Zorya Vechernyaya Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 cijay: Okay then...finally he woke up and realised she said no! You better believe it's final. I believe you're reading your own thoughts and experiences into the matter, no offense. They got married. She stopped having sex with him, as someone pointed out, it was sporadic at best. Still, she never flat-out went and said "sex is icky to me, I don't want it anymore, deal with it or hit the door" There could be all sorts of reasons for her lack of desire. Unlikely it is, but she could be cheating. She could be sexually interested, but just not in HIM and puts up with it because she likes the marriage. Cate: I'm all for compromising in other areas, but if you want to regularly have sex with me then you might as well beat me. If a woman stood up after 19 years of being beaten and degraded and said, 'No more. You like it, it gives you power and makes you feel good to humiliate me this way, but I hate it,' then she'd be applauded. Jeez. No offense either, but I think you're also reading extraneous things into it. He's respected her wishes for eleven years. If he was the sadistic monster so constructed, he wouldn't be writing Dear Prudence. He'd be off chopping people's limbs off. What has he done? Nothing. There's no indication that he forced her, ever, and if she forced herself then she bears full responsibility. Why is he evil for finding sexlessness intolerable but she virtuous for finding sex intolerable? I see them as the same. Link to post Share on other sites
cijay Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I believe you're reading your own thoughts and experiences into the matter' date=' no offense.[/quote']That's as may be and he DOES deserve to know why but until they can communicate, he's gotta' keep his hands and all other external appendages to himself. Not only is it rude but it's AGAINST THE LAW. Still' date=' she never flat-out went and said "sex is icky to me, I don't want it anymore, deal with it or hit the door"[/quote']And we know this...how? He said. Yes, HE said. We're not hearing her side, she is unrepresented in this. She doesn't want to be touched by him and that's something they have to discuss but HE doesn't even say if they share the same bed anymore. There could be all sorts of reasons for her lack of desire. Unlikely it is' date=' but she could be cheating. She could be sexually interested, but just not in HIM and puts up with it because she likes the marriage.[/quote']I agree but because we're not hearing her side and everyone is just going by the one thing that he has a problem with, apparently we have to concentrate on poor old him. Cate:He's respected her wishes for eleven years. And she his for nineteen years if we're keeping track of numbers. If he was the sadistic monster so constructed' date=' he wouldn't be writing Dear Prudence. He'd be off chopping people's limbs off. [/quote']Another thing he wouldn't admit to in a letter to Prudie' date=' would he? We don't know this, we only know about poor old him and his problem. What has he done? Hey, he got it his way for nineteen years. Again, I'm not saying they don't need to talk about it but she has told him 'no', and 'no' means 'no'. It's a two letter word that I'm sure even he understands. He may not understand WHY and deserves to but until then, the answer is 'no'. There's no indication that he forced her' date=' ever.[/quote']There's no indication that she ever wanted it either but this thread doesn't appear to be one where simple questions are answered. Link to post Share on other sites
gypsylady Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 My opinion on this matter is that people are confusing personal (and legal) rights with marital responsibilities. Back in the Dark Ages, when a woman married, she was considered to be her husband's property (actually I believe that only ceased around the middle of the 20th century, in most civilized places at least). Is it any wonder that marriages have been lasting for shorter and shorter periods of time since then? Both genders know now that they no longer *have* to put up with the circumstances (including changing needs) within a relationship that make them miserable. We will *never* again see the long marriages our grandparents and great-grandparents had. And that is because we have options. We no longer feel the need of, or the responsibility to, the institution of marriage itself. And, as a relationship crumbles (for whatever reasons, including sexual incompatibility, amid *many*), the people involved feel freer to walk away. And in the process, often, they trash their soon-to-be-expartner, as a result of resentments acquired and harbored over years. This is often because no one taught them (as in the couple we have all been discussing) how to communicate. Most of society doesn't know how to identify feelings, never mind communicate them. If we were taught not only about feelings but also how to communicate them and accept them without judgement, problems like this would not occur, because the people involved would know how to discuss, listen, and problem solve. Society, however, is more interested in teaching us how to spread gossip, find fault with one another, and hold grudges. Far be it from me to say I'm free of this crap. Although I try, I am a product of my society. Everyone here is so hot on placing blame on either one party or the other - and I can see the arguments for both sides. But this problem is much, much larger, and far more deep seated, than anyone here can begin to address. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 cijay: That's as may be and he DOES deserve to know why but until they can communicate, he's gotta' keep his hands and all other external appendages to himself. Not only is it rude but it's AGAINST THE LAW. Please quote me saying that he did not have to respect her wishes. Again, that's as may be but...what if it's the case? Do you think he'd write to the hokey columnist and say 'my wife won't have sex with me because I stink and I rape her?" I wasn't aware that sadistic power freaks were in the habit of writing Dear Prudence. "Dear Prudence, I have recently moved my gloomy chateau to a rather densely populated region of Provence. My neighbors are on the whole very charming, but have complained about the tortured screams emanating from my cellar. Ought I muffle my victims in deference to my neighbors?" Perhaps Hannibal Lecter would, but he's much too refined to rape anyone. Presumably if he was forcing her to have sex with him, he would not be complaining that she does not have sex with him. Another thing he wouldn't admit to in a letter to Prudie, would he? I wouldn't admit to being a vicious murderer on www.asexuality.org, but I don't think it's logical to assume that therefore, I bathe in the blood of young virgins. Hey, he got it his way for nineteen years. Again, I'm not saying they don't need to talk about it but she has told him 'no', and 'no' means 'no'. It's a two letter word that I'm sure even he understands. He may not understand WHY and deserves to but until then, the answer is 'no'. Again - nobody is advocating that he rape her, why do you see the need to reiterate the obvious? There's no indication that she ever wanted it either The fact that she had several children with him? Children aren't dug up from under mulberry bushes, you know, and women aren't in the habit of forming lasting, otherwise healthy relationships with their rapists. Link to post Share on other sites
dastraube Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 I think some of the posts have emphasized rights. I believe in rights, too. Rights give us protection from things that can hurt us and allow us to keep certain things we are unwilling or unable to share. Without rights, it would be hard or impossible to even start a relationship. But they are not the goal of a relationship. Other posts have emphasized communication. Without communication, we don't know what each other wants and needs. But communication is not itself the goal of a relationship, it just helps us know how to get there. I think most people think of love as the goal of a relationship. I'm not a religious person but I'm listing below a quote that is probably my favorite passage from the Bible; I'll be surprised if it's new to anyone here. I'm sure it can be picked apart or criticized it for its author. Still, it has meaning for me and I think of it sometimes when I wonder "what would the loving thing be to do?" and at other times when I reflect on whether I acted in a loving or unloving manner. “Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; It is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is love" I Corinthians 13:4 If you're thinking "sounds like it's saying love means allowing oneself to be trampled on", please read it again. Love "does not rejoice in wrongdoing" and it would not be loving to allow one's partner to be abusive or selfish or in short, unloving. Love includes helping each other become better people. Link to post Share on other sites
cijay Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 Well, if we're going to talk about it in biblical or dark ages terms then yes, this woman is wrong and should be flogged, stoned and hanged by the neck until dead for her gross wrongdoing towards her husband because that's what they did back then. Somehow this has gone from being an issue of sex to an issue of love. If we're going to put sex equivalent to love then, yes, she is a nasty woman who has punked out on the "love" she vowed on their wedding day because sex=love and love=sex because a book written by poetic men says so. (We won't go there about the fact that if they had wedding vows that included 'honour' because all of his vows cancel out hers anyway, he doesn't have to honour her because he's the man and yes, does indeed own her body and can even slap her around if he so desires and she can't do anything about it.) He is the toal innocent and victim here because she promised to love and honour him, she won't screw him and that is going to piss God off to no end. She will go to hell - so maybe she's not too concerned about the ride from here on in. Everyone here is so hot on placing blame on either one party or the other I am NOT placing the blame on any side because I don't know both sides. I don't see it as a 'blame' situation...I'm looking at it from the angle of what the whole problem seems to be about, sex. Not love, sex. So, y'all look at it from the biblical point of view and I'll look at it from the year 2005. Link to post Share on other sites
Orbit Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 11 years is a LONG time for a sexual to go without sex - especially male. I've never really understood my husband's 'need' for sex, but I know it is there. My asexual situation may be a bit different than some others posting here - as I don't find sex disgusting or violation - I simply do not experience sexual attraction or have any interest in sex. So for me it is something I do out of love for my husband. I have always felt it is my right to say 'no' and my husband respects that and never pressures me - we have discussions all the time about how we are feeling and what our needs are... So in short, I have to agree with the majority of people here who have said the problem in this marriage is not sex - it's communication. hawke Link to post Share on other sites
dastraube Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 As I stated, I am not religious and have not put myself in the position of defending the author's other writings or the Biblical view generally. The passage I quoted has meaning for me and many others; it is an inspirational and timeless view of what love is. Link to post Share on other sites
cijay Posted January 6, 2005 Share Posted January 6, 2005 No, that's cool, I didn't realise the topic switched from having unpermissive sex to loving someone. Link to post Share on other sites
gypsylady Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I think this needs to go to the Hotbox... Link to post Share on other sites
Silly Green Monkey Posted January 7, 2005 Share Posted January 7, 2005 I think it's about dead, but it REALLY should get around to wrapping over to the third page. Seventy posts, and only on two pages? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.