Frequency of intimacy in marriage

[Created2Write]

That's a very interesting view Jethro. I'm wondering what you base it on? Can you give me some scriptural support for it? I've studied the Biblical teachings on marriage a fair amount, and can find nothing that limits sex to procreation, and much that suggests that it has a far broader and deeper purpose.

Since my wife and I are no longer having children (we have 5) do you intend to say that we should not be having sex? That would severely damage our marriage, and I don't see much advantage to it.

God ordained sex within marriage to be the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people, and an ongoing reminder that you are now one flesh. If it has ceased within a marriage, or is unilaterally limited there are serious issues within that relationship well above and beyond the physical aspects.

Exactly my view as well. If procreation is the only reason for sex, then does that mean a marriage should become celibate when the wife goes through menopause and can no longer bear children? I think not. Sex was designed to be a part of the marriage relationship, and not only for the bearing of children. I mean, for goodness sakes, marriage itself isn't strictly designed for children. Many married couples agree that they never want to have children, so should they also have a celibate relationship? Marriage was created by God so that men and women could have companionship and, I believe, sex is an incredibly vital part of that companionship.

Now, I don't think it's the most important part. Things like love, trust, respect, and friendship are just as important. Sex doesn't make a relationship successful, which is why we don't marry upon the initial attraction. We build a celibate relationship first, through dating/courtship, where the trust, respect and friendship are built as the foundation. After marriage, sex is the outcome of those things, and there's nothing wrong with either the husband or wife expecting sex in the relationship.

Frequency, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. Frequency, in my opinion, is not going to be as important to everyone. Not all men rave about and crave sex every day. Not all women prefer to lay back and think of England. There's nothing wrong with anyone's individual sex drive, as long as each member of the marriage is adequately satisfied. My husband and I are rather lucky, we both have relatively high sex drives. Other relationships are lucky in the opposite way, they each have lower sex drives. I don't believe that any set frequency is wrong, so long as one person isn't forced into having more or less than they desire.

I, personally, think it's dangerous to see sex as a negative when it comes to men and their desires. A man's sexual desires were put there by God, and they shouldn't be condemned or ridiculed. What he does with those desires, however, can be incredibly hurtful to the relationship. But the desires themselves are not evil. Nor is a woman's lack of sexual desire. She was created the way she was by God. Now, what she chooses to do with that lack of desire can be hurtful to the relationship as well, but in and of itself it's not wrong. And, again, as long as both parties are satisfied and happy with the frequency, there isn't anything wrong.

 

[Created2Write]

Neither can I. So that's hardly what I'm arguing for.

What I realized was how distorted my modern view of sex was because of how we have successfully removed the child bearing element from sexual activity. We are well into a couple of generations now who grew up thinking sex is something that has the option of using it to have children, not knowing that removing that built in restraint on sexual desire was opening up the door to the bondage of unbridled passion and the unreasonable and unloving demands it places on spouses.



Sex is a deeply emotionally satisfying experience. But we men tend to see it more in terms of a mechanical procedure to relieve the unbridled and out of control demands of our bodies (see above). Hardly what God intended, but which exists as the painful consequence of deciding we want to remove the consequences and responsibilities that God built into having sex.



Hardly.

I have four children. I wanted five, but decided to bail out at four by getting a vasectomy. That's when the real trouble started.



But this hardly means we can ignore the godly virtues of self control and concern (godly love) for our mates. There's nothing wrong with the unilateral limitations that God himself built into marriage. We get in trouble when we decide our sexual appetites should not be restrained by those limitations.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused. Why is it being assumed that it's unloving for a man to enjoy sex with his wife? Maybe my husband is a rare exception, but sex for us has rarely ever been mechanical. Yes, my husband enjoys sex but he enjoys so much because of me and the love he has for me. Just recently he expressed how loved he feels when we becomes one; how cherished and appreciated he feels when we make love. Yes, his urges are physical, but the satisfaction if more than that. I think it's a bit...presumptuous to assume that the majority of men have selfishness at heart when it comes to their sexual desires.

What really woke me up about all this was the fact that Paul's counsel to spouses to not withhold due benevolence, except by mutual consent, was "because of your lack of self-control" (1 Corinthians 7:5 NIV1984).

I can certainly see the loving grace of God in that, but maturing spiritual men (and women as it applies) should face the music that it was given because of a lack of the godly trait of self control, not as a way to make your spouse have sex with you because that's the way it's supposed to be. There's a right and godly way to nurture mutual sexual attraction and desire in a marriage. Paul's instruction is a concession for people who don't have self control and insist they 'just gotta have it'.

I don't think anyone here is advocating a "just gotta have it" stance. If that were the case, we'd be talking of adulterous relationships or a sense of entitlement to sex, no matter the state of the relationship. What is being said, by me at least, is that sex is not the icing on the cake. Trust wouldn't be listed as the icing, mutual respect wouldn't be listed as icing, they'd be listed as vital ingredients to the relationship...but for many individuals sex is one of the ways that trust and respect are strengthened, so for them sex is vitally important.

That doesn't mean that sex should be given by either spouse no matter what. Sex is sacred and shouldn't be an act of selfishness. But a husband and wife can physically enjoy consummation without being selfish. Sex can be a priority in the relationship without one spouse being taken advantage of.

 

[Created2Write]

I appreciate your thoughtful post here, but I disagree with you on this point: To say that mature men and women will limit their sexuality implies that it must be limited because it is somehow bad, but God doesn't call it bad. Sex within marriage is not sin, and is not limited by God. He created marriage so that we can fully enjoy sex, and He created sex so that we can fully enjoy marriage.

I have to disagree with this description. The idea that men are some kind of sex crazed animals while women are innately pure comes from feminism, not the Bible. In fact in the Bible there are more women who fall into sexual sin than men. I also don't see anywhere in the Bible that God limits sex within marriage. By unilateral I was referring to one partner deciding based solely on their own desires, or lack there of what the couples sex life will be like.

This was my point as well. Sex is meant to be mutual, not strictly about one partner's sex drive, either the higher or lower. And when there is a marriage where the sex drives are not matched, I believe both spouses should meet in the middle; the higher drive should not expect the other to match theirs, nor should the lower. Compromise can be highly effective.

I disagree with you're interpretation here. The actual verse reads The phrase 'because or your lack of self control modifies 'so that Satan will not tempt you'. The admonition is to NOT refrain within marriage so that you won't be tempted outside of marriage where it is not just sin, but highly destructive to the family and society. There is no implication here that sex should be limited because it is bad, but that it needs to be kept within the bounds of marriage as God intended.

I agree with this as well. That's why the Bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled. The Pastor who married my husband and I counciled us beforehand and said that, so long as there is no sin involved(threesomes, pornography, abuse etc.), and so long as neither spouse is uncomfortable with or forced into an action, there is no sexual action that can be sin within the marriage bed. My husband and I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Paul's instruction is based on a realistic understanding that a healthy sex life within marriage is the best defense against sexual temptation. Sexual sin is outside of marriage, not within it.

I only disagree with this slightly. I believe that when either spouse feels forced to settle with less or more sex than they are entirely comfortable with, or when they feel forced to perform a sexual action they don't like, that there is something wrong. No one should feel forced into anything in their sex life. Even in hard situations, where one spouse's drive is much higher than the other's, there should be attempts to find a suitable middle ground. When one person is made either intentionally or unintentionally to feel as if they're failing the relationship due to their sex drive, I do think there is something wrong and, depending on the other's intentions, it can be sinful.

I respect those who disagree with me, but as long as we cannot agree that sex is a good thing to be celebrated, and not a dirty sinful thing to be limited even within marriage, we won't have common ground to discuss the details of it.

Would it surprise any of you to learn that in a sexless, or low sex marriage I blame the husband, not the wife? Oh I don't buy the convoluted excuses women give for ignoring their husbands needs or desires for one minute, but that's excuses not reasons.

The reason any of this is an issue is simply this: Women often stop being attracted to their husbands. They may still like them, even love them, but they are not attracted to them. They can't help it, it's chemical. Men have been told that the way to be a 'good' husband is to be the beta Christian nice guy. Which is absolutely to opposite of what women find sexually attractive. The Church, in trying to weed out all aspects of strong masculinity has ruined more marriages than can be counted. If a woman remains strongly attracted to her mate, there are no sexual issues, at least none that can't be overcome. After all, no one here is arguing that when a woman wants to have sex she is being sinful or inconsiderate, that only applies to men.

Interesting take. I don't blame any particular gender, I blame the member of the relationship who is unwilling to work on the sexual aspect, no matter how it effects the other. A healthy sex life with one's spouse, like every aspect of a marriage, takes work and effort and communication between spouses. When one aspect of the relationship(whatever it may be) lacks any or all of these things, I think that is where the issue arises. I think these can be the reasons why women lose their attraction to their husbands, and why men can distance themselves emotionally from their wives.

 

[Created2Write]

Every human fleshly desire has to be controlled, for sin is the thoughtless, selfish pursuit of the fulfillment of the flesh. By nature we humans are very good at pressing the agenda of the flesh onto other people in not so polite ways. But we are also very good at resisting the fleshly agenda of other people imposed on us in not so polite ways, too.

I agree that our humanly desires should be controlled. In the case of food, though, the desire for food is not inherently evil. It is meant to tell us when our bodies need fuel. Sexual desires, while physical, are meant to be expressed in marriage. Until we're married they're meant to be controlled because, like the desire for food, it can lead to destructive behaviors. But it can also lead to a healthy marital relationship.

 

[Created2Write]

As far as sex being or not being a foundation....

I believe that a marriage's foundation is built before the wedding day. When a man and woman are getting to know each other without a sexual relationship, knowing their likes and dislikes, their views on matters like politics and religion, etc. trust is being built over time. Respect is being built with each issue they work through. Friendship is built as they have fun together and grow together. There should already be a foundation when the marriage day arrives, and I believe that sex is meant to continually strengthen that foundation.

Now, this doesn't mean that the foundation is only strengthened when the couple has sex every single day. Frequent sex doesn't necessarily mean the foundation is even being strengthened, it can mean quite the opposite but in such cases I'm less inclined to believe that sex is the issue. Frequency is going to vary based on the couple. The important thing is that both spouses are sexually fulfilled and satisfied with the sexual relationship, as well as the rest of the relationship.

Sex can absolutely bring healing to a circumstance or situation between a husband and wife.

 

[chaz345]

I'd like to contribute much more than I have that would straighten out the perception of how things are in this thread. I simply don't have a lot of time.

Of course, most men are going to insist that sex is the foundation of a marital relationship, not the dressing on the outside, (I was one of them) but this simply is not true. You have to do your homework building a good foundation under the relationship (which is NOT sex) before you can have a mutually edifying sexual relationship on top of that foundation. This is true for both men and women.

Sex is not bad. Sex is not shameful. That is, until it moves out of the boundaries of comfort for one of the partners. For example, an overwhelming desire for sex can be bad in one relationship (the other spouse doesn't want it that way), but that same desire be entirely satisfying and wonderful in another relationship (the other spouse is all for it). See how relative it is? It's all relative to what the other spouse is willing to cooperate with. But, in and of itself, sexual activity is not bad or shameful. Our duty as Christians is to consider the needs and desires of the other person, not insist the relationship conform to our own needs and desires (no matter how politely you think you're doing that). When two people do this, you're on your way to a mutually satisfying relationship.

I'm not saying that sex is the foundation though. I'm saying that it's EQUALLY important as anything else that goes into a marriage. It's not something that flows out of a great marriage or that is a reflection of a great marriage, it is as much an ingredient in creating that great marriage as anything else is.

I absolutely agree that our obligation as Christians is to consider the needs and desires of the other. That's as true for the partner who may have a lower sex drive, who should "just do it" sometimes our of regard for their partner, as it is for the higher drive one who should do without on occasion. The thing is, we never hear that said. Or when it is, someone goes off about how damaging "duty sex" is or about how one should not demand sex. Why is there rarely if ever any concern given to how damaging doing without(or getting by on far less than what one would prefer)sex is? It just seems to me that most of the time the one being expected to conform their desires to the others preference is the one who wants more sex. Why is it that the desire for less sex by one partner seems to trump the desire for more by the other?

 

[chaz345]

But they have...just not in a direct way.

Who and where?

 

[chaz345]

After marriage, sex is the outcome of those things, and there's nothing wrong with either the husband or wife expecting sex in the relationship.

I believe that sex is both an outcome of those things AND an ingredient that goes into or enhances them.

 

[chaz345]

Sex is a deeply emotionally satisfying experience. But we men tend to see it more in terms of a mechanical procedure to relieve the unbridled and out of control demands of our bodies (see above). Hardly what God intended, but which exists as the painful consequence of deciding we want to remove the consequences and responsibilities that God built into having sex.

I believe that this is what many people wrongly believe men feel about sex, that's it's all about "getting off" or all about the physical release. And for a few men it probably is. But for every single man I've been close enough to talk to about it, as well as most every man I've been involved with conversations about it online, the physical release part is only a small part of why they want/need sex. If it were truly all about that, then masturbating to porn would be a satisfying experience, and I can tell you, unfortunately from too much personal experience, that it's not.

For me, and others I've talked to sex is about both the physical release and the spiritual/emotional bonding that it creates and/or enhances. The longer it's been since the last time, the greater the importance of the physical need.That greater need can, at times, get in the way of the other components of the whole experience. So in a sense, a PART of what goes into making sex everything it can and should be is making sure that frequency is not way below what the higher drive partner needs. That applies to women too in the case where they are the higher drive partner.

 

[Created2Write]

I believe that sex is both an outcome of those things AND an ingredient that goes into or enhances them.

I definitely agree.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well, I can definitely see this thread going nowhere for a real long time.

The bottom line is...

"12 ...in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12 NIV1984)

And when you find that other people in your life don't want to do that for you, especially spouses, you just have to find refuge in the Lord and let him sort it out. There is a day of reckoning for all things.


I honestly don't think there is a lot of value in trying to figure out how to manipulate spouses to get them to give us what we want. Understanding human nature helps us know why men and women act the way they do, but I've never seen it be of any value in manipulating them to change.

Changing a spouse into someone who obeys the verse above is something only God can do. You might get a convenient counterfeit some other way if you have the resources, but only the real thing comes from God. Our job while God does or doesn't do anything with an uncooperative spouse is to commit ourselves to that verse above and leave the rest to him.

Not very popular teaching in the church, I know...but it's the only truth that will bring the neglected spouse any true peace. So, for you neglected and unloved spouses...

"...those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (1 Peter 4:19 NIV1984)

It's the only way to find peace when we suffer in this life at the hands of others.

 

[chaz345]

Well, I can definitely see this thread going nowhere for a real long time.

The bottom line is...

"12 ...in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12 NIV1984)

And when you find that other people in your life don't want to do that for you, especially spouses, you just have to find refuge in the Lord and let him sort it out. There is a day of reckoning for all things.


I honestly don't think there is a lot of value in trying to figure out how to manipulate spouses to get them to give us what we want. Understanding human nature helps us know why men and women act the way they do, but I've never seen it be of any value in manipulating them to change.

Changing a spouse into someone who obeys the verse above is something only God can do. You might get a convenient counterfeit some other way if you have the resources, but only the real thing comes from God. Our job while God does or doesn't do anything with an uncooperative spouse is to commit ourselves to that verse above and leave the rest to him.

Not very popular teaching in the church, I know...but it's the only truth that will bring the neglected spouse any true peace. So, for you neglected and unloved spouses...

"...those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (1 Peter 4:19 NIV1984)

It's the only way to find peace when we suffer in this life at the hands of others.

I agree completely. I'm just saying that it seems to me that usually the only one being asked to sacrifice their own preferences for the good of their spouse and for the good of the marriage is the one who wants more sex. If the one who wants less sex is advised to SOMETIMES just go ahead and do it anyway, we get all sorts of warnings about how bad and soul sucking "duty sex" is or about how sex should not be demanded. But if the one who wants more sex is advised to suck it up and do without, where are the warnings about how going without on a long term basis is soul sucking?

Can we agree that BOTH the higher drive partner and the lower drive partner should SOMETIMES sacrifice their personal preference for the sake of what the other wants? And that in either case, if that sacrifice becomes the default norm, either having sex out of duty, or not having sex, on a long term basis out of duty, that it's equally destructive?

Also I'm still waiting for where it was indirectly stated that demanding sex from one's spouse was the right thing to do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Also I'm still waiting for where it was indirectly stated that demanding sex from one's spouse was the right thing to do.

My overall perception of Dreadpiratkevin's POV is that he is saying it is wrong to let a wife not fulfill her sexual obligations in the marriage. It amounts to impressing your right to have sex on your wife.

There's a right way to make your desire in marriage known. Demanding your rights in a thinly disguised politeness is not it. It's really not. You might get a temporary outward change, but you won't get the real change you're looking for. Only God can do that. Not our pressing in with 'the way it's supposed to be'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If the one who wants less sex is advised to SOMETIMES just go ahead and do it anyway, we get all sorts of warnings about how bad and soul sucking "duty sex" is...

It's bad if that person is doing it under duress, and not willingly.

Just telling a person to give duty sex is not enough. The other person has to really be okay with doing it. Simply telling them that's what they should be doing, even if they don't want to, is not the answer. It is possible to give duty sex cheerfully. Sounds contradictory, but think about it.

Only God can make a cheerful giver. Anything else is a man made (temporary) counterfeit.

...or about how sex should not be demanded. But if the one who wants more sex is advised to suck it up and do without, where are the warnings about how going without on a long term basis is soul sucking?

So what about it? What's the answer? Make the other person submit?

Think it through, then you'll see that the expectation is on the spiritually responsible Christian to do the sucking up, not the one who can't or won't cooperate in the relationship. That's what being a Christian is all about.

Can we agree that BOTH the higher drive partner and the lower drive partner should SOMETIMES sacrifice their personal preference for the sake of what the other wants?

Of course, but what good does that thinking do if the other person simply won't go there? We're back to what God wants his people to do in that position.

And that in either case, if that sacrifice becomes the default norm, either having sex out of duty, or not having sex, on a long term basis out of duty, that it's equally destructive?

If I think I understand what you're saying correctly, I would say, 'yes'. Only when duty sex is a decision by the one giving it that they want to give it out of Christian love for the other will it be any kind of a help in a sexual relationship. If it's not that, it's just a temporary band aid that will stop sticking sooner or later and fall off.

 

[Created2Write]

It's bad if that person is doing it under duress, and not willingly.

So, for clarification, let me ask this: I would agree with this statement, but it depends on the definition of duress. If you mean that the partner with the lower sex drive is made to feel guilty or ashamed for their lack of desire, or that they're being pressured into having sex when they don't want it and have stated very clearly, "Not right now", then I would agree with this statement.

However, I will add that not all forms of persuasion should be considered "duress". Foreplay, massages, even getting flowers or going on a date can increase the sex drive of the lower partner. I know, being an emotional woman, that I absolutely love the emotional connections like dates, going to the park, watching a romantic movie, getting flowers, etc. And they assist in awakening that desire. I only say this because I get the feeling that whenever a man desires his wife and makes a move toward having sex, you would see that as overstepping the boundaries. I hope I am mistaken, and if so, I apologize. I merely would like clarification on what you mean by duress.

Just telling a person to give duty sex is not enough. The other person has to really be okay with doing it. Simply telling them that's what they should be doing, even if they don't want to, is not the answer. It is possible to give duty sex cheerfully. Sounds contradictory, but think about it.

It's entirely possible to give duty sex cheerfully. It's called selflessness, understanding that my husband has emotional needs just like I do, and that I vowed to meet those needs. If I expect him to respect my "Not tonight" on an off -day, shouldn't I also respect his desires, even if I'm not in the mood? That doesn't mean it has to be done everyday. Frequency, as been said more than once, is up to the couple. But the sexual aspect of marriage is meant to be mutual. If one spouse wants less and the other wants more, if they love each other, they will each compromise so that they both are satisfied and respected.

Now, if one person right out refuses to compromise, they need counciling, imo. It means their heart isn't in the right place, and it's not fair to put the entirety of the responsibility on the other spouse's shoulders.

Only God can make a cheerful giver. Anything else is a man made (temporary) counterfeit.

So your advice would be...for the spouse with the higher drive to completely deny their God-given desires? What about the spouse who is rejecting a part of their vows?

So what about it? What's the answer? Make the other person submit?

Not "make them". We can't make anyone do anything, nor should we try to. But that doesn't mean the one who's desires are being ignored should have lay down and take it and pretend to be happy. I would say the couple would need counciling, to sort out the problems that has lead to the refusal.

Think it through, then you'll see that the expectation is on the spiritually responsible Christian to do the sucking up, not the one who can't or won't cooperate in the relationship. That's what being a Christian is all about.

So when Spouse A decides that they no longer wish to have sex with Spouse B, Spouse B is expected to suck it up and pretend that everything is okay? If it were me, I'd find a Pastor or a Councilor to help us ASAP. I sure wouldn't sit around and smile and pretend that my marriage was fine. No way. If my husband had a mental or physical condition that prevented relations, that would be one thing. He wouldn't be able to control the situation. But in healthy situations there is control, and as long as both people want the marriage to succeed, neither one should have to just "suck it up" if they're unhappy.

Of course, but what good does that thinking do if the other person simply won't go there? We're back to what God wants his people to do in that position.

And there's always counciling...getting professional help so the marriage can, in time, be whole again. And if one spouse refuses to get counciling, I definitely think the other should.

If I think I understand what you're saying correctly, I would say, 'yes'. Only when duty sex is a decision by the one giving it that they want to give it out of Christian love for the other will it be any kind of a help in a sexual relationship. If it's not that, it's just a temporary band aid that will stop sticking sooner or later and fall off.

Except, I don't think anyone here has advocated the forcing of duty sex onto one's spouse. Forcing anything onto one's spouse I think we'd all agree is wrong. But it doesn't change the fact that, in marriage where two people work to be one with each other, there are going to be times where compromises must be reached. Sex can be one of those areas that needs compromise. And, imo, it should NEVER be that the spouse who is being sexually neglected is responsible for the marriage, and the other is off the hook. Ever.

 

[chaz345]

It's bad if that person is doing it under duress, and not willingly.

Can the same not be said about the person with the higher drive going without though? Isn't is just as wrong and just as damaging to force or coerce them to do without?

Just telling a person to give duty sex is not enough. The other person has to really be okay with doing it. Simply telling them that's what they should be doing, even if they don't want to, is not the answer. It is possible to give duty sex cheerfully. Sounds contradictory, but think about it.

Only God can make a cheerful giver. Anything else is a man made (temporary) counterfeit.

Again the very same thinking applies to telling the higher drive partner to do without too. Simply telling them they have to do without is not the answer either.

If I think I understand what you're saying correctly, I would say, 'yes'. Only when duty sex is a decision by the one giving it that they want to give it out of Christian love for the other will it be any kind of a help in a sexual relationship. If it's not that, it's just a temporary band aid that will stop sticking sooner or later and fall off.

This is, IMO, so obvious, that it need not be said. Since I never came close to suggesting that duty sex be coerced or demanded, it would probably be helpful to keep the discussion not focused on that idea.


Here's the thing though. It seems to me that you, like a lot of others, see some fundemental difference between the higher drive partner sacrificing and doing without, and the lower drive partner sacrificing and just doing it. There is, functionally, zero difference in my opinion.

 

[chaz345]

My overall perception of Dreadpiratkevin's POV is that he is saying it is wrong to let a wife not fulfill her sexual obligations in the marriage. It amounts to impressing your right to have sex on your wife.

There's a right way to make your desire in marriage known. Demanding your rights in a thinly disguised politeness is not it. It's really not. You might get a temporary outward change, but you won't get the real change you're looking for. Only God can do that. Not our pressing in with 'the way it's supposed to be'.

I didn't see them as saying that at all but that's probably because we seem to be approaching this issue from opposite viewpoints where you see sex as an add on to a marriage whereas I see it as a critical ingredient. To torture a metaphor, you see it as the icing, I see it as the eggs. Without it, you end up with something other than a cake.

 

[chaz345]

However, I will add that not all forms of persuasion should be considered "duress". Foreplay, massages, even getting flowers or going on a date can increase the sex drive of the lower partner. I know, being an emotional woman, that I absolutely love the emotional connections like dates, going to the park, watching a romantic movie, getting flowers, etc. And they assist in awakening that desire. I only say this because I get the feeling that whenever a man desires his wife and makes a move toward having sex, you would see that as overstepping the boundaries. I hope I am mistaken, and if so, I apologize. I merely would like clarification on what you mean by duress.

I don't necessarily see Jethro as saying that those sorts of "pursuasion" are wrong, but I have definitely seen them described as coercive before. There was another poster on this thread who said she just didn't feel like sex all that often and it seemed to me that in her case, any form of convincing such as the above things would be seen as coercive. The problem with her apparent stance is that there are lots of women who have little to zero sexual desire until they actually start. So if specifically feeling like it, actively wanting it, is their standard for doing it, it will almost never happen.

 

[Created2Write]

I don't necessarily see Jethro as saying that those sorts of "pursuasion" are wrong, but I have definitely seen them described as coercive before. There was another poster on this thread who said she just didn't feel like sex all that often and it seemed to me that in her case, any form of convincing such as the above things would be seen as coercive. The problem with her apparent stance is that there are lots of women who have little to zero sexual desire until they actually start. So if specifically feeling like it, actively wanting it, is their standard for doing it, it will almost never happen.

I didn't that's what he was saying either, I just added what I said cause I thought it was important, for the very reason you list. I'm romantic. I like dates and kisses and things to warm the coals, so to speak. If my husband and I went off of when I actually felt like it, we'd have sex maybe...once or twice a month. So that's why he works as hard as he does to meet my emotional needs. That's a lot easier for him to do, than it is for me to really work myself up. Moreover, sex for us isn't about just one person; it's about both of us, so he would rather take the time to meet my emotional needs throughout the day/week, so that my feelings and emotions will sync with physical wants.

I think it's sad that when a man feels that he can't even kiss his wife in a passionate way without her feeling used. I know that there are a lot of different situations, and I've even had times when the only attention I got from my husband over the course of a few days was physical/sexual. It definitely doesn't make a girl feel cherished. But I also know that his sexual urges are stronger than mine, even though mine are pretty high. He's not showing that attention just because he's materialistic and only thinks about sex, he shows that attention because he's a healthy man. It's not to make me feel like a piece of meat, so I have to check my feelings and ensure that I don't jump to unnecessary conclusions. I think some sexual issues in marriage would resolve themselves if other women(no one in particular, fyi) took the same approach.

 

[chaz345]

I didn't that's what he was saying either, I just added what I said cause I thought it was important, for the very reason you list. I'm romantic. I like dates and kisses and things to warm the coals, so to speak. If my husband and I went off of when I actually felt like it, we'd have sex maybe...once or twice a month. So that's why he works as hard as he does to meet my emotional needs. That's a lot easier for him to do, than it is for me to really work myself up. Moreover, sex for us isn't about just one person; it's about both of us, so he would rather take the time to meet my emotional needs throughout the day/week, so that my feelings and emotions will sync with physical wants.

I think it's sad that when a man feels that he can't even kiss his wife in a passionate way without her feeling used. I know that there are a lot of different situations, and I've even had times when the only attention I got from my husband over the course of a few days was physical/sexual. It definitely doesn't make a girl feel cherished. But I also know that his sexual urges are stronger than mine, even though mine are pretty high. He's not showing that attention just because he's materialistic and only thinks about sex, he shows that attention because he's a healthy man. It's not to make me feel like a piece of meat, so I have to check my feelings and ensure that I don't jump to unnecessary conclusions. I think some sexual issues in marriage would resolve themselves if other women(no one in particular, fyi) took the same approach.

I agree. I think many women can get caught up in "all he wants is sex" thinking. Yes he definitely does want sex, but if it's ALL he wanted, there are far easier ways to get it. He wants sex with YOU and in most marriages ONLY you.