How a husband can enjoy sex that is grudgingly given by his wife

Sex drives change as life events change. Premarital sex isn't going to say what 15 years in your marriage will be.

 

Really? Chastity and monogamy would prevent a lot of disease. But we aren't very successful at either and that is why Valtrex makes bank.

 

Change his attitude, like as in, ignore that disgusted look on her face; not, try something new; not take more interest in your wife's sexual satisfaction; just, ignore that sinful hag-face Medusa.

Hahaha...

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said, speak for yourself, please.

- - - Updated - - -

I know. I stated so earlier.

It may have at least helped you have those 15 good years, instead of finding out a couple of months after marriage that you're totally creeped out by your spouse.

 

According to the article's logic, it would be a sin for me to do any of these activities without at least pretending to like it.

No, that's what the article is arguing for. It says refusing to sleep with your husband is a sin, so a man should not feel guilty having begrudged sex that provides nothing but displeasure for the wife.

Once you've actually read through the thread, you'll know what I'm arguing for.

 

Humans haven't been too successful at monogamy. Evidence abounds.
Is monogamy important to you? If yes, why?

 

What are you arguing for? One sentence, your own words.

 

Are you, like, not reading the things I write in response to you? I just said why I think it's important. You may feel you have a personal responsibility to finance Valtrex, but not me.

- - - Updated - - -

You can see very clearly in many sentences what I'm arguing for on this thread. All you have to do is read the full thread.

 

I think that frigid women have clumsy husbands.

 

The article is such an insane outlier that you've basically created a straw man - and yes, it is a straw man when you select such a bizarre and poorly formed argument to criticize.

As far as what your opinion is - I noted what you said in the OP. If you prefer I respond to what you said at some other point in the thread then you'll have to note the specific point - I'm not going to do your work for you. I responded to what you said in the OP - and if you misspoke, then the onus is on you to correct that, not me. But since you've decided to dodge each substantive point I made I guess that I shouldn't anticipate any substantive discussion of the issue.

 

That is obviously not the case if there is such dispute over what your argument is AND you can't articulate it any more succinctly than telling someone to read over 16 pages of posts to find it.

 

The argument was made by the author in the article, so it's not a strawman. You may thing it's crazy; I may think it's crazy, but that doesn't mean that the author isn't serious. I also never stated that it was representative of any larger institution. I simply argued against what the writer wrote.

And I was only pointing out that your assumption about my point is wrong and explaining how you can get a better picture of it. Whether or not you take the time to correct that assumption is not something that concerns me.

 

It's not my responsibility to summarize the whole thread to people who came late to the discussion. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that you can't fully understand my point.

- - - Updated - - -

I kind of think so, too. At least some of them.

 

that is what I am saying, better to have sex before marriage so you know if your compatible in that area or not

 

Well actually the real problem is the attitude the women in the article bring to it. Look, in relationships you do things you don't want to do for your partner. You might go see Wicked with your girl even though you hate musicals, but you don't go there and whine and moan about the show the whole time saying how gay it is or whatever, you try to enjoy it and at least be pleasant - because dudes rarely go see musicals with their wives for their own sake, they do it for their wives. Sex isn't so different - sometimes people have differing levels of sexual drive, and if my partner had a higher sex drive than me (it's happened before), then I can't imagine myself bring the Jerk to either a) refuse her and tell her I'm not interested, so she should go pleasure herself, or to b) go ahead and participate for her sake bit be so unbelievably miserable the whole time that she doesn't even want to have sexual relations.

The key to Biblical marriage isn't so radically than what is the key to any good non-religious marriage: love, to love your partner selflessly. If your partner has a higher sex drive than you and you tell them to pound dirt because you down want sex right now, or agree to have satisfy them but make it overly clear that you're miserable and not enjoying it, then the simple fact is that YOU are not in love anymore. You either need a divorce or to figure out what is going on in your life/marriage to cause this rough patch.

Again, like I said, anything required of women sexually is NO different than what is required of men.

 

Well, it sounds like a deliberate attempt to just avoid the strongest criticism - you're not going to really learn or become better at anything going that route, but I can hardly force you to respond in a way I deem appropriate - you are free to focus on weak arguments/counter arguments and do all that you can to avoid the strong arguments/counter arguments.

 

I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Don't worry; I can tell from what you've written so far that we agree on this topic.

 

What none of you seem to be realizing is that the sex hating women in the article are, in fact, being the best Christians they can possibly be. Truly, Christianity places women in a totally impossible position, they are both the 'vessel of sin" just by EXISTING and then sinful if they DON'T act lasciviously.

If you have a problem it's not with women, it's with a religion that totally hates and reviles ALL pleasure and particularly the most pleasurable thing there is in life and the most necessary thing that humans do, period, the main reason we are HERE, if you go by the nature of all life that exists. I read a comic book years ago that had a supervillian in a quest for the "anti-life equation". If you can find a better definition for that than the basic ideology behind most Abrahamic faiths I'd like to know what it is.

 

Haha! Well then you've got a very, very, very indirect way of communicating your opinions! Haha

 

If she's been sick for a month, then that's a valid reason for not providing sex to her husband.

The problem is that if providing sex to your spouse is a privilege, rather than a responsibility, then you cannot expect fidelity. If she isn't sick for a month, but just decides to stop putting out because it's her vagina, her choice, then we run into a few problems regarding a healthy sex drive, prohibition against extramarital sex, and a lack of marital sex.

Sorry, but you can't have it all. If you choose the ability to refuse sex as an option, then she's got to move her stuff out of the master bedroom to make way for another woman. If you chose marital fidelity, then there is a duty to provide sex to your spouse.

There are no other viable options.

 

Not really, though. You just don't want to take the time to read them... which is fine, by the way. I don't blame you for not wanting to invest that much time in such a long thread. If it were something that truly interested you, though, you'd read through the whole thread. If it's not something that truly interests you, why would you expect me to take the time to explain it to you?

 

Like I said in a previous post , men who are good lovers don't have that problem....but leave it to some men to eagerly use that as excuse to bonk the neighbor's DAUGHTER...

A normal man would try to find out what the problem is , talk about it, care more for his wife than thinking eagerly ahead to bonking someone else...

 

So, with all due respect, you think your wife is basically just your full time whore?

Having another woman isn't an option you should really even be thinking of. If you really love your wife no other woman will do, that's why fidelity is such a thing and why the argument "it was just sex" falls so basically flat. You can satisfy your "needs" yourself. A wife and/or lover is thought to be giving something more.

 

I agree. This is what I have been talking about throughout this thread. Guys should learn what their lady likes. IMO women have things in common they like but there will be things an individual woman will prefer or like better. Cannot believe I have to post something so simple.

 

okay...

guy: What's wrong baby?
girl: You are terrible in bed! I want you to grab my hair and tell me I've been a naughty girl, and then I want you to spank me until I beg you to stop. Oh, and you have to wear a white disco suit like the one John Travolta wears in saturday night fever"
guy: wut? Sorry, but I love you too much to hurt you. You're my pwetty widdle anglekins, and I loooooooove you!
girl: ARRRGH!!!!! I swear, you couldn't make a river wet! Just leave me alone from now on!!!

 

You missed the part, ""A normal man ""....however actually asking a woman what the problem is means being almost out of the cave....