"Wifely Duties?"

[Magic Man]

Because sex is more involved than a body function.If you want that.( sexual body functions).Dont get into a relationship.

Love

Dallas

No, it's not. Sex can be more than just a bodily function, but it's not inherently. As I said, sometimes it's just about physical pleasure.

Because it denies the humanity of both people.

Actually, I'd say it accepts the humanity of both people.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually, I'd say that's exactly what it means.

Marriage is more than a piece of paper or a contract.

Just because they haven't broken the paper contract doesn't mean anything. If the husband seeks his companionship elsewhere and doesn't even talk with his wife. Frankly that means that he doesn't think of her as his mate. No mate, no marriage.

Marriage is a partnership and an oath to keep and honor that partnership. It's not a job or mortgage.

So like I said, it sounds like the husband already decided to break the marriage, regardless of the state of the paper he signed.

wa:do

 

[challupa]

Wow, well, I do speak about this from experience, but not all of my comments are directly related to my marriage. I'm happy with my marriage. The sex could be a little more frequent, but overall, I love my wife and she loves me, and we get along great. I might have a few complaints, but nothing anywhere near the realm of thinking of divorce. Thanks for your concern, though.

That's wonderful then. I was a little concerned. I misunderstood.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Because it denies the humanity of both people.

Sometimes people, both males and females, don't need their humanity affirmed - they just want to get off. Obviously this doesn't apply all the time, or to everyone (I know plenty of uptight people who over-dramaticize sex), but two consenting adults can define whatever they want as a pleasureable and/or acceptable sexual interaction.

 

[Draka]

Yup. And? Is that supposed to make me look bad? Kind of like "You're the one who's gay" would do between some others?

It doesn't make you look bad...you do that all by yourself quite well enough. And comparing to that term is ridiculous, since being gay is not on the same level as expecting your wife to put out when she doesn't want to and expecting her to pretend to like it to boot. That makes you a monster.

How have I twisted it? Both partners in a marriage have a right to sex. They also have a right to discussion, and understanding and help around the house and with kids, etc. I'm sorry you and others don't like the use of the term "right" when it comes to sex, but it's just the way it is.

Sex is NEVER a "right"...ever. Sex is something to share as an act of intimacy within a relationship. As soon as you relegate it to the position of "right" you have just excused rape. Period.

I have to say, though, that we do agree to a point on the disgust part. Parts of this thread have had that effect on me, namely the parts where people were being self-righteous and insulting to anyone with a different viewpoint.

It's not the matter of just a different viewpoint mball. It's reaction to something that is wholly atrocious and medieval. The idea that you cannot begin to comprehend how relegating a woman to a blow up doll is demeaning is shocking and disturbing to say the least.

Hehe. Thanks. Good to know that's what you think of someone who differs on an opinion with you. Just remember that there is apparently a subject you can't be objective on. Maybe if you can get past your emotions, you'll understand that I'm not a pig.

Just because the vast majority of people here disagree with you on this doesn't mean that the ones who actually come forward to say so are the ones with the problem mball. It's truly NOT just an "emotional" thing. It's a common sense, human rights, psychological well being thing. I contend that if you don't get that it is you who just doesn't understand...and probably never will.

That's too bad. I'd rather you stick around and learn something about other persepctives on the world, which are just as valid and reasonable as yours. But, suit yourself.

Why should he? You certainly aren't learning one darn thing here. Oh, and your perspective is not in any way, shape or form reasonable. It may well be valid in a country where women are property...but not reasonable anywhere.

 

[Magic Man]

Marriage is more than a piece of paper or a contract.

That's true.

Just because they haven't broken the paper contract doesn't mean anything. If the husband seeks his companionship elsewhere and doesn't even talk with his wife. Frankly that means that he doesn't think of her as his mate. No mate, no marriage.

Marriage is a partnership and an oath to keep and honor that partnership. It's not a job or mortgage.

So like I said, it sounds like the husband already decided to break the marriage, regardless of the state of the paper he signed.

wa:do

This gets too far into the "No true Scotsman" territory, though. At what point does it stop being a marriage, even if they're still technically married? Is it when he cheats the first time? Is it the first week he doesn't talk to her? That's why I say that they're still married. If they haven't taken the time to officially call it quits, then they're still married.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And what is really bizzzare?? 2nd marriages have a higher divorce rate than first.

go figure..

Love

DAllas

Makes perfect sense. People tend to stick to the same patterns and rarely really learn or change. The types of people who end up in relationships which end in divorce, will tend to do so again.

An addendum to that fact is that the success rates for each successive marriage (3rd, 4th, etc.) continue to drop.

 

[+Xausted]

Makes perfect sense. People tend to stick to the same patterns and rarely really learn or change. The types of people who end up in relationships which end in divorce, will tend to do so again.

An addendum to that fact is that the success rates for each successive marriage (3rd, 4th, etc.) continue to drop.

Oh then my second marriage is doomed then ?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh then my second marriage is doomed then ?

No, I'm referring to broad statistical patterns, not individual situations.

 

[painted wolf]

This gets too far into the "No true Scotsman" territory, though. At what point does it stop being a marriage, even if they're still technically married? Is it when he cheats the first time? Is it the first week he doesn't talk to her? That's why I say that they're still married. If they haven't taken the time to officially call it quits, then they're still married.

And there are "married" couples that live in separate homes in separate states and never want to see one another again.

When you stop seeing your mate as your partner and no longer want them in your life other than to possess them somehow (as a cover, as a housekeeper, whatever)... marriage is over.

wa:do

 

[DallasApple]

No, it's not. Sex can be more than just a bodily function, but it's not inherently. As I said, sometimes it's just about physical pleasure.



Actually, I'd say it accepts the humanity of both people.

NO sex SHOULD be more than a "bodily function"..fact of the matter you can in FACT survive without it.YOu will NOT die.It is not a "neccessity" for your own survival.Its NOT.

Its an URGE or an Impulse..Your life should not hinge on sex or the absents of it.That is in your head.

You "want it"..Is not the same thing as you need it.

And to treat "it" as if its a life sustaining substenence is quite frankly tickling your own fancies.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Oh then my second marriage is doomed then ?

NO its not..

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

It doesn't make you look bad...you do that all by yourself quite well enough. And comparing to that term is ridiculous, since being gay is not on the same level as expecting your wife to put out when she doesn't want to and expecting her to pretend to like it to boot. That makes you a monster.

Well, thanks. You're entitled to that opinion. Luckily it's a minority opinion. The point of comparing it to calling someone gay was that some people ignorantly see being gay as a bad thing, and so they take it as an insult. The same applies here. That's not really in insult as he meant it to be, but it comes off that way to other people who hold the same ignorance.

Sex is NEVER a "right"...ever. Sex is something to share as an act of intimacy within a relationship. As soon as you relegate it to the position of "right" you have just excused rape. Period.

That's a little illogical. Sure, sex is a right. Just like your partner talking to you and compromising on some issues is a right. That isn't to say that a partner is entitled to sex any time they want. It's quite a huge jump from there to rape, and that's nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

It's not the matter of just a different viewpoint mball. It's reaction to something that is wholly atrocious and medieval. The idea that you cannot begin to comprehend how relegating a woman to a blow up doll is demeaning to say the least.

Except that I'm not relegating a woman to that. You're taking it that way because of your sensitivity to the subject. That's why I mentioned looking at it objectively. Unless you can do that, you're only going to see a very biased and narrow-minded view.

By the way, what's medieval about expecting a man to pleasure his wife, even if he doesn't feel like it?

Just because the vast majority of people here disagree with you on this doesn't mean that the ones who actually come forward to say so are the ones with the problem mball. It's truly NOT just an "emotional" thing. It's a common sense, human rights, psychological well being thing. I contend that if you don't get that it is you who just doesn't understand...and probably never will.

No, it really is an emotional thing. People take offense to anything that could be construed as "a medieval idea", when really it's just a matter of those people refusing to see what the other person is actually saying, all because of their emotional reaction to the subject matter.

Why should he? You certainly aren't learning one darn thing here. Oh, and your perspective is not in any way, shape or form reasonable. It may well be valid in a country where women are property...but not reasonable anywhere.

I don't need to learn anything. I am capable of understanding others points-of-view and not dismissing them for no reason. I understand that for some people sex is not a priority, and for others it is. I understand that some people have an inflated idea of sex. I understand that my situation isn't the majority. I am not the one calling others monsters and pigs because of their view on this.

Your last sentence shows yet again that you simply don't understand what I'm saying. Otherwise, you'd realize that this isn't about chauvinism or thinking women are property. You seem to have conveniently ignored all of the times that I've stated that this goes for husbands, too, whose wives have a higher sex drive. Hence, it obviously has nothing to do with me thinking that women are property.

Again, all you have to do is go back and read my posts without the whole emotional trigger that some of this has, and you'll see that I'm very reasonable about this.

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***

Sorry folks: Due to the atmosphere that this debate has spiraled into, we're going to have to shut this down permanently.

Let's have everyone take a breather for a bit.

Thanks guys and gals.​