Wife getting massages

[Paidiske]

No. I really don't think accompanying a spouse to "the doctor's office" counts as interfering with pain treatment in any direct way, unless of course.........................her husband is "the pain" she's trying to treat.

Interfering, no, but supervising, yes. I mean, my reaction would seriously be, is he going to want to start accompanying me to work, to social outings, to the supermarket, just in case, I don't even know what he thinks might happen?

That's ok. If you grew up in my shoes, or those of my wife, you probably would.

I mean, if it works for you and your wife, great; but I think there are good reasons we should not see it as normative for Christian couples.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interfering, no, but supervising, yes. I mean, my reaction would seriously be, is he going to want to start accompanying me to work, to social outings, to the supermarket, just in case, I don't even know what he thinks might happen?

I wouldn't conflate accompanying a spouse to a doctor's office, and only to a doctor's office, as acting in a supervisory capacity, especially not if his being there helps to put his mind at ease about his wife.

I mean, if it works for you and your wife, great; but I think there are good reasons we should not see it as normative for Christian couples.

You've misunderstood my insinuation. But my wife and I do feel that some amount of bilateral accountability, however moderate or minimal it may be, has a normative place in a marriage.

Do we want to suggest to women that they remove any and all demands they may have about having access to their husbands mobile phones? I think if we suggested this to women, many if not most of them would balk at the idea. I think it'd be the uncommon woman, or wife, who would firmly and honestly say, "My husband? Oh hell, baby, he can do whatever he wants on his phone. I don't care."

 

[Paidiske]

I wouldn't conflate accompanying a spouse to a doctor's office, and only to a doctor's office, as acting in a supervisory capacity, especially not if his being there helps to put his mind at ease about his wife.

What is he doing there, if not supervising? Seriously, what is his presence intended to accomplish, or prevent?

But my wife and I do feel that some amount of bilateral accountability, however moderate or minimal it may be, has a normative place in a marriage.

Sure. But not being able to go to an appointment without someone sitting outside the door? Yikes.

Do we want to suggest to women that they remove any and all demands they may have about having access to their husbands mobile phones? I think if we suggested this to women, many if not most of them would balk at the idea. I think it'd be the uncommon woman, or wife, who would firmly and honestly say, "My husband? Oh hell, baby, he can do whatever he wants on his phone. I don't care."

Really?

The only reason I ever access my husband's phone is to play silly games on it that I refuse to install on mine (because I know myself well enough to know how much time I would waste if I had instant and constant access to them). I've never checked his call records, his messages, his browser history, or anything else he does on it. I have no desire to. I have no demand or expectation that I be able to access his phone.

I would have a problem if he wanted to check those things on my phone, given that nothing in our marriage has ever given him any reason to suspect there's any problem. (Also because my phone holds call records and message conversations which I receive in a professional capacity and am expected to keep confidential).

Now, if there were a history of infidelity, or addiction to gambling, or some other issue which had arisen which meant stronger accountability were necessary, it'd be different; but in a healthy marriage with none of those things, something like a demand to access a phone comes across to me as more akin to coercive control, than healthy accountability.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is he doing there, if not supervising? Seriously, what is his presence intended to accomplish, or prevent?

Sure. But not being able to go to an appointment without someone sitting outside the door? Yikes.

Really?

The only reason I ever access my husband's phone is to play silly games on it that I refuse to install on mine (because I know myself well enough to know how much time I would waste if I had instant and constant access to them). I've never checked his call records, his messages, his browser history, or anything else he does on it. I have no desire to. I have no demand or expectation that I be able to access his phone.

I would have a problem if he wanted to check those things on my phone, given that nothing in our marriage has ever given him any reason to suspect there's any problem. (Also because my phone holds call records and message conversations which I receive in a professional capacity and am expected to keep confidential).

And I'd suggest that you get over having that "problem."

Now, if there were a history of infidelity, or addiction to gambling, or some other issue which had arisen which meant stronger accountability were necessary, it'd be different; but in a healthy marriage with none of those things, something like a demand to access a phone comes across to me as more akin to coercive control, than healthy accountability.

Who precisely has the authority to define what a "healthy" marriage "is" or when a marriage (despite appearances) is indeed "healthy"?

 

[Paidiske]

And I'd suggest that you get over having that "problem."

What problem? The expectation that I be treated with a basic level of trust?

Oh heck no. Anyone who wants to monitor and control to a significant degree for no reason is not someone I want to be in a relationship with.

Who precisely has the authority to define what a "healthy" marriage "is" or when a marriage (despite appearances) is indeed "healthy"?

That can be a matter for conversation, I guess, and outside support with a counsellor or the like if there's significant disagreement. My point is, sure, there are situations where a higher level of accountability become reasonable. But monitoring relationships, communications, appointments, etc, for no particular reason? That's a whole other level.

 

[WalkTheTalk77]

Hi, conservative Bible believer here, in Tennessee.

I'm not married, but I've worked with the public in various settings enough to know that sometimes husbands and wives just accompany each other - to the store, doctor's office, etc.

I think if, after the OP discusses with his wife and they agree on her still going for massages, he could go, introduce himself and sit in the lobby.

It might sound old-fashioned of me, but I've come to realize that one's presence can perhaps change the whole dynamic. I don't know the OP's wife or her masseur, but the husband's presence could put a certain spiritual-mental-emotional pressure on her and on the professional to maintain boundaries in heads and hearts.

I've had a few massages over several years (incl. at a chiropractor, massage places, and from an acquaintance)... most felt at least a little (or a lot!) "weird," bc, yes, some is touching you... sigh. Maybe some ppl (like me) are more sensitive than others!

Also, maybe the OP himself thinks that HE'D feel weird, but maybe his wife is not bothered at all?! It could be one if those matters of conscience like Paul talks about.

Likewise, if he is very bothered, I do think his wife should try to not have others perform them, unless she can absolutely state that she feels zero "weirdness" from it, and/or could have a female masseuse, etc. and her husband can feel comfortable with her continuing to have them. Otherwise, it will sow division and mistrust - even if it's a weed of his brooding thoughts - they need to talk and come to agreement, even if one of them must give a lot more than the other on this.

She might have a health condition where she needs these... but could also be open to trying hot tubs, saunas, supplements, self-massage, her husband massaging, a massage gun, etc.

In the end, the OP and his wife need to communicate, and love and respect each other according to God's Word.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

There is a Christian perspective where both wife and husband have a claim on the body of the other (not in a hierarchical, controlling way); (St. Paul: "For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.") But that is aimed at a specific question, and not at things like whether or not someone can have a massage.

I note that people are dismissing your view because you're an atheist, but my view is pretty similar, and I'm a Christian.

and you would be wrong as they are

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

What problem? The expectation that I be treated with a basic level of trust?

Oh heck no. Anyone who wants to monitor and control to a significant degree for no reason is not someone I want to be in a relationship with.

But monitoring relationships, communications, appointments, etc, for no particular reason? That's a whole other level.

For no reason? I see. So it would be just fine for a husband to be almost naked and get an oil massage from a woman in a closed room...nothing bad could happen there...nothing.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

My people know that we have to bear the slings and arrows of persecution because of our non-beliefs. I only hope I can be an example to others.

oh poor atheist presuming being persecuted. I discount your responses because Paul means nothing to you and this OP is a Christian.

 

[Strong in Him]

Good for you...you are an atheist. In marriage the two become one. The husband has authority over the wife.

That doesn't mean ignoring her feelings, her right to privacy, or insisting that she gives up something that she finds beneficial.
A husband is supposed to love his wife; that means trusting her.

 

[Strong in Him]

A woman should never be alone and almost naked with a man that is not her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:4

So you wouldn't allow your wife to go swimming/sunbathe on the beach in the company of men?
What about surgery or medical procedures? What about having a male doctor in the room when giving birth?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So you wouldn't allow your wife to go swimming/sunbathe on the beach in the company of men?
What about surgery or medical procedures? What about having a male doctor in the room when giving birth?

I already addressed that...please pay attention. No one at the beach is rubbing her with oil (other than most likely her husband with sunscreen). Is not the husband present at his child's birth?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That doesn't mean ignoring her feelings, her right to privacy, or insisting that she gives up something that she finds beneficial.
A husband is supposed to love his wife; that means trusting her.

Did I say that? No.

 

[Strong in Him]

I already addressed that...please pay attention.

Please don't be rude.

Is not the husband present at his child's birth?

Not necessarily.

 

[Strong in Him]

Did I say that? No.

You said:

In marriage the two become one.

That implies that the husband owns his wife's body - if they are one flesh - and therefore her feelings and wishes too.

The husband has authority over the wife.

That implies a husband gets to approve/disapprove of his wife's choices and has the final say in what she does.

A woman should never be alone and almost naked with a man that is not her husband. 1 Corinthians 7:4

That is why I mentioned swimming/sunbathing on the beach - in the presence of other men.
Her husband may not even be around, if it is a swimming lesson, or he has gone off to do something else on their holiday.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Please don't be rude.

Not necessarily.

I'm not. I assumed you have been reading all the posts...I guess not

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not necessarily.

Yet there are female nurses present, etc.

 

[Paidiske]

and you would be wrong as they are

It would be helpful if you could actually make some argument to support that.

For no reason? I see. So it would be just fine for a husband to be almost naked and get an oil massage from a woman in a closed room...nothing bad could happen there...nothing.

It would be fine for a husband to get a therapeutic massage, sure. In fact, mine does. I have no concern. He's getting necessary treatment for something that's causing him pain.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That implies that the husband owns his wife's body - if they are one flesh - and therefore her feelings and wishes too.

That implies a husband gets to approve/disapprove of his wife's choices and has the final say in what she does.

The husband is the head of the family as scripture says. If you have a problem with that tell Paul

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It would be helpful if you could actually make some argument to support that.

Already did.