wife in love with her husband and attracted to her husband to control the sex, the way you have sex, when and where, to eliminate the lingering physical evidence of the sex, and to refuse experimentation. A woman in love with and attracted to her husband should be eager for enthusiastic sex. I would encourage you to find out what is going on with her. I can speculate it is one of the following:
1. She isn’t physically attracted to you.
2. Something about your personality turns her off — you’re too beta in demeanor and mannerism.
3. Something about sex with you or sex in general reminds her of a bad past sexual experience.
4. She is pining for an alpha in her past.
5. She has a physical ailment that causes her pain or discomfort during sex.
I really don’t have enough information to tell you what it is. It’s probably a combination of some of these, but option 5 is uncommon. Again, you should learn game. Do all you can to improve your physical appearance. And further — you’re not likely to get to the truth of this by asking your wife. This is why people around here say if you want to know a woman, watch what she does. Don’t listen to what she says.
Best of luck.
Deti- It is actually very normal to clean after sex as not cleaning can result in a UTI or a yeast infection.
Gab:
Yes, it is normal to clean after sex. A few minutes after, perhaps.
What is not normal is for the wife to demand that a towel be laid under her pelvis during intercourse; urge her husband to “hurry up and [finish]”; and then when he is finished to leap up immediately and dab at her lady bits in an effort to push out all the icky stuff.
Mrs. taco is not practicing good hygiene; she’s disinfecting a crime scene. It’s clear that she doesn’t want her husband’s semen inside her. It’s rejection, plain and simple.
They’re supposed to be making love and sharing a beautiful experience. Mrs. taco is perverting it into a chore like doing the dishes or dusting the furniture.
Wow, just wow: ” It is actually very normal to clean after sex as not cleaning can result in a UTI or a yeast infection.”
Says the gal who insists that denying semen is some form of mystical travesty against the grand design of God (which I don’t necessarily doubt). However, it seems like any protestation will do no matter how quibbling. But that is just my observation and opinion. Excellent demonstration of feminine imperative Gabriella.
No, seriously. I am not even kidding. I’ve been married over a decade and had like a zillion yeast infections and UTI’s. My husband and I are rather vigilant about it and based on my conversations with friends this is not at all unusual.
If by “feminine imperative” it is wanting this man to have a better relationship with his wife- then guilty.
No, it’s justifying obnoxious behavior by his wife (according to him) no matter how high and tight the hoop is. She has a good reason for behaving badly, you’ll come up with a good excuse for anything. “Raahhh! ” team woman.
Oops, “good” should have been omitted.
When analyzing a problem I try to avoid jumping to the worst possible conclusion. It is why when my husband rejects MY sexual advances I assume that he just isn’t in the mood, and not that he is having an affair or is no longer attracted to me.
There are a lot of things this woman should be doing differently. I have said innumerable times that she is handling the situation with passive-aggression. But the fact that she handles the problem poorly doesn’t necessarily mean that the problem is severe and irreparable. It *might* be, but it might also be just what I have described.
I would give the EXACT SAME advice to a woman who is complaining about her husband. Always give the benefit of the doubt. If you jump to the worst conclusion for every issue you will be miserable in no time. No marriage can handle that kind of constant over-analysis of what may amount to a small problem with an easy fix.
Gab:
When a woman rejects a man’s sexual advances, she is not just rejecting the sex, she is rejecting HIM. A man marries for sex. A woman giving a man sexual access is the highest form of affirmation and acceptance she can give him. Conversely, a woman rejecting sexual access to a man is the ultimate form of rejection.
Moreover, Mrs. taco is not merely “rejecting his sexual advances”. According to taco, this is their sex life — missionary only, in the bedroom only, she requires a towel on the bed under her, she urges him to finish quickly, immediately on his ejaculation she springs into action to prevent her body from absorbing any of his semen. She does this not sometimes, but ALL the time. She is controlling everything about their sex life and making it clear she does not want to have sex with him and therefore does not want him. What other conclusion is he supposed to draw? What other conclusion CAN be drawn?
Taco needs to get to the root of the problem. You are right — she might not be having an affair. It might be a medical problem. Taco might have gained 100 pounds, dressing like a slob, being a couch potato, or be supplicating to her. If she has a medical problem she needs medical attention. If taco is the problem, he needs to lose the weight, dress better, move his ass, and/or stop kowtowing to her. She is rejecting him for some reason, and this is what you keep missing.
All arguments made to re-frame the situation for team woman. Case in point.
I Art Laughing- What is it that you think I want that is not in Tacomasters best interest? I am genuinely curious, because I can’t understand why people are upset with me for wanting to support him in making his marriage succeed.
Two words: Cranberry juice. There’s pills if you can’t stand the flavor (my wife loved the stuff). Say goodbye to UTI’s. For yeast infections, yogurt works wonders. Eat the good stuff (homemade or greek) and the bad bacteria gets wiped out by the good stuff.
Of course, it’s much easier to complain and avoid intimacy. Been there, seen that, managed to keep the marriage together. So… I’ll believe my lying memories over your words, thank you very much.
Gabriella, are you aware that this is not mainstream advice here and not mainstream thought? Telling him to give his wife hostages or implying that supplication will help are plays right out of Joel and Kathy. This post was concerned with a strong frame and everything you suggest undermines that. I’m thinking that is not an accident.
Where did I suggest he be supplicating? Where did I tell him to give her hostages? What specifically undermines a strong frame? My advice was intended at the opposite. I am trying to make him seem more alpha.
Someone asked/suggested me doing oral on her. Yes, I do that every time. No hangups with that. She doesn’t even have to ask.
ORAL?!?! Here’s me doing my David Collard imitation: please. stop. doing. that.
Look, Tacomaster, I didn’t read the whole thread, as it was kind of same song four thousandth verse of this sort of conversation, and advice from me might be the last thing you need, but it sounds like from your own input you’re asking WAY too many questions and waiting on too many answers. Stop fiddling around and take your wife to YOUR bed. Seriously. If she does something you don’t like, tell her to stop it. You’ve let her set the tone and we don’t do that well, even with the best of intentions, especially in early marriage. She might be a completely hopeless witch, or, she might be a sexually and emotionally immature wife (much younger self raises hand) who thinks sex is her problem when so often it is our solution to what ails. The skittishness (if she is genuinely skittish and not just trained to be annoyed) requires a bit of finesse, but it’s not insurmountable.
Is it possible she really likes this and it’s just me? Just a thought. I know the sex is bad. How come she doesn’t know?
Stop asking so many questions. Go mess up your bed.
@ tacomaster – I would not take her not wanting to have sex at her parents house, in a car or in a theater as signs of her disinterest in you. There are plenty of people who don’t like sex in public or semi public places. Who knows what issues sex at her parents house might bring up. I think you should try to improve the sex in the bedroom. Maybe once she finds that some what pleasant get more creative.
“Taking the problem at face value though- IE the problem is taco’s bad sex life – then it makes no sense to make it worse by withholding his semen..because semen in vagina is -objectively speaking- a big part of GOOD sex. It’s procreative nature is biblical and unifying and therefore spiritually edifying, and the semen itself has anti-depressant properties. In fact, when I read Taco mention the “clean-up” after I couldn’t help but think that perhaps the act of sex itself could improved..i.e. by doing it the way that doesn’t usually result in as much clean-up.” – Gabriella
And then: “’I’ve been married over a decade and had like a zillion yeast infections and UTI’s. My husband and I are rather vigilant about it”
Can someone explain how a woman can benefit from the anti-depressant properties of semen if she expels it from her vagina as fast as she can to avoid UTI’s and yeast infections?
This woman has now become utterly absurd in this thread. Pitiful.
Sarahs Daughter- Obviously, some of it absorbs even if you urinate after wards. Otherwise nobody would get pregnant if they urinated after sex. I have gotten pregnant many times so clearly some semen is hanging around.
The point is that it is not abnormal to clean-up immediately after the act. Some people recommend it because it helps keep the urinary tract clean. The point is not that everyone SHOULD do it, only that it isn’t ABNORMAL, and therefore not something feel rejected over.
Obviously, if it is that upsetting to TM then he can tell his wife to stop and linger awhile. It is his prerogative.
What sex acts do you suggest then that don’t “result in much” clean up? Oral with swallowing? In TM’s situation? Deep penetration with optimal time for absorption is what doesn’t require much clean up. You contradicted yourself and are now back peddling. Don’t fret, it’s a common thing women do. Might I suggest you just stop digging.
Doctors reccomend peeing before and after sex to flush bacteria from the urinary tract and prevent UTIs. Obviously this will not remove all of the semen. I don’t think that she is cleaning up to prevent UTIs though. She’s just grossed out either by sex or by sperm or by her husband in particular. Wouldn’t she just have mentioned the UTI thing to her husband?
Sarah’s Daughter- I thought he was referring to the withdrawal method where the semen would obviously go somewhere else. When another commenter mentioned the post-coital bathrooom trip I thought “Oh, well I do that too” and thought I’d mention that it is within the realm of normal for hygenic reasons and not necessarily because the person doing it thinks sperm is icky.
I don’t know why you are being hostile towards me. What did I do to you?
T, care to back that up with something credible?
For eight years I’ve maximized absorption in the hopes of getting pregnant again. Nary a UTI.
Gabriella,
Taco never once mentions the withdrawal method is what he is doing, just that his wife must clean up immediately following sex. Still one comment of yours contradicts the next.
I’m not hostile. I think you should stop, yes. But that is not something for me to dictate to you so I will continue to point out your contradictions. I seem to remember a bit up thread how concerned you were about Dalrock giving unbiblical advice, what does it mean when someone speaks out of both sides of their mouth?
Sarah’s Daughter- I get UTI’s very easily. I know not everyone is like me.
@ Sarah’s Daughter – if you really want to know google or ask your doctor. Im not going to argue over something that is common knowledge and easily discoverable. If you aren’t prone to UTIs then you obviously won’t need to bother with the peeing thing and won’t get UTIs from not doing it. Common sense really.
I am sorry to hear about your infertility.
Taco did not mention it, it was what I assumed because I did not consider non-withdrawal sex to be messy. Then someone mentioned otherwise and I changed my comments to be more relevant to the actual situation. Changing your advice as you get more information is not the same as contradicting yourself.
I still think you are acting hostile to me. Why are you doing that?
Here’s how it works, dear:
“Dalrock, I apologize for my lack of reading comprehension. And for my assertion that you were giving unbiblical advice. I retract several of my statements because I acknowledge them to contradict one another/ I assumed too much without having all the information necessary. I apologize for being contentious to you, it was hardly my place and very unbecoming of a Christian woman. Thank you for allowing me to post freely on your blog.”
Again, I am not hostile. You may want to get some thicker skin, especially when you are going to deliver scathing rebukes to men ie. “My issue with Dalrock is that I think his advice is not Biblically sound and is actually advocating a very Unbiblical view of marriage.” Who are you that you instruct a man?
If you recall, I started out hoping that Zippy would take issue with Dalrock instead of me. Zippy chose not to because he felt their worldviews were too different. Dalrock linked to one of his previous posts that attempted to define biblical marriage. He asked how his view of biblical marriage differed from the Catholic view. I took that as an invitation to explain that view.
Having a discussion about biblical concepts on a blog is not the same as teaching. I am not making myself any kind of authority figure.
I don’t see why it would be necessary to apologize for making a false assumption. The assumption being corrected changed the nature of my advice to Taco, but it did not change the theological divide I have with Dalrock.
I think you undermine Dalrock by trying to play watchdog for him. It is his blog and he is quite capable of shushing me himself. I’ve been around awhile (and have generously provided him much fodder for articles. I should charge royalty fees..) I am sure he keeps me around in hopes I will say something else that he can put in his “Crazy Bitches” file and use in some future This-Girl-Is-Wrong-And-Here-is-Why post. How is he going to collect more ammo if a team of rottweilers chases off every woman who offers a contrary opinion?
If I am just some stupid chick saying stupid stuff then let my comments speak for themselves and trust the men to make the right judgment. By acting defensive and chasing me away it is like you don’t think the men can decide for themselves whether my points are worth considering. School-marming suggests that the guys are a bunch of rowdy kids that need to protected from my bad influence.
Regarding my thin skin…I can handle strong discussion about ideas. I don’t particularly like attacks on my character.
I try very hard to only attack ideas and never the people who have them. I just want the same courtesy.
I am not telling Dalrock that he is a bad person, or a bad Christian, or attacking his character in anyway. I am only saying that I believe his *ideas* are not accurate. .
I took that as an invitation to explain that view.
And then you said: “There is far too much daylight between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of marriage for me to even begin to address many of the claims made in here on the subject.” followed by: “I’m not eager to take the debate on because I don’t personally understand the protestant perspective on biblical marriage.” – but yet you were eager to take on the debate, weren’t you?
As a woman, it is hardly your place to explain to anyone here what the theological differences are in biblical marriage and why yours is of supremacy to another’s.
Having a discussion about biblical concepts on a blog is not the same as teaching. I am not making myself any kind of authority figure.
You stated previously that you took upon yourself an imaginary invitation to explain the view. This is not teaching? Your posts absolutely came across as authoritative. And condescending. Very ugly.
I don’t see why it would be necessary to apologize for making a false assumption.
Surely you jest.
but it did not change the theological divide I have with Dalrock.
Do you presume you, as a woman, will change this? Flailing your arms about with false assumptions and boldly proclaiming how wrong a man is is something you find will be effective in bridging the gap of your theological division?
I think you undermine Dalrock by trying to play watchdog for him.
That’s amusing.
he is quite capable of shushing me himself.
By no means do I deny this. Several men have also said similar things as I have to you. That I’m not on Team Woman with you has aroused your ire. It’s more than a little interesting.
How is he going to collect more ammo if a team of rottweilers chases off every woman who offers a contrary opinion?
Oh, honey. There will always be plenty of crazy bitches to give bloggers all the ammo they need. You are not unique. At all.
By acting defensive and chasing me away it is like you don’t think the men can decide for themselves whether my points are worth considering.
They have decided. You’ve ignored them.
I don’t particularly like attacks on my character.
It really wasn’t just about you finding Dalrock’s ideas to be inaccurate. You explicitly said he is giving unbiblical advice, were proven wrong, and refuse to retract or apologize. This is false witness, my dear.
Well, this thread got several levels of awesome & hilarious.
@Tacomaster:
Sir, you’ve just had 3 women arguing about the effects of your semen. That, sir, is a good day.
As for your issues, some of it needs to be hashed out with someone with more experience on the marriage side of this stuff and in more detailed discussions. I.e. it wouldn’t work so well here in an open comments thread.
But, at a lot of levels, you’ve given your wife nearly completely control of your sex life. That’s not going to be something easily unwound. You might be able to generate attraction in other women, but your wife definitely isn’t burning for you. Otherwise she’d respond in a very different way.
What a feminist lie – semen = health problems in women.
If a woman has frequent yeast infections or UTI’s there is an underlying cause. Diet, prescription medication, hygiene, water source, chemicals being used, whatever. Don’t buy the lie that it’s from semen.
How pathetic for women to assert that what God created, necessary for procreation, would be detrimental to a woman’s health.
I’m wondering if someone didn’t get lessons in basic human anatomy. Urinating after sex might clear you urethra in an extremely unlikely case semen actually found its way there. We do know that women don’t urinate through their uterus/cervix/vagina, right?
Also, @Taco:
Performing oral sex on her is supplicating and more so because she is not reciprocating and is not otherwise having a good attitude about sex. I recommend not doing it again until you are highly satisfied with your sex life (if ever).
SD- You have not made a compelling argument as to how I am wrong. All you have done is acted rudely. I have nothing else to say to you.
@Sarah’s Daughter:
And then you said: “There is far too much daylight between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of marriage for me to even begin to address many of the claims made in here on the subject.” followed by: “I’m not eager to take the debate on because I don’t personally understand the protestant perspective on biblical marriage.”
For the record, the first quote is me. The second is Gabriella.
@Gabriella
There are specific topics which seem to draw you and at times other women from TC out to find something, anything, to criticize me for. Your whole addition to this comment thread has fit this pattern. If you prefer, I can share some more of the back story, but I’m fairly certain that you are counting on me not doing this. It seems that you are banking on my kindness as a shelter to use while you set out to show everyone what a jerk I am. I have to admit that there is some brilliance here, but it is becoming tedious.
As SD pointed out above you never did acknowledge that I hadn’t committed the error you initially accused me of committing. Instead, you switched to a detailed discussion of sexual plumbing which has nothing to do with what everyone else is talking about, or for that matter what it is which I believe really brought you here. I’m a patient man, and if you think you spot errors in my thinking I generally welcome that, but I am loosing my patience with you.
What I find galling is that we’ve been discussing tacomaster’s predicament with his wife and sex life, and the obvious matter that his wife doesn’t want to have sex with him for whatever reason. Most here have been trying to help taco get to the bottom of it so that they can either get past it and move on to a better marriage and sex life; or he can accept it and then act accordingly.
But what I see here are thinly veiled suggestions by T and Gab that taco must somehow accommodate his wife’s sexual revulsion because she doesn’t want to have sex in semi public places which might spice things up a bit; or because she’s afraid of getting UTIs. Both of these are barely plausible rationalizations that simply don’t make sense at all in light of what taco has told us.
Women who are attracted to their husbands and want sex with them do not dictate the sexual positions or tell them to hurry up and finish, or demand that they be situated upon sanitized, sterilized fabric. Women who want sex with their husbands want their husbands to ejaculate on or in them frequently. Women who want sex with their husbands want sex with them often. A woman who is attracted to a man cannot get enough of his semen inside her. Her appetite for his body and his sexuality should be almost insatiable. A woman who is attracted to her husband does not leap up right after sex to expel the semen and clean her body.
A woman who wants sex with her husband and is attracted to him will have sex with him enthusiastically — or at least she should.
@deti
A woman who is attracted to a man cannot get enough of his semen inside her. Her appetite for his body and his sexuality should be almost insatiable.
+11 It’s like this:
“There are specific topics which seem to draw you and at times other women from TC out to find something, anything, to criticize me for. ”
I do worry that your specific theology is more about protecting men from women than saving Christian marriage. I don’t think it is on purpose, as I think you are sincere in trying to save children from the meat grinder..I just think you have some pretty significant blind spots. I have a rather long post coming up for TC that explains my problem with the manosphere definition of marriage (mostly influenced by your posts) in excruciating detail.
The point isn’t to pick on you. I argue in hopes that my points will at least be considered. The fact that I bother to argue at all shows good faith in your ability to reason and not blindly maintain manosphere rhetoric.
If I assumed wrongly about something, I apologize. Since the argument derailed into minutia about urinary tracts I have managed to get a little bit confused about the exact chain of events.
I don’t care to continue arguing Taco’s specific problem because that isn’t the hill I wish to die on, especially since I so clearly do not understand the problem as well as others seem to.
If you feel that I offer nothing of value to the conversation then I will not post here again.
Gab:
Since this isn’t my house I have no right to tell you to comment or not. But we haven’t been here discussing theology, nor is this blog focused on theology. I understand Roman Catholic doctrine has specific proscriptions about where and in what circumstances a man is to ejaculate. Saving taco’s marriage, or saving Christian marriage in general, can’t be accomplished unless the interests of both men and women are addressed. For too long women’s interests in marriage have been explored, analyzed, kowtowed to and served, at the expense of men’s needs and interests.
Your comments here have been mostly about trying to explain, justify and rationalize Mrs. Taco’s conduct. It’s clear she does not want to have sex with taco. He needs to first understand the truth that she doesn’t want to have sex with him. Then he needs to find out why. Surely you can see there is something very, very wrong in a marriage when a wife does not want to have sex with her husband. Surely there is something wrong in a marriage in which the wife views sex as just another chore to check off her list. This isn’t about modesty or feminine hygiene. This is about her not wanting sex, not enjoying sex, and crippling her husband about it to the point that he writes into a combox about it.
This is not natural. It’s not normal. This is the true sickness, disease and perversion in marriages — women marrying men they aren’t attracted to and then depriving them of sex. It’s destructive and debilitating for both of them, especially for him. To a man, sex is the sine qua non of marriage. No sex, no marriage. Deprive us of sex after marriage, destroy the marriage. We simply won’t marry if we can’t get sex. WE WILL NOT DO IT. It’s not worth it unless we get something out of the deal.
Gabriella said:
If you feel that I offer nothing of value to the conversation then I will not post here again.
And they all stood and cheered.
Dammit. A woman who wants her husband, loves him and is attracted to him should be literally begging him to penetrate her and spill himself into her.
Deti-
When I read the first comment I had the same impression as you. When I read the second comment I was suddenly very confused because Taco said his wife is satisfied with their sex life. Basically, the second comment seemed to contradict the first which led to me changing my advice to consider the introvert/extrovert differences. Whichever comment best represents the nature of his problem …I don’t know and doesn’t seem worth debating anymore since it is derailed into discussing irrelevant minutia about plumbing. Even I..as tedious as I am..get tired of that sort of thing.
As for the last paragraph- Ill be addressing all of that in my upcoming TC post.
Gab:
OF COURSE Mrs. taco is “satisfied” with their sex life. She has complete and total control over it, and by extension, complete and total control over taco.
Mrs. taco is also telling him she is “satisfied” with their sex life because she doesn’t want to talk to him about it.
Mrs. taco doesn’t want to talk to him about their sex life because she isn’t really satisfied with it for some reason and she doesn’t want to tell him that.
She doesn’t want to tell him that because she knows that the truth will eventually come out if she does.
She knows that if the truth comes out that she isn’t really satisfied, she will have to face up to the root issue causing her dissatisfaction, whatever that is, and then work to remedy it, or learn to live with it as is. And she is scared to death of what taco’s reaction to the truth will be. The end result is that he might not want to stay married to her and he might withdraw his resources (which is why there are laws in place to prevent him from doing that, while still allowing her to withdraw and restrict sexual access).
And all this scares the hell out of her. So instead of getting to the root of it, she exerts as much control over the sex as she can.
One of two things is going on there:
1. She has a medical issue (less likely, since she’s had one premarital sex partner)
2. She’s not attracted to taco (much more likely).
This is really, really simple. It’s amazing how much clearer things become when you put on the glasses and take the red pill.
Gabrielle has the red pill. She is well aware of how things are, and how men are starting to respond to it. I have read enough of the ladies in the sphere to know the difference between honest ignorance/confusion of the male point of view and deliberate disruption of the discussion.
If nothing else, her continued encores of “i’m leaving now for real” place her well within the latter camp.
Dammit. A woman who wants her husband, loves him and is attracted to him should be literally begging him to penetrate her and spill himself into her.
This is true. Period. I’m not inserting a “but” clause, only suggesting that as in so many other areas, women are masterful at getting in our own way, even going so far as to operate against our own best interests (who doesn’t want her husband to want her, sheesh).
As is so often discussed and lamented here and elsewhere, (the societal) we have very surgically disconnected that exact (perfectly logical and physically terrific and emotionally gratifying) example you give of “union” from the sex act, even in the marriage bed. ABC, multiple partners, disordered use, and maybe just maybe a UTI, who knows, but I suspect the contamination of righteous healthy sex by the last 100ish years of fem/eug agendae have more to do with women’s hang ups than do hygiene concerns. It’s not right, it’s not an excuse, but it is reality. The young husbands of this generation are reaping what was sown. I know a lot of men on here see this as irreparable, and I can’t really blame them, from a purely earthly pov, but from an eternal one, if a man is called to marriage, he must go in knowing the Enemy wants him to fail, and has often been handicapped with a wife who hasn’t a clue what marital sex is meant to be (particularly if her previous “education” included years of fornication – married sex IS different, means something entirely different, but even if she’s a virgin, she’s still a product of the same culture). He’s not going to have much success dealing from the position of what should be, when it simply is not.
I don’t know what TM’s wifes problem is, I can only offer that I don’t see his being supplicating as any sort of a solution to her not matching his enthusiasm, and like anything worth perfecting, it takes some practice to cultivate the desired end result. A man is best for advising him from here, but just the general impression I’m getting from what he’s shared is he’s put his cart before his horse, in some regards, and expects (what would be logical but it doesn’t work out that way as most married people will attest) that if he does everything she wants she will then do everything he wants. Not so much, in practice, in bed or out.
Epic thread is epic.
As the new guy, I would only add: Mrs. DJ is *very* sad when I do not orgasm inside her. I am also sad, and tend to hate condoms/withdrawal, so we almost always put sperm where it does her all kinds of good [TMI redacted].
(At the same time, I agree with Gabriella–it always has felt good to pee not terribly long after sex. Mrs. DJ and I both do it.)
[D: Thanks DJ. Welcome to the blog!]
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/dont-be-tricked-into-responding-to-a-reframe-with-an-intellectual-argument/#comment-66571
Boxer,
I read over your thoughtful response to my post several times and have still not seen the feminist angle; I will cogitate on it further in the interest of self-improvement. I may have misinterpreted your initial statement on the role of mutual contribution to the problem, but I stand by my observation that she has committed the greater offense in the scenario based on the information presented and needs to be called out on it.
I will readily admit that I myself am guilty of the some of the enabling behavior you describe and sincerely hope for Taco’s sake that he has not crossed the Rubicon in his marriage.
Peace.
Deti-
I’m glad that you understand what I’ve been trying to convey in my postings. I’ve reread through these postings and most of the ones by the women posters make me shake my head in disbelief. I in no way contradict myself from the first and second postings above. I was simply stating that the sex is not good although I’ve tried to make things good, that it has led me to looking at porn a little bit, and that I went to a pastor at church who wasn’t able to help me ,(1st post) and that she is fine with the below average sex life (2nd post) and that confuses me.
Deti explains it best with this comment:
Women who are attracted to their husbands and want sex with them do not dictate the sexual positions or tell them to hurry up and finish, or demand that they be situated upon sanitized, sterilized fabric. Women who want sex with their husbands want their husbands to ejaculate on or in them frequently. Women who want sex with their husbands want sex with them often. A woman who is attracted to a man cannot get enough of his semen inside her. Her appetite for his body and his sexuality should be almost insatiable. A woman who is attracted to her husband does not leap up right after sex to expel the semen and clean her body.
A woman who wants sex with her husband and is attracted to him will have sex with him enthusiastically — or at least she should.
Pingback: Is It A Sin? | Illusion of Sanity
Pingback: Rebuilding the mound | Dalrock
” I get that stupid submission = doormat fallacy tossed my way,”
It’s interesting, that today I see more young women who I would classify as submissive than ever before. Now some of that may be because I am much older than they are, and represent the “father-figure” they never had growing up, and they want someone to limit them and show that he cares by limiting them. I don’t really know – or care – since if a woman “fights” I just kick her to the curb and move on. That could be by being overly argumentative. I’ve told women, “This isn’t going to work.” And taken them home, and they then spend the next several months doing anything and everything for me to prove that “it can work”.
You have to understand women are contrary by nature, and tend to be self-destructive if you let them. Yes, that is a broad generalization, but it’s one that is mostly true. So if you use it as a point of reference, you’ll be right more often than not. Women will complain and rant and rave that it isn’t true – just proving that it points out something they themselves are aware of and hate to have called out. But if you aren’t willing to call them out on that, you are too weak for them to look up to you, and WANT to be submissive to you. Now all women want to be submissive – even if they fight against it. Your job is to determine if the one you’re dealing with is worth the hassle. Most of the time it’s just easier to kick that one to the curb and move on. Remember, YOU (the man) are the prize – she is competing with all of the women her age, older, and younger to hold your attention – make her work for it. If she isn’t willing – kick her to the curb and move on to the next one. No woman is worth more than what she can bring to you as far as improving your life. If she isn’t improving your life, you need to get a different one. Simple, straight-forward.
If you want to have sex with her, she has the proof that she won against the others trying to attract you. It doesn’t matter if you are married to her or not – the nature of women is fixed. If she isn’t enthusiastic in your desire to have sex with her, she’s looking for a man she will be enthusiastic having sex with. If you find yourself not desiring her – it’s probably because she has lost interest in having sex with you, and bloating up like a cow is her way of avoiding sex by becoming unattractive to you. It is an act of disrespect and you should see it that way.
I was in a near-sexless marriage for 5 years. My wife would never deny me sex, but here is the reality: when the wife is cold, mean, angry/unhappy all the time, the man does not WANT to have sex with her. This marital rape thing is a red herring. The real problem is women’s divorce fantasies and the other things women are encourage to do inside a marriage: be free to just be a total bitch and not a loving wife. So in REALITY what happens is the relationship just grows awkward and the man does not want to have sex. I guess a small % of men might rape, but what really happens is the man just feels like giving up.
Pingback: Don’t Get Married, Hire a Secretary | Hipster Racist
Pingback: No room for headship here. | Dalrock
Pingback: A reader with marital difficulties wonders if now would be a good time to get his wife pregnant. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Headship Game. | Dalrock
If you want to make Taco seem more alpha:
1) Tell your wife that you’re looking for a gf.
2) Stay out all night and don’t tell the wife where you were. You can just stay by yourself in a motel.
3) Get a hobby that requires you to be out one or more evenings per week without the wife.
4) Flirt with other women. Run kino on them, especially.
(Note that you don’t actually have to get a gf. This is classic Dread Game.)
Ask the wife why she wants to clean up immediately after sex. Maybe she wants to avoid staining the mattress and washing the sheets. Make it clear that cuddling afterwards is more important that washing the sheets again.
Ask the wife to tell you all about what she did with her past boyfriend in the sex department. Better is to get one of her girlfriends to do this for you.
Pingback: Effortless | Dalrock