Wise Advice to heed...

[ChiRho]

On marital disintegration

Being privy to a relationship or three which appear to be foundering - or have already sunk into the depths - there's a few common themes I've noted. Perhaps the most important is that while both sexes are more than a little confused about their roles, it's the wives who seem particularly out to sea with regards to their priorities.

It might help, I think, for some women to remember what their vows are centered on, and the special role they have taken in their husband's lives. Seriously, with the priorities I've seen some women display, I can only wonder what job they thought they were signing up for.

If you worry more about what you're going to serve a man for dinner than how you're going to rock his world later, you're not his wife, you're his cook.

If you spend more time obsessing about the last time you cleaned the house than the last time you had sex, you're not his wife, you're his cleaning lady.

If the children are always your top priority at all times, then you're not his wife, you're the nanny - or maybe just the day care center.

It's not that these things are unimportant, because they are, it's that they should be secondary concerns in a marriage. Your husband didn't vow to be faithful to your cooking and to never eat at another restaurant, after all. And sure, there will be times you're not in the mood or whatever, but you might want to consider this: would you consider that reasonable grounds for him refusing to pay the mortage or the health insurance? Sex, like love, is a choice. If you're always waiting for things to magically happen and sweep you away, you need to grow up and quit sleeping with the stuffed unicorn with the rainbows on it.

From what I've seen, there's no shortage of men and women who simply don't take marriage very seriously and refuse to accept any responsibilities within it. But failing to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist and that there won't be consequences for doing so.

(As for those pathetic women who can find four hours to watch sitcom sexcapades on TV every night but can't find an hour for the real thing, you'd be wise to buy your husband a subscription to the porn site of his preference and budget for a call girl once a month if you don't want to wind up collecting cats.)

There's a reason why call girls make considerably more money per hour than cooks, cleaners and day care workers, after all. This is because the service they provide is significantly more important to men.

I don't condone my acquaintances who leave their frigid wives and move on to friendlier climes with a free-at-last smile on their faces, but it's certainly no mystery why they would do so, leaving behind a woman who laments how she can't imagine what went wrong when she was such a perfect cook, housekeeper and mother.

God is good. He knew what he was doing when he gave us Chinese takeout, the Roomba and early bedtimes.

- Vox Day (here (http://voxday.blogspot.com/))

[SPALATIN]

On marital disintegration


Being privy to a relationship or three which appear to be foundering - or have already sunk into the depths - there's a few common themes I've noted. Perhaps the most important is that while both sexes are more than a little confused about their roles, it's the wives who seem particularly out to sea with regards to their priorities.


It might help, I think, for some women to remember what their vows are centered on, and the special role they have taken in their husband's lives. Seriously, with the priorities I've seen some women display, I can only wonder what job they thought they were signing up for.

If you worry more about what you're going to serve a man for dinner than how you're going to rock his world later, you're not his wife, you're his cook.

If you spend more time obsessing about the last time you cleaned the house than the last time you had sex, you're not his wife, you're his cleaning lady.

If the children are always your top priority at all times, then you're not his wife, you're the nanny - or maybe just the day care center.

It's not that these things are unimportant, because they are, it's that they should be secondary concerns in a marriage. Your husband didn't vow to be faithful to your cooking and to never eat at another restaurant, after all. And sure, there will be times you're not in the mood or whatever, but you might want to consider this: would you consider that reasonable grounds for him refusing to pay the mortage or the health insurance? Sex, like love, is a choice. If you're always waiting for things to magically happen and sweep you away, you need to grow up and quit sleeping with the stuffed unicorn with the rainbows on it.

From what I've seen, there's no shortage of men and women who simply don't take marriage very seriously and refuse to accept any responsibilities within it. But failing to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist and that there won't be consequences for doing so.

(As for those pathetic women who can find four hours to watch sitcom sexcapades on TV every night but can't find an hour for the real thing, you'd be wise to buy your husband a subscription to the porn site of his preference and budget for a call girl once a month if you don't want to wind up collecting cats.)

There's a reason why call girls make considerably more money per hour than cooks, cleaners and day care workers, after all. This is because the service they provide is significantly more important to men.

I don't condone my acquaintances who leave their frigid wives and move on to friendlier climes with a free-at-last smile on their faces, but it's certainly no mystery why they would do so, leaving behind a woman who laments how she can't imagine what went wrong when she was such a perfect cook, housekeeper and mother.

God is good. He knew what he was doing when he gave us Chinese takeout, the Roomba and early bedtimes.


- Vox Day (here (http://voxday.blogspot.com/))

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ChiRho again

[BigNorsk]

Everytime I read something like that I think the overal response is exactly the opposite of what the poster thinks he is promoting. Rather than the response being more sex and more love, such a thing is seen as a lack of love which produces lack of good feelings which produces lack of sex, the whole thing tends to spiral downward.

I don't find it very helpful for a man, commanded by God to love his wife as Christ loves his church, to point to the failing of womankind until he has successufully upheld his end of the bargain. I think such a rant just makes things more difficult for the rest of us. Frankly, it would make life easier for a lot of guys if fellows such as this would learn to shut up.

Do some women put too many conditions in place before they "grant" sex to their husband? Sure. But I don't think the way to deal with this is just to say put a smile on your face and put out. A couple is a little more complex than that.

Let each of us first correct himself, then correct the men around us, and only then, if necessary, with love and gentleness, correct women.

When was the last time you sent a man who was spending too much time out with the boys home?

When a man goes on a rant about his girlfriend or wife, do you feed it, or do you try to get him to examine himself?

Women are an amazing wonderful gift from God, not perfect, but after all, look at what God had to work with for material.

[ByzantineDixie]

The guy who wrote this is either 21 years old or is an AARPer on his second marriage to a woman half his age who just had his Viagra prescription refilled. The "real thing"...gimme a break.

[SPALATIN]

The guy who wrote this is either 21 years old or is an AARPer on his second marriage to a woman half his age who just had his Viagra prescription refilled. The "real thing"...gimme a break.

Whoever said that Marriage is a 50-50 proposition is incorrect. It is the husband giving 100% of himself to his wife and the wife giving 100% of herself to her husband.

It may very well be that the opinion is skewed in a certain way. there are some truths in it, but I think that upon a second reading I would have to say that real life trumps it all. My wife is not my slave, nor am I hers. We give of each other as close to 100% that we can on a daily basis. Somedays it is more some days less.

VOX is speaking his opinion of the situation, but I think to a large extent that you are correct BD.

[ChiRho]

The guy who wrote this is either 21 years old or is an AARPer on his second marriage to a woman half his age who just had his Viagra prescription refilled. The "real thing"...gimme a break.

Well, as it turns out, he is neither. I'm unsure where exactly you disagree, Rose? :confused:

My girlfriend found this refreshing.

[ChiRho]

Everytime I read something like that I think the overal response is exactly the opposite of what the poster thinks he is promoting. Rather than the response being more sex and more love, such a thing is seen as a lack of love which produces lack of good feelings which produces lack of sex, the whole thing tends to spiral downward.

Lack of love which leads to lack of sex? C'mon, since when is love a feeling? Unless there are specific agreements understood before entering into the marriage, such as mutual abstinence, sex is a necessary requirement of marriage. Again, it is a choice, not a feeling. I am sure there will be times that my future wife will not "feel" like having sex, but how is that different any other expression of love? Should I refuse to fulfill other responsibilities because I'm "not in the mood"?


I don't find it very helpful for a man, commanded by God to love his wife as Christ loves his church, to point to the failing of womankind until he has successufully upheld his end of the bargain. I think such a rant just makes things more difficult for the rest of us. Frankly, it would make life easier for a lot of guys if fellows such as this would learn to shut up.

Where is the the "point to the failing of womankind"? I think Vox is speaking about a specific group of women. His rant is against women who misunderstand the proper roles of wife and mother. The roles are not the same. In a family, I am husband first, father second (wife first, mother second).

As to this making things more difficult, I ask how?

Do some women put too many conditions in place before they "grant" sex to their husband? Sure. But I don't think the way to deal with this is just to say put a smile on your face and put out.

And why not? Unless of course you are still under the assumption that sex and love are nothing but pure emotions.

A couple is a little more complex than that.

I love my girlfriend. God willing, I will call her wife early next year. Our relationship is very simple without complex drama.

Let each of us first correct himself, then correct the men around us, and only then, if necessary, with love and gentleness, correct women.

Who sets this order and why?

When was the last time you sent a man who was spending too much time out with the boys home?

Not exactly sure what you mean here, but I will try. It sounds as if you are confusing father with husband. Father is a natural result from husband, not the other way around. We are called to love our wives (this means true love, which is a conscious decision, not an emotion). Being a good father is a result of first loving our wives.

When a man goes on a rant about his girlfriend or wife, do you feed it, or do you try to get him to examine himself?

It depends, is his rant justified? Of course, self examination is always necessary, but there really are times that the lady is at fault. It does happen.

Women are an amazing wonderful gift from God, not perfect, but after all, look at what God had to work with for material.

Is this supposed to be funny?

[Flipper]

No comment to make. Just want to post to make it a "subscribed thread" so I can follow it.

[BigNorsk]

God's directions about marriage seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sure where the instructions to go out with the guys and complain your wife isn't perfect are, could you give me the verses? All I can find is instructions to love my wife as Christ loves the church. I have some difficulty seeing gossiping about wives as an expression of amazing love.

Ranting about the failings of one's partner is a juvenile, selfish act. (I bolded it for you so you could catch the fundamental statement in this post, didn't want you to miss it.)

One who's foundation is that the ranter isn't getting what he or she deserves. I don't believe it's correct to encourage selfishness in people. What they deserve is eternity in hell. Once we get past the selfishness a little, and see that the imperfect spouse is a blessing and a ministry then maybe something good can happen.

I believe the principal of first working on yourself and your own sins before pointing the sins of other out is biblical based on:
Matthew 7:3-5 NET
(3) Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?
(4) Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye,' while there is a beam in your own?
(5) You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

If you can show where the men involved are diligently working at being good husbands I will shut up. But I'm going to have a hard time believing it of a bunch of guys who go out with other guys and spend their time complaining about women. Gossip doesn't seem to me to be a removing beam type of activity.

The rant also does not seem to me to be specific at all but to deal with wives as a stereotype, and it puts primary responsibility on the wives as to the "failing" of marriages. I thought men were the head of the household?

Let's look at the rant a little. He is privy (wonder why people are talking about their marriages to him and not to each other) to failing marriages. Shall we speculate a little? It sounds to me like this fellow ends up gossiping about their wives with other guys. Maybe lubricated with a little alcohol. Seems to me what we have is men out with the boys (not their wives) drinking and complaining that their wife isn't receptive to having more sex with them.

Now there is a saying in therapy "No man is a hero to his wife's therapist." Why is that? Because just one side from one perspective is presented. Let's look at some facts and not the gripes.

If you aren't getting enough sex with your wife, you won't get more by leaving home. Walking out into the desert isn't smart behavior if what you are looking for is a nice drink of cool water.

Instead of feeding their rant and their stupid behavior, it would be more loving towards these men to get up, kick their butt out the door and tell them to go home and work it out. They are men going into the desert because they are thirsty, and then they are so stupid they complain about the oasis back home.

I will explain once the entire rationalization of why I said.

1. first correct himself. Already shown the beam in the eye.

2. correct the men around us. Gossip is sinful, if your "friends" are engaging and engaging you in sinful behavior, that needs to stop, now.

3. then correct the women. Actually, in most cases, I don't think you, the confidant of the husband, should be heading off to his home to correct his wife. Not really your role so to speak. Better to support the ministry of the elder women in the congregation helping the younger wives love their husband.

I doubt in most cases that her husband's buddies showing up on her doorstep and saying that she isn't giving her husband enough sex will produce the desired responses, but maybe if she tells him if he goes out again she is just going to divorce him it would all work out for the best. They would spend time together and he wouldn't be lead astray by his buddies. Of course the remaining group of men could spend their time talking about how he needs to cut the apron strings or put his foot down and show the wife who's boss, but he wouldn't be there so the damage to his marriage wouldn't be great.

The strange thing to me is, after destroying their marriages through neglect those same guys are willing to spend a lot of effort finding the next wife.

You are right that love isn't just a feeling it's actions, what I will wait for is an explanation of how going out with the guys and complaining about the lack of sex at home is an act of love.

Marv

[AngelusSax]

And why not? Unless of course you are still under the assumption that sex and love are nothing but pure emotions.

What... the... ever... loving... fieryplace...?

Why not? Well, let's see... next time you don't wanna have sex but someone tells you you have to do it, let's see if it doesn't feel degrading and even maybe like, um... rape..

Granted, love isn't about emotion. Emotion ebbs and flows, that's a given, but if you never have any emotion for your wife (or a wife for her husband), I'd be worried about that as much as constant emotion that's never in fluctuation, since that could be more infatuation than love.

Sex is an act. Easiest done when in the mood, and when one is not in the mood, sometimes all it takes is a little bit of effort by the other person in that relationhip to get the non-mood person into the mood.

If your spouse isn't in the mood, then try to get her in the mood, and if you can't, then pitch your own tent, type the letter yourself... you get the picture. Or just go to sleep, play a game, or write, or channel the energy into something if need be if you don't wanna do anything with a euphemism. If it becomes habit, though (say, 9 out of 10 times you can't even get her in the mood), then talk it out, and seek counseling if necessary, rather than just say "Lie down and put out for me," even if you dress the words up all purty-like.

[Flipper]

I wasn't going to comment, but Marv brought up some good points. For one thing, it is tacky, not to mention wrong, to gossip about your spouse's shortcomings, or even to write articles about it.

Also, if the complaint has to do with the amount of sex, I usually don't automatically assume that the other is doing something wrong. Everyone has different standards on how much is the right amount. Also, if one is denying the other, could it be because that person worked 9 hours at work, then came home, cooked supper, cleaned up after supper, helped junior with homework, then got junior in the bath and to bed, all without spouse's help and is just plain exhausted, as an example. Sometimes the spouse thinks sex 4 times a day is quite normal and expected and will complain if he/she doesn't get it enough. It's amazing when people complain about the lack of sex in their life in the Marriage thread, and later on, it comes out that the person expects it every day, or more than once a day. Hello. Reality.

Notice I try to keep everything as gender neutral as possible? That's because it goes both ways and both genders are guilty of stirring the pot.

Wives are to submit to husbands as the SPIRITUAL head of household. Men are to LOVE their wives as CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH. Anything outside of that just isn't Biblical, including gossipping and/or whining if things just aren't the human standard of perfection.

[ChiRho]

God's directions about marriage seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sure where the instructions to go out with the guys and complain your wife isn't perfect are, could you give me the verses? All I can find is instructions to love my wife as Christ loves the church. I have some difficulty seeing gossiping about wives as an expression of amazing love.

Ranting about the failings of one's partner is a juvenile, selfish act. (I bolded it for you so you could catch the fundamental statement in this post, didn't want you to miss it.)

One who's foundation is that the ranter isn't getting what he or she deserves. I don't believe it's correct to encourage selfishness in people. What they deserve is eternity in hell. Once we get past the selfishness a little, and see that the imperfect spouse is a blessing and a ministry then maybe something good can happen.

I believe the principal of first working on yourself and your own sins before pointing the sins of other out is biblical based on:
Matthew 7:3-5 NET
(3) Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?
(4) Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye,' while there is a beam in your own?
(5) You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

If you can show where the men involved are diligently working at being good husbands I will shut up. But I'm going to have a hard time believing it of a bunch of guys who go out with other guys and spend their time complaining about women. Gossip doesn't seem to me to be a removing beam type of activity.

The rant also does not seem to me to be specific at all but to deal with wives as a stereotype, and it puts primary responsibility on the wives as to the "failing" of marriages. I thought men were the head of the household?

Let's look at the rant a little. He is privy (wonder why people are talking about their marriages to him and not to each other) to failing marriages. Shall we speculate a little? It sounds to me like this fellow ends up gossiping about their wives with other guys. Maybe lubricated with a little alcohol. Seems to me what we have is men out with the boys (not their wives) drinking and complaining that their wife isn't receptive to having more sex with them.

Now there is a saying in therapy "No man is a hero to his wife's therapist." Why is that? Because just one side from one perspective is presented. Let's look at some facts and not the gripes.

If you aren't getting enough sex with your wife, you won't get more by leaving home. Walking out into the desert isn't smart behavior if what you are looking for is a nice drink of cool water.

Instead of feeding their rant and their stupid behavior, it would be more loving towards these men to get up, kick their butt out the door and tell them to go home and work it out. They are men going into the desert because they are thirsty, and then they are so stupid they complain about the oasis back home.

I will explain once the entire rationalization of why I said.

1. first correct himself. Already shown the beam in the eye.

2. correct the men around us. Gossip is sinful, if your "friends" are engaging and engaging you in sinful behavior, that needs to stop, now.

3. then correct the women. Actually, in most cases, I don't think you, the confidant of the husband, should be heading off to his home to correct his wife. Not really your role so to speak. Better to support the ministry of the elder women in the congregation helping the younger wives love their husband.

I doubt in most cases that her husband's buddies showing up on her doorstep and saying that she isn't giving her husband enough sex will produce the desired responses, but maybe if she tells him if he goes out again she is just going to divorce him it would all work out for the best. They would spend time together and he wouldn't be lead astray by his buddies. Of course the remaining group of men could spend their time talking about how he needs to cut the apron strings or put his foot down and show the wife who's boss, but he wouldn't be there so the damage to his marriage wouldn't be great.

The strange thing to me is, after destroying their marriages through neglect those same guys are willing to spend a lot of effort finding the next wife.

You are right that love isn't just a feeling it's actions, what I will wait for is an explanation of how going out with the guys and complaining about the lack of sex at home is an act of love.

Marv




Marv,

I wrote something really un-nice to begin with. So, I deleted it. I'll will try very hard to approach this differently.

Would you do me a favor and re-read your response with the original post. If you would, could you identify the baseless assumptions you have accidentally made (There are many. Many.) and eliminate them before we move on? This will save so much time and energy (I am currently working extra hard on avoiding Anger, and more specifically in this case, his wicked younger brother, Frustration.)

Thanks.

[ChiRho]

Truly, I thought that this piece would have been received much better. I just re-read what Mr. Day wrote and I am still in left field when it comes to understanding how all of the negative responses were actually taken from the original text.

Is everyone reading the same thing I am? Because it sounds as if there is a lot of "reading into" that is not only false, but could only be produced from staring through a pair of "Men are scum" reading glasses. Honestly folks, Vox is not railing against all women. He is highly critical of those women who do not distinguish the difference in the two terms- wife, and mother. On any other subject, awareness is always assumed to be a good thing, why is this subject any different?

Why is this funny (or supposed to be):

"Women are an amazing wonderful gift from God, not perfect, but after all, look at what God had to work with for material."

So women are an "amazing wonderful gift from God" and of course, they aren't perfect but "look at what God had to work with for material [implied: scum or any other worthless, negative term].

One form of criticism is commonly laughed off, while another engenders argument and debate. One is allowed; another is not. What sort of double-standard does everyone endorse? This twisted form of chivalry is nothing but the result of a castrated society.

[ChiRho]

Why not? Well, let's see... next time you don't wanna have sex but someone tells you you have to do it, let's see if it doesn't feel degrading and even maybe like, um... rape..


Raping my wife. Unbelievable.

Sex is something above all other aspects of love. It is not to be thought of as the optional, negotiable part of marriage. Consider, once more (or maybe for the first time):

"It's not that these things are unimportant, because they are, it's that they should be secondary concerns in a marriage. Your husband didn't vow to be faithful to your cooking and to never eat at another restaurant, after all. And sure, there will be times you're not in the mood or whatever, but you might want to consider this: would you consider that reasonable grounds for him refusing to pay the mortage or the health insurance? Sex, like love, is a choice. If you're always waiting for things to magically happen and sweep you away, you need to grow up and quit sleeping with the stuffed unicorn with the rainbows on it."

And this is eerily common:

"(As for those pathetic women who can find four hours to watch sitcom sexcapades on TV every night but can't find an hour for the real thing, you'd be wise to buy your husband a subscription to the porn site of his preference and budget for a call girl once a month if you don't want to wind up collecting cats.)"

[ByzantineDixie]

On marital disintegrationBeing privy to a relationship or three which appear to be foundering - or have already sunk into the depths - there's a few common themes I've noted. Perhaps the most important is that while both sexes are more than a little confused about their roles, it's the wives who seem particularly out to sea with regards to their priorities.

It might help, I think, for some women to remember what their vows are centered on, and the special role they have taken in their husband's lives. Seriously, with the priorities I've seen some women display, I can only wonder what job they thought they were signing up for.

If you worry more about what you're going to serve a man for dinner than how you're going to rock his world later, you're not his wife, you're his cook.

If you spend more time obsessing about the last time you cleaned the house than the last time you had sex, you're not his wife, you're his cleaning lady.

If the children are always your top priority at all times, then you're not his wife, you're the nanny - or maybe just the day care center.

It's not that these things are unimportant, because they are, it's that they should be secondary concerns in a marriage. Your husband didn't vow to be faithful to your cooking and to never eat at another restaurant, after all. And sure, there will be times you're not in the mood or whatever, but you might want to consider this: would you consider that reasonable grounds for him refusing to pay the mortage or the health insurance? Sex, like love, is a choice. If you're always waiting for things to magically happen and sweep you away, you need to grow up and quit sleeping with the stuffed unicorn with the rainbows on it.

From what I've seen, there's no shortage of men and women who simply don't take marriage very seriously and refuse to accept any responsibilities within it. But failing to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist and that there won't be consequences for doing so.

(As for those pathetic women who can find four hours to watch sitcom sexcapades on TV every night but can't find an hour for the real thing, you'd be wise to buy your husband a subscription to the porn site of his preference and budget for a call girl once a month if you don't want to wind up collecting cats.)

There's a reason why call girls make considerably more money per hour than cooks, cleaners and day care workers, after all. This is because the service they provide is significantly more important to men.

I don't condone my acquaintances who leave their frigid wives and move on to friendlier climes with a free-at-last smile on their faces, but it's certainly no mystery why they would do so, leaving behind a woman who laments how she can't imagine what went wrong when she was such a perfect cook, housekeeper and mother.

God is good. He knew what he was doing when he gave us Chinese takeout, the Roomba and early bedtimes.

Since you asked...let me point out what this article tells me and we'll go from there. I highlighted the points above that make my case.

This article tells me four things:

1) Wives, in particular, are confused about their marriage priorities.
2) This confounding of priorities makes the author wonder what job wives think they are signing up for.
3) Servicing the man sexually is the number one priority of marriage, all other marital activities fall into second place.
4) We know that servicing the man is the number one priority of marriage because call girls make more money than day care workers.

None of this even remotely suggests marriage to me in the way I understand it. Scotty was right. Marriage is a 100%/100% proposition. It is a union and not a job.

You are correct in inferring the Love is not an emotion. Love is a Person and "to love" is to imitate the Person of Christ. In a marriage union (not a job) sex, like (not more than) housecleaning, cooking and raising a family, is offered in love.

And here is how that kind of love works. At the end of a long day of keeping house, spending time playing with and teaching a 2 year old and a 4 year old, preparing meals, putting up Christmas decorations, taking the youngest to a doctor's appointment (oh, the list can go on and on) the wife plops into bed only wanting to enjoy an undisturbed night's sleep. Out of love, however, she will respond to her husband's desires. On the other hand, the husband, knowing how tired his wife his, puts his desires on hold for a night while his wife gets some uninterrupted sleep. Think O'Henry's, Gift of the Magi.

And actually in some marriages, due to health reasons, men with all the typical male needs and desires, find themselves in situations where they must forego sex for the life of the marriage. And you know what...they are successful at this because of Love.

When "to love" is not the priority...then you get all these warp notions...like sex is more important than taking care of children because call girls make more money than day care workers.

Does this help you see where I was coming from?

[Flipper]

[b]

Since you asked...let me point out what this article tells me and we'll go from there. I highlighted the points above that make my case.

This article tells me four things:

1) Wives, in particular, are confused about their marriage priorities.
2) This confounding of priorities makes the author wonder what job wives think they are signing up for.
3) Servicing the man sexually is the number one priority of marriage, all other marital activities fall into second place.
4) We know that servicing the man is the number one priority of marriage because call girls make more money than day care workers.

None of this even remotely suggests marriage to me in the way I understand it. Scotty was right. Marriage is a 100%/100% proposition. It is a union and not a job.

You are correct in inferring the Love is not an emotion. Love is a Person and "to love" is to imitate the Person of Christ. In a marriage union (not a job) sex, like (not more than) housecleaning, cooking and raising a family, is offered in love.

And here is how that kind of love works. At the end of a long day of keeping house, spending time playing with and teaching a 2 year old and a 4 year old, preparing meals, putting up Christmas decorations, taking the youngest to a doctor's appointment (oh, the list can go on and on) the wife plops into bed only wanting to enjoy an undisturbed night's sleep. Out of love, however, she will respond to her husband's desires. On the other hand, the husband, knowing how tired his wife his, puts his desires on hold for a night while his wife gets some uninterrupted sleep. Think O'Henry's, Gift of the Magi.

And actually in some marriages, due to health reasons, men with all the typical male needs and desires, find themselves in situations where they must forego sex for the life of the marriage. And you know what...they are successful at this because of Love.

When "to love" is not the priority...then you get all these warp notions...like sex is more important than taking care of children because call girls make more money than day care workers.

Does this help you see where I was coming from?








[/indent][/size][/font]

I wish I could add to your reputation. I don't know why some people don't get that.

[SPALATIN]

AMEN DIXIE (ROSE) You will always be Luther's Rose to me even though you have gone east. I think that you would have stayed had you found a church that truly followed the model Luther put forth. ;)

I can't possibly add anything to what you said on marriage that would strengthen an already strong position.

[ChiRho]

Since you asked...let me point out what this article tells me and we'll go from there. I highlighted the points above that make my case.

This article tells me four things:

1) Wives, in particular, are confused about their marriage priorities.
2) This confounding of priorities makes the author wonder what job wives think they are signing up for.
3) Servicing the man sexually is the number one priority of marriage, all other marital activities fall into second place.
4) We know that servicing the man is the number one priority of marriage because call girls make more money than day care workers.



Ok, I concur with your summation up to point four. Here is where we differ.

First let me explain three before we move onto four. What one single activity is undeniably only performed by wife and husband alone always? I may eat another woman's cooking on occasion; but I may not enjoy a sexual experience with another woman once or ever. Upon what infraction of marriage is there grounds for divorce? Abandonment (which seems pretty obvious, if she (he) leaves and does not return) and sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. Again, it is not as if other activities are unimportant, but less (and only less when compared to the physical union of man and wife) important.

Number four should read like this, I think:

4) The higher price of call girls compared to cooks, house cleaners, or baby-sitters reflects only that men in general believe sex to be more important than other services. This isn't really an argument about Christian marriage as it is illustrating the point that most men find sex more important.

None of this even remotely suggests marriage to me in the way I understand it. Scotty was right. Marriage is a 100%/100% proposition. It is a union and not a job.

Agree. I am not sure the article supposes differently.

You are correct in inferring the Love is not an emotion. Love is a Person and "to love" is to imitate the Person of Christ. In a marriage union (not a job) sex, like (not more than) housecleaning, cooking and raising a family, is offered in love.

Again, I disagree. First, some of the responsibilities fall under mother, not wife (raising a family, etc.), and none of the other activities, while I agree are offered in love, are as important as sex. If you actually believed this, there is no way you would allow your husband to eat your mother's cooking.

And here is how that kind of love works. At the end of a long day of keeping house, spending time playing with and teaching a 2 year old and a 4 year old, preparing meals, putting up Christmas decorations, taking the youngest to a doctor's appointment (oh, the list can go on and on) the wife plops into bed only wanting to enjoy an undisturbed night's sleep. Out of love, however, she will respond to her husband's desires. On the other hand, the husband, knowing how tired his wife his, puts his desires on hold for a night while his wife gets some uninterrupted sleep. Think O'Henry's, Gift of the Magi.

Um, in this situation the husband's busy day is conveniently omitted. I wonder why? Again, wife does not equate to servant. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Of course there will be days when one or both parties will be so utterly exhausted that lifting onself into bed is the chore of all chores, but I am not speaking of those rare occurances.

And actually in some marriages, due to health reasons, men with all the typical male needs and desires, find themselves in situations where they must forego sex for the life of the marriage. And you know what...they are successful at this because of Love.

This does seem to be appealing to the extreme (as even most physical sexual dysfuntions have a medical solution) to set the standard.

When "to love" is not the priority...then you get all these warp notions...like sex is more important than taking care of children because call girls make more money than day care workers.

Sex is more important. I guess I am warped; sort of strange coming from a healthy man that chooses to avoid de-flowering his future wife.



Does this help you see where I was coming from?

It does. I hope you understand my point a little better.

[SPALATIN]

Ok, I concur with your summation up to point four. Here is where we differ.

First let me explain three before we move onto four. What one single activity is undeniably only performed by wife and husband alone always? I may eat another woman's cooking on occasion; but I may not enjoy a sexual experience with another woman once or ever. Upon what infraction of marriage is there grounds for divorce? Abandonment (which seems pretty obvious, if she (he) leaves and does not return) and sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. Again, it is not as if other activities are unimportant, but less (and only less when compared to the physical union of man and wife) important.

Number four should read like this, I think:

4) The higher price of call girls compared to cooks, house cleaners, or baby-sitters reflects only that men in general believe sex to be more important than other services. This isn't really an argument about Christian marriage as it is illustrating the point that most men find sex more important.



Agree. I am not sure the article supposes differently.



Again, I disagree. First, some of the responsibilities fall under mother, not wife (raising a family, etc.), and none of the other activities, while I agree are offered in love, are as important as sex. If you actually believed this, there is no way you would allow your husband to eat your mother's cooking.



Um, in this situation the husband's busy day is conveniently omitted. I wonder why? Again, wife does not equate to servant. I am not suggesting anything of the sort. Of course there will be days when one or both parties will be so utterly exhausted that lifting onself into bed is the chore of all chores, but I am not speaking of those rare occurances.



This does seem to be appealing to the extreme (as even most physical sexual dysfuntions have a medical solution) to set the standard.



Sex is more important. I guess I am warped; sort of strange coming from a healthy man that chooses to avoid de-flowering his future wife.





It does. I hope you understand my point a little better.

The problem I have with number 3 is this. the wording Vox uses shows his priorities are skewed. If he would have said that Sex is one of the most important priorities in a marriage there would have been no problem. But to say that the number one priority in a marriage is to service the man sexually I can't agree. It is not just about the man's needs, but about BOTH their needs respectively.

If we say that sex is a vital part of a marriage relationship I think it is a priority that each person is mutually satisfied. Sex is not a reward that one or the other gets at the end of a hard day but a union of two people longing to be together as God created them. He made the sex drive one of the most powerful..

By the way I respect that you are honoring your future bride in this way. It will make your married life so much the better for it.

It will be interesting to see how much marriage changes you after the first 5 years or so. Because you do change and then you look back at some of your previous postulations and smack your head with your hand saying "what was I thinking back then?"

God Bless You ChiRho. :amen:

[ChiRho]

Thanks, Scotty.


It will be interesting to see how much marriage changes you after the first 5 years or so. Because you do change and then you look back at some of your previous postulations and smack your head with your hand saying "what was I thinking back then?"

Ummm...you wouldn't want to give me some heads up on some of these to avoid the whole hand-to-head collision, would ya? (Since, of course, I would have to be devoid of reading comprehension to miss the not-so-camoflouged implications)

[ChiRho]

The problem I have with number 3 is this. the wording Vox uses shows his priorities are skewed. If he would have said that Sex is one of the most important priorities in a marriage there would have been no problem. But to say that the number one priority in a marriage is to service the man sexually I can't agree. It is not just about the man's needs, but about BOTH their needs respectively.

First of all, "servicing the man" is not Vox's words. Secondly, it is not the man, generally speaking, that is more prone to being dis-interested (too tired, not in the mood, etc), nor holding sex as a hostage (use it as a negative/positive reinforcement program). Think about that one.

If we say that sex is a vital part of a marriage relationship I think it is a priority that each person is mutually satisfied. Sex is not a reward that one or the other gets at the end of a hard day but a union of two people longing to be together as God created them. He made the sex drive one of the most powerful.

Agreed, but how many women think it is their decision alone to decline or commence?

[BigNorsk]

I take my objections to the original post from the bible, did you not understand them, you seemed to just blow right past the post and change the focus to other parts of the letter.

I do extrapolate context a bit of the original article and I think that the context is very important. He doesn't state that he is their pastor and men are coming to him concerned with their marriage problems and the men are concerned that they would like to have more sex but their wives are nonreceptive and what can be done to change that. Even if he is their pastor, I would question the counseling skills of someone who just tells the people who approach him with a problem that the fault lies in the persons not there. Married couples are just that, a couple and problems need to be dealt with with an eye to the couple. Seldom are problems completely the fault of one with the other being totally blameless.

We are told the guy is "privy" which sounds more like gossip than the sincere seeking of solutions. The rest of the article sounds a lot like things I have heard spewed out of the mouths of fellows after lubricating them with alcohol. The desire doesn't seem to be to work on the relationship, the solution is just that women should give their husbands more sex.

I don't disagree that sex is used by a weapon by some women, that some women's priorities are messed up or anything like that. But the solution to that isn't the men get together and complain about their lack of sex. It is not the biblical way to deal with the problem.

The Bible actually tells us what the church is to do to prevent these problems.

Titus 2:3-5 NET
(3) Older women likewise are to exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good.
(4) In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children,
(5) to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.

There is to be a women's ministry in the church, primarily one where older women live properly, but also one where they train the younger women to love their husbands. If you don't find that the younger women are being thusly trained, why don't you bring it up at the next congregational meeting. It would be much more useful potentially to bring it up there. I wouldn't suggest starting out with a "The women of this congregation are totally screwing up their ministry" type of statement. I would suggest something more like "As a young soon to be husband, I am concerned that my wife to be be helped by this church in her role as my wife and hopefully the mother of my children. I'm not that familiar with the workings of that ministry in the church, could someone tell me what is being done to help the young wives in the church by the church? Titus 2:4 says they are to be trained, what is being done in that important ministry?"

Now I don't think this has been a very high priority on the part of the church don't be surprised if you are told the womens group meets once a month or so and that's about it. Resources spent towards this ministry seem very scarce to me. Some women do it on their own, but other than having a largely social women's group, I don't see very many congregations do much of anything. I doesn't seem to me that having wives love their husbands is treated as though it is that important. Young husbands seem to think it is, but somehow they lose that thought by the time they are in positions of leadership.

This ministry is not a ministry for the men to get together and issue decrees in order to teach the young women how to love their husbands. Women gossiping about men doesn't do much but breed resentment, men gossiping about women doesn't do much but breed resentment.

A woman sits for hours watching tv. There should be a ring of the doorbell, preferably during tv time, and several women should come in and show her how to spend her time. Start by turning off the tv and talking. Show her how she is waisting the life God gives her. Help her with some cleaning show her how to do it. If she has a 5000 square foot house, maybe she should be shown how it is a lot of work taking care of such a place. Maybe encourage her to get a smaller simpler place.

Is the woman a shopaholic, instead of encouraging her, the older women should meet with her, point out that that money she throws away represents her husband's life, she should cherish his life and not just throw it at every tricket and bobble, and new outfit she can find. Such behavior is really selfish and she should be taught by the women how to honor her husband's working. Very sad is the family who spends money like water and complains they never see the man. They throw away his life like it is garbage and then complain he has no time for them.

Sending a bunch of men to correct the wives doesn't work very well. First of all, most of the women are determined to be hostesses to the men. Instead of listening to the message they are distracted by providing hospitality. Then there are all the you don't understands and men are just lording it over women objections that get in the way.

There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with problems. The original post seems to me to be a wrong way and probably an indication even of sin on the part of the men. I am telling you it is not the proper way to deal with the problem of not enough sex.

Marv

[SPALATIN]

Agreed, but how many women think it is their decision alone to decline or commence?

With the influence of the world upon them a good deal of the women out there are taking the initiative you mention. Is it right for them to do? No. Anytime sex is used as a weapon or tool of negotiation by one person over another it ceases to be nothing that should be wanted in a good marriage.

[AngelusSax]

Raping my wife. Unbelievable.

Sex is something above all other aspects of love. It is not to be thought of as the optional, negotiable part of marriage. Consider, once more (or maybe for the first time):
"It's not that these things are unimportant, because they are, it's that they should be secondary concerns in a marriage. Your husband didn't vow to be faithful to your cooking and to never eat at another restaurant, after all. And sure, there will be times you're not in the mood or whatever, but you might want to consider this: would you consider that reasonable grounds for him refusing to pay the mortage or the health insurance? Sex, like love, is a choice. If you're always waiting for things to magically happen and sweep you away, you need to grow up and quit sleeping with the stuffed unicorn with the rainbows on it."

And yet you conveniently ignored where I wrote about making things happen by working to get her into the mood. That's hardly waiting... and hardly something one can read and acknowledge and at the same time be critical of my post on this basis. But I expect nothing more, or less, from anyone on these entire forums anymore.

[ByzantineDixie]

First let me explain three before we move onto four. What one single activity is undeniably only performed by wife and husband alone always? I may eat another woman's cooking on occasion; but I may not enjoy a sexual experience with another woman once or ever. Upon what infraction of marriage is there grounds for divorce? Abandonment (which seems pretty obvious, if she (he) leaves and does not return) and sexual unfaithfulness or adultery. Again, it is not as if other activities are unimportant, but less (and only less when compared to the physical union of man and wife) important.

Well I understand your point about sex being the one of the things of the things mentioned that is to be exclusive between the husband and the wife but I sure can't agree because it is exclusive it is the most important thing in a marriage! I'll get to why I think that in a minute.


Number four should read like this, I think:

4) The higher price of call girls compared to cooks, house cleaners, or baby-sitters reflects only that men in general believe sex to be more important than other services. This isn't really an argument about Christian marriage as it is illustrating the point that most men find sex more important.

Whatever. It is still a stupid comparison. The best teachers who will teach your future children will earn far, far less than the worst player on your beloved Tigers...by this thinking I am to concluded that men think baseball is more important that their kids. :scratch:

Um, in this situation the husband's busy day is conveniently omitted. I wonder why?

LOL!!! There is a reason. Let me know after a couple years of marriage.

This does seem to be appealing to the extreme (as even most physical sexual dysfuntions have a medical solution) to set the standard.

I knew you would catch me on this but actually there is an important point here that needs to be made. Sex in or even outside of a marriage is not a necessity. The desire for sex is actually an appetite, a passion. No one needs sex to live. I actually know of several marriages where sex, for one reason or another, is no longer possible between the couple, but they live "to love" each other as they have vowed to do. The ultimate point being...if it is possible to have a successful marriage without sex then sex is definitely not the most important thing.

Look I don't mean to diminish the importance of sex in a marriage...but Vox's message if off the mark. It's not the woman's lack of desire is the problem in these marriages...it's the marriages' lack of Love. When Christ is not at the center of a marriage...then the things Vox complains about happen. The solution is not more sex from the woman...the solution is Love.

Sex is more important. I guess I am warped; sort of strange coming from a healthy man that chooses to avoid de-flowering his future wife.

Of course...which is why the comment in my first post.

[ChiRho]

I take my objections to the original post from the bible, did you not understand them, you seemed to just blow right past the post and change the focus to other parts of the letter.

I do extrapolate context a bit of the original article and I think that the context is very important. He doesn't state that he is their pastor and men are coming to him concerned with their marriage problems and the men are concerned that they would like to have more sex but their wives are nonreceptive and what can be done to change that. Even if he is their pastor, I would question the counseling skills of someone who just tells the people who approach him with a problem that the fault lies in the persons not there. Married couples are just that, a couple and problems need to be dealt with with an eye to the couple. Seldom are problems completely the fault of one with the other being totally blameless.

We are told the guy is "privy" which sounds more like gossip than the sincere seeking of solutions. The rest of the article sounds a lot like things I have heard spewed out of the mouths of fellows after lubricating them with alcohol. The desire doesn't seem to be to work on the relationship, the solution is just that women should give their husbands more sex.

I don't disagree that sex is used by a weapon by some women, that some women's priorities are messed up or anything like that. But the solution to that isn't the men get together and complain about their lack of sex. It is not the biblical way to deal with the problem.

The Bible actually tells us what the church is to do to prevent these problems.

Titus 2:3-5 NET
(3) Older women likewise are to exhibit behavior fitting for those who are holy, not slandering, not slaves to excessive drinking, but teaching what is good.
(4) In this way they will train the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children,
(5) to be self-controlled, pure, fulfilling their duties at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the message of God may not be discredited.

There is to be a women's ministry in the church, primarily one where older women live properly, but also one where they train the younger women to love their husbands. If you don't find that the younger women are being thusly trained, why don't you bring it up at the next congregational meeting. It would be much more useful potentially to bring it up there. I wouldn't suggest starting out with a "The women of this congregation are totally screwing up their ministry" type of statement. I would suggest something more like "As a young soon to be husband, I am concerned that my wife to be be helped by this church in her role as my wife and hopefully the mother of my children. I'm not that familiar with the workings of that ministry in the church, could someone tell me what is being done to help the young wives in the church by the church? Titus 2:4 says they are to be trained, what is being done in that important ministry?"

Now I don't think this has been a very high priority on the part of the church don't be surprised if you are told the womens group meets once a month or so and that's about it. Resources spent towards this ministry seem very scarce to me. Some women do it on their own, but other than having a largely social women's group, I don't see very many congregations do much of anything. I doesn't seem to me that having wives love their husbands is treated as though it is that important. Young husbands seem to think it is, but somehow they lose that thought by the time they are in positions of leadership.

This ministry is not a ministry for the men to get together and issue decrees in order to teach the young women how to love their husbands. Women gossiping about men doesn't do much but breed resentment, men gossiping about women doesn't do much but breed resentment.

A woman sits for hours watching tv. There should be a ring of the doorbell, preferably during tv time, and several women should come in and show her how to spend her time. Start by turning off the tv and talking. Show her how she is waisting the life God gives her. Help her with some cleaning show her how to do it. If she has a 5000 square foot house, maybe she should be shown how it is a lot of work taking care of such a place. Maybe encourage her to get a smaller simpler place.

Is the woman a shopaholic, instead of encouraging her, the older women should meet with her, point out that that money she throws away represents her husband's life, she should cherish his life and not just throw it at every tricket and bobble, and new outfit she can find. Such behavior is really selfish and she should be taught by the women how to honor her husband's working. Very sad is the family who spends money like water and complains they never see the man. They throw away his life like it is garbage and then complain he has no time for them.

Sending a bunch of men to correct the wives doesn't work very well. First of all, most of the women are determined to be hostesses to the men. Instead of listening to the message they are distracted by providing hospitality. Then there are all the you don't understands and men are just lording it over women objections that get in the way.

There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with problems. The original post seems to me to be a wrong way and probably an indication even of sin on the part of the men. I am telling you it is not the proper way to deal with the problem of not enough sex.

Marv


So basically you don't disagree with the article, just that the article was written by a man.

Gotcha, loud and clear. :sigh:

[ChiRho]

Whatever. It is still a stupid comparison. The best teachers who will teach your future children will earn far, far less than the worst player on your beloved Tigers...by this thinking I am to concluded that men think baseball is more important that their kids. :scratch:

Yes, men on average care more about sports than their children's education.

LOL!!! There is a reason. Let me know after a couple years of marriage.

Unfair. Totally unfair. What...what am I supposed to write in response to this!

I knew you would catch me on this but actually there is an important point here that needs to be made. Sex in or even outside of a marriage is not a necessity. The desire for sex is actually an appetite, a passion. No one needs sex to live. I actually know of several marriages where sex, for one reason or another, is no longer possible between the couple, but they live "to love" each other as they have vowed to do. The ultimate point being...if it is possible to have a successful marriage without sex then sex is definitely not the most important thing.

You are correct, I concede that sex is not essential to live. Neither is marriage. It isn't my argument that sex is necessary to live.

Now in the instance that one or both cannot any longer engage in sex, then the choice to commit and submit to one another trumps any desire to seek intimacy elsewhere. Clearly the decision to have and to hold, for better and for worse, in sickness and in health through complete suffering and joy is above any of the parts of that make up intimacy. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts, but sex has to be atleast equal in importance than any other individual part. While intimacy may still exist and a marriage may function without it, it is not necessarily designed to. When we speak of people unable to engage in sexual activity inside of marriage because of the effects of a dying [sinful] world (aging, medically, etc), it is not as if they have chose to be abstinent. Because of their commitment to endure suffering with one another until death they press on, in love and sacrifice. But let's not be unreal, given the choice to be healed and able to enjoy sex with their spouse again, they would. If we are speaking of the high gift of celibacy, then it belongs in a discussion outside of a marriage thread.

Look I don't mean to diminish the importance of sex in a marriage...but Vox's message if off the mark. It's not the woman's lack of desire is the problem in these marriages...it's the marriages' lack of Love. When Christ is not at the center of a marriage...then the things Vox complains about happen. The solution is not more sex from the woman...the solution is Love.

I sort of agree with you. First, let it be said that I have read Vox's article several times and I do not think Vox is speaking of marriage exclusively as Christian marriage. But I think his point is not that women should have more sex with their husbands, but alter their mental position from which they seem to operate from. Sex is not to be thought of as any less essential than paying the mortgage, etc (again, in a marriage in which both parties are able to engage, which happens to be the overwhelming majority). She (wife) must not treat sex as her decision alone. She made her decision to engage with two words, "I do."

I will admit that I am wrong to call sex the most important part. But it is atleast as great in importance than any other part of the sum.



Of course...which is why the comment in my first post.

I think I was seperating the duality of mother and wife to an impossible level. But there is no reason that raising children and a healthy sex life cannot exist. After all, Vox is right. Bed times, chinese take-out, and robotic sweepers (yeah right) are very, very good (or I estimate them to be if you know what I mean).

[SPALATIN]

ChiRho,

Mom knows Best! ;)

[Flipper]

So basically you don't disagree with the article, just that the article was written by a man.

Gotcha, loud and clear. :sigh:

Yea, now that I read what was written again...

On what Rose said, I'm sure after being married 10-20 more years, if I were to look back on this thread, I would see it differently than I do now - a lot of people forget that marriage is also an evolving process.

The good thing is that you are figuring out what marriage is before getting married. A lot of couples don't do that, which I think also contributes to the divorce rate.

One more thing, you mentioned that your fiance agreed with the article. You both seem to be thinking on the same wavelength. That's even better.

[Jim47]

1Co 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1Co 7:2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

1Co 7:3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

1Co 7:4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

1Co 7:5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1Co 7:6 I say this as a concession, not as a command.


Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


In my eyes this scripture gives us all the direction we need. It is quite clear that a husband of wife should not deprive their spouse, but as Rose noted, if one or the other is not doing his/her part in taking care of family responcibilites then the other should not think that his/her spouce will have the energy for sex.

I think it is very sad that anyone should spoil their marriage for lack of physical companionship. There is much more to marriage than sex. Sex is merely a God given blessing between husband and wife that put The Lord first, and then each other second. If all things are put into proper order, than neither spouse should suffer or feel deprived.

[BigNorsk]

So basically you don't disagree with the article, just that the article was written by a man.

Gotcha, loud and clear. :sigh:

I took and take great issue with the article, I just did not want it to be interpreted that my issues meant that I thought women in marriages are blameless and I pointed out a better way to deal with the problem than the article was using.

Another way, also better than revealed in the article would be for those husbands to quit spending their time confessing the sins of their wives to the writer and go home and work on their marriages.

Do you always take the more difficult interpretation of things through consious decision or is it just natural for you?

And for the record, it is completely possible for a man to write about problems caused in marriages by women. However this article is a good example to use in how not to write about those problems and it makes basic mistakes. They are pretty common mistakes for a testosterone bathed male mind to make, but they are still errors. Those errors have been well pointed out in this thread, if you can't find them, read it again until you do.

Marv

[LilLamb219]

The author sounded young to me and also, ahem, frustrated if I may say so.

One thing I found disrespectful within the wording is that it seemingly placed total blame upon the wife without looking at the actions of the husband. If the writer were to call out the mistakes both spouses were making within the marriage, such as husbands devote time to your wife to make sure she isn't totally exhausted in her daily vocations and wives allow ample time to devote to your husband which will in turn bless your marriage, then I wouldn't have as much a problem with it.

Not all wives are like the ones in the article. But the wives who are exactly like those women would benefit from a man who would be willing to look at the total picture and come to some compromises or maybe even more communication within the marriage.

[ByzantineDixie]

Yes, men on average care more about sports than their children's education.

OK...so then I was wrong and the comparison wasn't stupid...men are. :P Anyway...you get my point and I get yours.

You are correct, I concede that sex is not essential to live. Neither is marriage. It isn't my argument that sex is necessary to live.

While intimacy may still exist and a marriage may function without it, it is not necessarily designed to. When we speak of people unable to engage in sexual activity inside of marriage because of the effects of a dying [sinful] world (aging, medically, etc), it is not as if they have chose to be abstinent. Because of their commitment to endure suffering with one another until death they press on, in love and sacrifice. But let's not be unreal, given the choice to be healed and able to enjoy sex with their spouse again, they would.

I have no disagreement with what you write...I was using the original "extreme" argument to point out that marriages can and do survive without sex. That is...a man doesn't have to look for something somewhere else.

If you look at the article the author titles it. "On Marital Disintegration". He is of the opinion that one of the primary contributors to marital disintegration is the wife holding out on sex. My point is a marriage does not have to disintegrate because of this. Lil Lamb actually hit in one sentence what I have tried to say over the course of several posts.

But the wives who are exactly like those women would benefit from a man who would be willing to look at the total picture and come to some compromises or maybe even more communication within the marriage.

It's not a lack of sex but a lack of Love. Simple root cause analysis. Vox talked about treating the symptom...not healing the disease.

If we are speaking of the high gift of celibacy, then it belongs in a discussion outside of a marriage thread.

No, not speaking of this at all. Glad you recognize it as a high gift, though.

I sort of agree with you. First, let it be said that I have read Vox's article several times and I do not think Vox is speaking of marriage exclusively as Christian marriage. But I think his point is not that women should have more sex with their husbands, but alter their mental position from which they seem to operate from. Sex is not to be thought of as any less essential than paying the mortgage, etc (again, in a marriage in which both parties are able to engage, which happens to be the overwhelming majority). She (wife) must not treat sex as her decision alone. She made her decision to engage with two words, "I do."

Maybe that's Vox's point...I don't know. Hard for me to read past some of the things to get to his point if it is. Is he like the Howard Stern of print media? The media equivalent of a shock jock? I really don't know much about him at all other than the few things you posted here before.

I am OK with the rest of what you write. I completely agree that choice to have sex in a marriage is not solely at the discretion of the wife. That would not be a union but a dictatorship.

I think I was seperating the duality of mother and wife to an impossible level. But there is no reason that raising children and a healthy sex life cannot exist. Well, you can't be blamed for that...that is such a Lutheran thing to do (separating or distinguishing as some would say)! :P

[ChiRho]

I took and take great issue with the article, I just did not want it to be interpreted that my issues meant that I thought women in marriages are blameless and I pointed out a better way to deal with the problem than the article was using.

So you dislike Vox's writing style. Many do, for various reasons.

Another way, also better than revealed in the article would be for those husbands to quit spending their time confessing the sins of their wives to the writer and go home and work on their marriages.

Again, you are assuming the men haven't already done this. Who is to say that they haven't already exhausted direct communication with the wife and then out of desparation sought the counsel of trusted men? It does surprise me a bit that you would take men to task for something that most women do everyday about nearly everything. If you really want to argue that men seem more likely to be inclined to gossip, then their counterpart, then go ahead. I would love to see you make the case.

Do you always take the more difficult interpretation of things through consious decision or is it just natural for you?

It is difficult for me to interpret what you mean here, naturally.

And for the record, it is completely possible for a man to write about problems caused in marriages by women. However this article is a good example to use in how not to write about those problems and it makes basic mistakes. They are pretty common mistakes for a testosterone bathed male mind to make, but they are still errors. Those errors have been well pointed out in this thread, if you can't find them, read it again until you do.

"Testosterone bathed male"? Hummm...you are starting to sound a little like Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon. Scary. It does explain much, though.

Marv

[ChiRho]

And yet you conveniently ignored where I wrote about making things happen by working to get her into the mood. That's hardly waiting... and hardly something one can read and acknowledge and at the same time be critical of my post on this basis. But I expect nothing more, or less, from anyone on these entire forums anymore.


I ignored everything after you claimed that what I was defending was essentially raping my wife- especially the whole "pitch the tent" process. I may be in the dark on this one, but I think you may not understand what that phrase actually means. I have never understood it to mean what I think you intended. Anyway, crudely off-topic.

Oh, and if you really do not expect anything more from anyone here on the forums, why bother to respond to our mindless postings?

[SPALATIN]

I ignored everything after you claimed that what I was defending was essentially raping my wife- especially the whole "pitch the tent" process. I may be in the dark on this one, but I think you may not understand what that phrase actually means. I have never understood it to mean what I think you intended. Anyway, crudely off-topic.

Oh, and if you really do not expect anything more from anyone here on the forums, why bother to respond to our mindless postings?

I second that opinion ChiRho. If he is saying that posts written here are hardly worth his time then he should go somewhere else. I never agree with his stand on anything anyway.

[ChiRho]

The author sounded young to me and also, ahem, frustrated if I may say so.

Vox is atleast in his thirties, perhaps even forty. While he may be frustrated, it wouldn't be because he is battling this problem in his marriage. If you frequent Vox Popoli, you will find his wife comments regularly under the nickname, Spacebunny. They do not have this problem, if indeed that is what you were implying.


One thing I found disrespectful within the wording is that it seemingly placed total blame upon the wife without looking at the actions of the husband. If the writer were to call out the mistakes both spouses were making within the marriage, such as husbands devote time to your wife to make sure she isn't totally exhausted in her daily vocations and wives allow ample time to devote to your husband which will in turn bless your marriage, then I wouldn't have as much a problem with it.

While I certainly do not make the case that men are beyond reproach- because of course they are not- I believe the point of this article was to identify a specific problem within many marriages today. There is an obvious difference with this issue, than other issues that men and women are guilty of. Men are never encouraged that it is merely their choice whether they devote time to their wives and help them. It is expected of them. Some do and some do not; but it is never presented as you may choose to devote time to your wife when you are "in the mood." Women are raised to believe very different things about sex and sexual responsibilities in marriage. Sex, while encouraged, is not talked about in the same realm as raising kids. It is presented as something that is essentially second-tier to many other responsibilities. Just take a gander a few posts up where a young man equated expecting sex (in marriage) sometimes even when the woman doesn't "feel" like it, to rape. Rape!

Not all wives are like the ones in the article. But the wives who are exactly like those women would benefit from a man who would be willing to look at the total picture and come to some compromises or maybe even more communication within the marriage.

First of all, if a man approaches a woman who believes that sex is an option and that cleaning, cooking, and raising children are the totality of what makes a good wife, then why would she ever entertain such "perverted" rants from an "overly sex-driven animal." If you think I have gone too far, I encourage you to bring this conversation up with some of your female friends or atleast take careful listen to how things of this nature are presented.

As for the "sexicapades" woman, where would the man be expected to compromise?

[LilLamb219]

I believe the point of this article was to identify a specific problem within many marriages today.

But the problem is that the "specific problem" the author attempts to make is lacking because it is only one-sided. Problems in a marriage, especially in the realm of the sexual relationship, are two-sided. Both spouses play a role. The author neglects to look at the fault of the male and only blames the female which is a poor balance when looking at the sexual relationships in marriage. To place blame only on the female without regards to what the male is doing in the marriage is irresponsible. A lot of other posters here have made the attempt to point that out.

First of all, if a man approaches a woman who believes that sex is an option and that cleaning, cooking, and raising children are the totality of what makes a good wife, then why would she ever entertain such "perverted" rants from an "overly sex-driven animal."

It's possible that there are women out there who believe sex is an option, but I am a woman who has discussed sex with my friends and none believe that to be true. Sex is a blessing to a healthy marriage but there are other things that are included in completing the role of "wife" besides sex. Sex is an area of intimacy and there are women who cannot fathom the idea of being intimate with a man who doesn't bathe regularly, goes around passing gas excessively as if it's a game, doesn't pick up after himself, won't lift a finger when the wife is in dire need of some household help, etc.... Again, this resorts back to the husband neglecting the needs of his wife and not helping out in his role as husband. He isn't just the breadwinner or the babymaker. If he is to be a husband as Christ is to the church, the he needs to examine himself to see if he is lacking first before placing blame on someone else for his lack of intimacy in his marriage.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Well, what I "do" about marriage and what I "think" is two differant things.

What I do as a Christian is "try" to follow biblical precepts.........sorta. Love wife and Christ loved his chuch, compromise, be spritual head, etc.etc.

As a sinful human being I "think" I would like to be Conan the Barbarian.

It's a guy thing.......hormones and such :)



:P