CC-Does having a good marriage all boil down to having enough teA?

[LucyStoner]

Wow! I am what one would consider Evangelical and I have never heard that from anywhere. When I heard anything from pastors I respect, (and even some I don't!) it was always Haggard (was his first name Tim?) who was to blame.

 

But then again, I am evangelical and had never heard of Haggard before the incident.

 

Dawn

 

 

I read Mark Driscoll's post saying exactly what I said myself. Mark Driscoll is the nationally famous evangelical Mars Hill Church founder in Seattle. It was widely covered in the news here, perhaps because Driscoll is local so it was the local spin on the story. Google will illmuninate if you are interested. He was not alone. He said that pastors wives often let themselves go. I wish I were making this up.

[Tita Gidge]

Didn't read the article, and don't plan to.

 

But to answer the question to the title of this thread, ... sort of.

A good marriage sort of boils down to having enough sax.

Whatever that means for each couple, and then again to each person of said couple.

 

Sort of, because I think it's not a matter of how much but a matter of what are the attitudes towards.

And attitudes towards sax goes far in determining the quantity of.

Examples have already been mentioned: sax as currency, lack of sax due to illness/health, etc.

 

These things are among those that color our attitudes towards sax.

They gauge the health of our relationships.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I love it. My marriage could use some more sax. I think some jazz by Wynton and Brandon Marsalis might be just the ticket to put us in the mood!

 

Didn't read the article, and don't plan to.

 

But to answer the question to the title of this thread, ... sort of.

A good marriage sort of boils down to having enough sax.

Whatever that means for each couple, and then again to each person of said couple.

 

Sort of, because I think it's not a matter of how much but a matter of what are the attitudes towards.

And attitudes towards sax goes far in determining the quantity of.

Examples have already been mentioned: sax as currency, lack of sax due to illness/health, etc.

 

These things are among those that color our attitudes towards sax.

They gauge the health of our relationships.

 

[8circles]

 

I think that's only true if your view of sex is that it's a rather meaningless physical act, not an important means of connecting at a deeper level with one's spouse. That's certainly not how I view it, and I doubt the men who say it's very important do either.

Well, i'm now typing one-handed with a sleeping feverish child in arms so I may be cryptic. Forgive me.

 

I don't view sex as a rather meaningless physical act. I don't know anything about the men who responded to the survey mentioned (so I can't divine what they mean by "sex" since I think we all know people who do view it as a rather meaningless physical act & those who don't) except that they thought sex was the most important part of marriage. Not connection, not intimacy (not just physical), not oneness, not mutual respect, not anything else - just sex. I find that alarming. I also acknowledge that typically men have higher sex-drives than women & that it often (mostly?) helps them feel connected to their spouse.

 

I would think it equally ridiculous if a woman were to say that the man helping with the housework is the most important part of marriage. I've heard it said, but only in jest. There are women for whom spousal acts of service helps them feel more connected etc but everyone who says so IMO seems to acknowledge that its just a small piece of the puzzle. Besides the fact that there isn't anything sacred about sharing the housework - to talk about sex as the article did cheapens it IMO.

[8circles]

I have the release, the knowledge within our sex life was great, the act was good, but without the intimacy preceding the act, I still came out feeling horrible. My younger years revolved around sex and I know what I'm doing in the bedroom. It won't fulfil a relationship by itself though. Until it became an expression of the healthy connection in our relationship, I hated it even though I craved it. I have a plenty high labido. My dh and I have had to actually cut sex completely out of our relationship for awhile in order to focus on the rest of the marriage.

 

Yes to the bold. Exactly. To focus on the sex is to miss the point entirely.

[8circles]

Specifically, which responses are shocking to you? I'm trying to sort out the arguments here so I can respond.

 

I sort of see an attitude that teA means one simple sort of thing and an expectation that we are all somehow in agreement over it. That teA isn't a deeply meanngful act in itself and if a man considers it very important he's only interested in the dirty deed and not in anything deeper that the act might represent or foster. In short, sex is just a bit of fun and rather shallow.

 

Not sure if that's accurate but if it is it might be worth considering for some that if others (and men in general) declare teA to be very, very important it might be because they view it as something much more.

 

See my other response. Forgive me for being brief.

 

My opinions here are influenced by the example email in the blog. I have no issue with tEa being very, very important to any couple. I have issue with a blanket encouragement to women to not only have more tEa but to WANT to have more tEa because (as the man in the example stated) it's hard to love her without it.

[BarbecueMom]

I love it. My marriage could use some more sax. I think some jazz by Wynton and Brandon Marsalis might be just the ticket to put us in the mood!

 

LOL. Definitely go for Wynton over Branford. I dated a saxophone player. I married a trumpet player. There were several reasons for that. Some relevant to this thread. ;-)

[Coco_Clark]

I would disagree that our culture is "tea obsessed." I think this opinion is more likely the influence of conservative religious ideology imposed on an objectively neutral behavior, a behavior whose moral values are constantly being challenged. I mean, just the fact that people throw around euphemisms and spell that word with symbols (ie, "s@x" or "s*x" or "teA"), illustrates an unease with the subject. It's like the fourth grader who giggles the first time she sees Michelangelo's "David" in all his human glory. She doesn't know what to do with this heretofore unspoken about topic, and the giggles just come out in response.

 

 

 

Arguably, conservative religion contributes to a culture of rape. It also leads the charge in placing a particular moral value on sex.

 

http://prospect.org/...re-rape-culture

http://www.patheos.c...pe-culture.html

http://thinkprogress...-abstinence-ed/

http://yesmeansyesbl...ght-rape-scale/

 

 

 

So long as girls and women are made to feel ashamed for being assaulted, told they are sluts for voluntarily having sex outside the bounds of legal matrimony, or made to endure some form of purity conditioning, teaching boys they shouldn't count on sex as a right only goes so far. The brainwashing has to stop for everyone. In my opinion, demystifying sex is a good enough place to start.

 

 

 

Service? Yeesh, that's so... consumeristic.

 

 

I actually agree with you. Conservative religion (including this, now common in evangelicalism, teaching) has contributed greatly to our culture of rape. I thought I was stating that. And the reason I was speaking about how I would teach my boys is because I happen to have three SONS. :) No daughters (so far) for me so I haven't thought very deeply about how I would handle that side if it. Teaching boys may only go so far but its exactly as far as I can go. As far as service? Meh, I suppose its a consumerism way of saying it. I suppose I could have said that yes, I admit sometimes I have sex when I'm not super duper into it because I can tell my husband is and I love him? I dont think it saves our marriage, or it even really affects things all that much, but I do see at least a small point that its a nice thing to do.

[Guest]

Same here! Scheduling seems really unsexy to me, though it is necessary sometimes.

 

 

See, that's funny - how people are different. I seriously like scheduling. What I cannot stand is being tired, kids are in bed/in their rooms, I'm winding down with a good book or a mindless episode of House Hunters and here comes dh, with a little spontaneity in mind...Please. Look me up Sunday morning, honey. :laugh:

[8circles]

 

See, that's funny - how people are different. I seriously like scheduling. What I cannot stand is being tired, kids are in bed/in their rooms, I'm winding down with a good book or a mindless episode of House Hunters and here comes dh, with a little spontaneity in mind...Please. Look me up Sunday morning, honey. :laugh:

 

 

Yes, this is me, too. My evenings are sacred & I love spending them having tEa but not if I've already begun something else to unwind. Not to say it doesn't happen, but I'd prefer it to be more expected.

[SproutMamaK]

Oh look, a brand new poster on a controversial thread about TeA where the second line is entirely 'Posted images'. I think I'll just go click on all the links, I'm sure they will be extremely informative!

 

Yeah.... how bout no.

[Erin]

I started to comment on the various strawmen that have been erected in this thread (that have NOTHING to do with the original article) and then decided 'why bother.'

Obviously people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe. And the various psychologists, surveys, and articles from men that disagree are all part of the misogynistic male-dominated society, seeking to legitimize their subjugation of women. ;)

 

*shrug*

How do you argue with that? lol

 

Truly, good luck to all.

The 50% divorce rate in our society says we need it! :)

[Joker]

Marriages and people are so different that I find it weird anyone feels justified in lumping them all together. Many of us believe what we do because it is what is played out in our real lives. Yours is different and that is fine, but to say we don't 'get it' or only 'believe what we want to' is not fair. Dh and I find our connectedness and closeness in many areas and s*x is only one and is most definitely not the most important. We're going on 15 years now and are very happy with our lives.

[Erin]

Is it also "weird" to say that women tend to be multi-taskers while men tend to be more singularly focused?

Or that men have greater muscle mass than women?

Or that men are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Or that boys have greater gross motor development when girls are still ahead wrt to fine motor?

Or that girls tend to be verbal at an earlier age than boys (and will most likely remain that way)?

 

 

Is there really debate about the fact that there are differences between men and women beyond the absolutely obvious??

[Jean in Newcastle]

I started to comment on the various strawmen that have been erected in this thread (that have NOTHING to do with the original article) and then decided 'why bother.' ;)

Obviously people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe.

 

No problem.

Good luck to you all. :)

 

 

Did you write this? You seem to be awfully invested in what we think is important in our marriages.

[Erin]

Of course!

I've seen one too many marriages fall apart in the past few years to want to see ANYONE go through that pain.

I'm not saying anything about anyone's in particular, though. Or saying that people who don't think men and women are wired differently are doomed.

 

 

I thought we were speaking in generalities, actually. The words "most, usually, generally, etc." are what gave me that impression, btw.

[Joker]

Well, my dh is more of a multi-tasker than I'll ever be so I can't give you that one.

 

I don't disagree that there are many differences between men and women but I don't agree that ALL men want s*x more or need it more than women. I find it not only 'weird' but ridiculous. We'll have to agree to disagree. I know my dh. I don't need you or anyone else telling me I don't understand or know what he needs. We work exceptionally well together. We have periods where we have tea more than others but our relationship does not change. I would find it problematic actually if our relationship were only good when we were having lots of tea vs the not so much. I'm very happy that is not us.

[HRAAB]

I started to comment on the various strawmen that have been erected in this thread (that have NOTHING to do with the original article) and then decided 'why bother.'

Obviously people are going to continue to believe what they want to believe. And the various psychologists, surveys, and articles from men that disagree are all part of the misogynistic male-dominated society, seeking to legitimize their subjugation of women. ;)

 

*shrug*

How do you argue with that? lol

 

Truly, good luck to all.

The 50% divorce rate in our society says we need it! :)

 

Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying the 50% divorce rate is due to the fact that wives are not giving their husbands enough sex?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Of course!

I've seen one too many marriages fall apart in the past few years to want to see ANYONE go through that pain.

I'm not saying anything about anyone's in particular.

 

I thought we were speaking in generalities, actually. The words "most, usually, generally, etc." are what gave me that impression, btw.

 

So. . . if we don't agree with you we're headed for divorce? Strange. . .

[Erin]

lol I was editing while you were posting.

I wondered if the statement regarding generalities might not be quite obvious enough. (Particularly since so many people keep bringing up "exceptions," leading me to think there are a number of people in this conversation who aren't quite getting the idea that the entire discussion has been about generalities.)

[Veritaserum]

I think that a lot of "generalities" regarding men and women are culturally conditioned responses. People tend to play the part society teaches (and expects or even forces) them to play.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Not to mention that I don't interact or base things in my marriage based on generalities. I do use principles - Biblical ones, that is. But that is not what was being discussed in this blog.

[Liz CA]

Yes, and what about our daughters?? Should we encourage them to look for a piano player (Get it? Good with his hands? I kill me!)

 

 

Moxie, you've been on a roll lately. :lol:

[Guest]

Meh---I read the whole article,and all the way through, she kept saying "A man wants". Well....she ain't exactly a man. I can't put a lot of stock into something that isn't even coming from someone who has a male perspective. In my marriage, I don't look to "experts" to tell me how to make it work. (Not that they are a bad thing for some.) If it isn't working, we talk about it. Communication has to be the foundation that everything else in a marriage builds on. If you can't communicate your needs/wants, then everything else isn't going to be as strong as it should.

[Melissa in Australia]

reported

[FaithManor]

I think that a lot of "generalities" regarding men and women are culturally conditioned responses. People tend to play the part society teaches (and expects or even forces) them to play.

 

This is absolutely true. The older I get, the more I discover that many stereotypes and "generalities" really are not based in any fact at all. I have met so many more "exceptions to the rule" than real people who meet the generalities...with the caveat that certain religious groups do have cultural tendancies that are absolutely common to the whole because one cannot be included in the subset without adherence to specifics - the Amish being one example.

 

People are conditioned to think certain things that are not true. To be honest, this issue is one of them. Either I live in a very, very strange mini-culture or something is wrong. Dh just doesn't know any men that function the way the blog claims men do. The ones that married, married for much bigger reasons. As he says, "We married for the cake. S*x is just the icing. No matter what happens in life, we want the cake." Ie., they want the deeper relationship. Frequency of dabbling with the icing is not a deal breaker for joy or contentment.

 

The hardest thing is to stop and consider how much of what we've been taught about the other gender, or a particular religious group, or civic group, or ethnicity, or anyone else is actually rooted in fact and how much in bias...how much was stated as fact, but based on cursory observations, limited sampling, unscientific premesis, and downright determination to manipulate the facts to achieve a specific means.

 

Humans are pretty complex creatures and not easily boiled down to such simplistic views.

 

Faith

[Erin]

Is it also "weird" to say that women tend to be multi-taskers while men tend to be more singularly focused?

Or that men have greater muscle mass than women?

Or that men are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Or that boys have greater gross motor development when girls are still ahead wrt to fine motor?

Or that girls tend to be verbal at an earlier age than boys (and will most likely remain that way)?

 

 

Is there really debate about the fact that there are differences between men and women beyond the absolutely obvious??

 

 

I realize many of you are trying to say otherwise, but science completely disagrees with you.

Men and women's brains function differently.

http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/how-male-female-brains-differ

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/surprising-differences-between-male-and-female-brain200

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201207/two-myths-and-three-facts-about-the-differences-in-men-and-womens-brains

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16688123

[Caroline]

Is it also "weird" to say that women tend to be multi-taskers while men tend to be more singularly focused?

Or that men have greater muscle mass than women?

Or that men are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Or that boys have greater gross motor development when girls are still ahead wrt to fine motor?

Or that girls tend to be verbal at an earlier age than boys (and will most likely remain that way)?

 

Is there really debate about the fact that there are differences between men and women beyond the absolutely obvious??

 

 

Why are you repeating yourself?

[Erin]

Because no one answered the question(s).

I assumed it was because no one had seen the post. :)

 

 

At the crux, that seems to be the disagreement here--Those who think gender-related brain differences are physiological and those who don't.

[bolt.]

Is it also "weird" to say that women tend to be multi-taskers while men tend to be more singularly focused?

Or that men have greater muscle mass than women?

Or that men are more likely to commit violent crimes?

Or that boys have greater gross motor development when girls are still ahead wrt to fine motor?

Or that girls tend to be verbal at an earlier age than boys (and will most likely remain that way)?

 

 

Is there really debate about the fact that there are differences between men and women beyond the absolutely obvious?

 

Just because male and female brains have differences of functioning that are substantiated by appropriate scientific study does not mean that all of our culture's stereotypes are true!!! (Logic! What do they teach in those schools?)

 

Also, we need to carefully examine the results of studies and statistics. Did you know that a 'statistically significant difference' between two groups of subjects in a study is generally 'more that 1.5%' of a difference. That means when the articles say there are differences that are being noted, they may mean that the numbers worked our to 48.5% and 51.5% (rather than 50/50). I'm not likely to take that to mean anything more than 'slightly more than half of one gender is this way, while slightly less than half of the other gender is." -- With respect to the hypothesis that 'men take sex more seriously than women in marriage' -- even if it were "supported" by a good study (which has not been done) with appropriate sampling and controls with questions checked over by experts to be free of bias... but even if it were done, and it had been supported by a 'statistically significant margin' (without revealing the numbers)... it would *still* only mean that slightly more men than women took that position. It would absolutely not mean that men 'generally' took that position while women 'generally' did not.

 

So, even if something is shown on a study, it is still not wise to assume that any particular person one is speaking to is in the '51.5%' of their group that the shoe fits, rather than in the '48.5%' of their group that it does not. Generally it is wise to get to know someone instead of making demographic assumptions, even if you know your demographics really well... and I would say specifically that it is wise to take your own spouse for who he or she *IS* (presuming that you knew them well when you married them and have gotten to know them better for years) rather than jumping to conclusions about them just because you know their gender, and "science" seems to know something vague about that gender's statistical tendencies.

 

I know that the informal survey on the original article said 70% of men answered that sex is the most important thing about marriage to them. I'd love to see the set of leading questions that got them that result! I'd guess something like, (1) Check off of this list the things that are important to you in your marriage. (2) Circle the top 3 things that you would absolutely rather not live without as a married person. (3) Number these 1 to 3 with #1 being the most important to you. {Because I can see 70% of men getting to 'sex' by that method... which is why those methods aren't permitted in serious studies in sociology.}

 

SO -- in direct response to your actual questions:

 

Yes, it's "weird" to go around making out loud verbal generalizations about gender, unless it is proven that 100% of persons of that gender have that characteristic. If it is only proven that say, 60 percent of persons of that gender have that characteristic, you have just been very "weird" to 4 out of 10 of your acquaintances. It's not a nice thing to do. Nobody cares about "tendencies" unless they are dealing with hypothetical people. When they are dealing with real people, they just ask those people about their thoughts or experiences.

 

Plus, most of your examples are highly suspect or oversimplified:

 

- No one "multi-tasks"... it's impossible. Many people task-switch rapidly: some people with more facility than others. This facility can be learned like any other skill.

- No one is "singularly focused" ... everyone is aware of their surroundings to some degree.

- "Muscle mass" is not a clear term. Does it mean "total per body" or "as a percentage of total mass"? How and when is it measured would be another complexity.

- Men are more likely to be charged with violent crimes. Data on total crime is generally unavailable.

- You need to distinguish what you mean by "ahead" as well as which skills you consider 'fine' and which 'gross' -- and you would need to be able to "control" for how each child was parented and socialized, in case they are sociallized into activities that lead to disparate development -- and you would need to tell me how far "ahead" you mean, at what ages, and whether 'statistically significant' just means that the "ahead" gender had 51.5% of kids that could do a test task, compared with 48.5% of the other gender (because that would pretty much mean that most kids are on par, with a slight variance towards whichever gender).

 

 

In conclusion: "Science" is hard. Sensational journalism is easy. Supporting presuppositions through biased survey work is easiest of all.

[Veritaserum]

That there are physiological differences is obvious. Also obvious is that men do not universally (or even mostly) act This Man Way and women do not universally (or even mostly) act That Woman Way.

 

There are way too many "exceptions" for a rule to be made.

[Erin]

There are way too many "exceptions" for a rule to be made.

Well of course! When you're talking about approximately 3billion people of one gender, it's a sure bet there are going to be millions of exceptions.

But that doesn't change general brain function...

 

Just because male and female brains have differences of functioning that are substantiated by appropriate scientific study does not mean that all of our culture's stereotypes are true!!! (Logic! What do they teach in those schools?)

Who said it was? (speaking of logic...lol)

But when you see traits and behaviors that span the vast majority of cultures on the planet and throughout history, it might be there's something more than just stereotypes at work.

To the issue of research parameters, those tend to be published with the information in question. :)

[beaners]

[/size][/font][/color]

Well of course! When you're talking about approximately 3billion people of one gender, it's a sure bet there are going to be millions of exceptions.

But that doesn't change general brain function...

 

 

Were people questioning where this was determined as brain function? Men generally dress differently than women, but those are not biological differences. They are dictated by culture.

[Alexigail]

At the crux, that seems to be the disagreement here--Those who think gender-related brain differences are physiological and those who don't.

I don't think that's the issue at all.

Yes, men and women have some innate differences. Men probably have different drives than women. But it's a big leap to say that

 

Men are hard wired in certain ways = This article is true for everyone and the conclusions it draws are the only logical ones to reach based on the science.

 

If the article is helpful to you or applies to your life, then great. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that it's going to be a revelation to everyone, or what exactly you hope people will gain from it. Maybe some marriages would benefit from more s*x and that's fine. But if it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. The science of male and female differences doesn't necessarily support what this article is saying.

[HRAAB]

 

If the article is helpful to you or applies to your life, then great. I'm not sure why you feel so strongly that it's going to be a revelation to everyone, or what exactly you hope people will gain from it. Maybe some marriages would benefit from more s*x and that's fine. But if it doesn't apply, it doesn't apply. The science of male and female differences doesn't necessarily support what this article is saying.

 

 

Yes. It does not apply to my marriage. I believe my dh has a normal male sex drive, but he is able to put in perspective with all the other important aspects of marriage.

 

And I used to think my dh was a pretty average, normal male. :lol:

 

I did explain the premises of the article with dh, and he found it rather offensive. He said respect between husband and wife was a far more important element in a happy marriage.

[PeacefulChaos]

I heartily disagree with her (the love honor vacuum woman).

And that's coming from someone who is relatively conservative, etc. I believe teA is an important part of marriage, but there are a lot of times when it just doesn't happen the way she seems to think it will. People get older and they just don't have as much desire anymore (pretty sure most 75 year olds who have been married for 50 years aren't hitting that 72 hour mark she talks about... If they are, well, good for them :lol: .... but you know what I'm saying ... and their marriage is still great), people go through periods of life where they are busy or stressed or teA just doesn't rank super high on their priority list. I don't think that automatically means there is something wrong with their marriage. :rolleyes:

And to tell you the truth, I used to buy into this sort of stuff. Now I've grown older and (hopefully) a little bit wiser and I can recognize that there is a lot more to a healthy marriage than the teA. :)

[LucyStoner]

Because no one answered the question(s).

I assumed it was because no one had seen the post. :)

 

 

At the crux, that seems to be the disagreement here--Those who think gender-related brain differences are physiological and those who don't.

 

Of course there are MANY physiological differences between men and women. There are also sociological differences which are learned, not inherent. These things are not exclusive of each other. We are shaped by both, not only sociological OR only physiological influences. That is head slappingly clear.

 

You have said on this thread that ANY woman who thinks her husband doesn't mainly want sex or show love mostly or even exclusively through sex is kidding herself. You have never met my husband. He does not fit your stereotype and he laughs at articles like those linked in the OP. We have a very active sex life- but unless we are on vacation, I usually am up for it more often than him. We deal with this well. Some of the stereotypes about women's sex drives (after relaxing, after housework is shared etc) apply not to me in our relationship but to him. If I had a choice between help with the dishes and sex, I'd pick the latter pretty much every single time. This does not mean that our gender roles are reversed, it means that we are a man and a woman who don't neatly fit into gender normative teeny tiny boxes. You do not know all men and can not make blanket statements about ALL men.

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Because no one answered the question(s).

I assumed it was because no one had seen the post. :)

 

 

At the crux, that seems to be the disagreement here--Those who think gender-related brain differences are physiological and those who don't.

 

Did you actually read the title of this thread or the article? Because, IMO, that isn't the crux of the argument *at all*. It is a side issue.

 

The article seems to promise that all men want is more sex and if women want a happy marriage, then they should provide their man with more sex. I disagree with that premise. I know couples who have daily sex and still have marriage problems. Their husband doesn't magically bend to their will because he is getting laid more. I have been married for 20 years. Many (if not most) of my friends are my age or older. They have been married an equal amount of time or they are divorced. Army wives talk about a lot of things that regular friends might not talk about. I know people all along the frequency spectrum and the problems seem pretty similar to me, no matter how frequent the sex. Therefore, I find the assertions in the article to be absurd at best and misogynistic and borderline potentially abusive at worst.

 

It has nothing to do with general gender differences.

[lea_lpz]

 

 

This is the thread that explains how the euphemism got started on this board :)

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/55527-what-the-world-needs-nowwarning-ot-intimate-content/page__st__0

 

Just read through the thread! Utterly hilarious! I've only been around a year and so got that this is what it meant but didn't know thehistory behind this :). Thanks! Good Will find had me cracking up!

[gardenmom5]

 

Also, we need to carefully examine the results of studies and statistics.

 

In conclusion: "Science" is hard. Sensational journalism is easy. Supporting presuppositions through biased survey work is easiest of all.

 

can I sum this up by stealing a line attributed to samuel clemens? "lies, d@mn lies, and statistics." I just love that line - it is so true.

I heartily disagree with her (the love honor vacuum woman).

And that's coming from someone who is relatively conservative, etc.

 

we're also very conservative. dh was disgusted with that article. me, I think it's ripe for mockery. ;p maybe the author of the stupid blog post needs some kilts. It reminds me of the puritanical attitudes of the past where s*x was a dirty subject, and no nice girl would talk about it. (or admit enjoying it, even with her husband.) but a favorit subject for sanctimonious older women to gossip about who and where.

[Audrey]

Oh please. What a bunch of reductivist ignorance.

 

Anytime someone says they have the "key" to a happy marriage -- just. quit. reading. They're full of themselves and full of bullsh-t. Every person is different and every marriage is different. Communicate with your spouse and the two of you will figure out what the key is for yourselves.

 

Or just go screw yourselves silly and pretend that's the answer. I don't really care either way. I'm not married to you.

[FaithManor]

Did you actually read the title of this thread or the article? Because, IMO, that isn't the crux of the argument *at all*. It is a side issue.

 

The article seems to promise that all men want is more sex and if women want a happy marriage, then they should provide their man with more sex. I disagree with that premise. I know couples who have daily sex and still have marriage problems. Their husband doesn't magically bend to their will because he is getting laid more. I have been married for 20 years. Many (if not most) of my friends are my age or older. They have been married an equal amount of time or they are divorced. Army wives talk about a lot of things that regular friends might not talk about. I know people all along the frequency spectrum and the problems seem pretty similar to me, no matter how frequent the sex. Therefore, I find the assertions in the article to be absurd at best and misogynistic and borderline potentially abusive at worst.

 

It has nothing to do with general gender differences.

Oh please. What a bunch of reductivist ignorance.

 

Anytime someone says they have the "key" to a happy marriage -- just. quit. reading. They're full of themselves and full of bullsh-t. Every person is different and every marriage is different. Communicate with your spouse and the two of you will figure out what the key is for yourselves.

 

Or just go screw yourselves silly and pretend that's the answer. I don't really care either way. I'm not married to you.

 

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! Bingo, we have the winning answers!!!!

 

I'm very much like Samuel Clemens - people who claim to the have the magic, simple, single sentence answers to complex problems, make my face twitch.

 

Faith

[Night Elf]

I know this thread has already gone off on a tangent, but someone asked what our DHs would think if they read it. So, I had mine read it. He laughed at its simplicity. However, he also said that he thought there were marriages out there who could benefit from more sex but only if they do it the right way, the right way for them. He doesn't like the idea that sex is used as a reward or a manipulation. He's more in the camp of believing if the marriage is healthy, the sex might likely follow, rather than sex coming first. He also admitted that when he was much younger, he thought sex was more important than he sees it now. He has matured and no longer thinks of it as just a physical feel-good act. It's much deeper than that for him now. The first time I posted in the thread, I had only asked him what he thought without him reading the article and he said that sex was only enjoyable when the woman was open and receptive. He followed that up by saying that he would be deeply hurt and shocked to find out our love making was me servicing him which is what he thought some of the advice in the article was about.

 

We talked about how our life has changed since we first got married. When our kids were really young, we were always exhausted at the end of each day to want anything more than to sink into our mattress and sleep deeply. Now that our kids are teens, we have much more time for each other and we're more energetic. We've also gone through a mental health diagnosis for me, which was trying for both us. So the writer of the article may not be allowing for the fact that marriages might go through phases and that's okay. We both believe that being in tune with one another is what really matters.

 

But I've really enjoyed the topics discussed in the thread, like the differences between men and women. We feel alot of them are stereotypes and consider ourselves cool that we don't fall into them. :)

[Erin]

You have said on this thread that ANY woman who thinks her husband doesn't mainly want sex or show love mostly or even exclusively through sex is kidding herself.

???

No I didn't...

Though this does support my theory that people have moved to the point of assigning opinions to others in order to dismiss them. Even the original article has been thoroughly convoluted.

 

This thread seems to have moved beyond discussion, which is too bad.

It was very interesting for a while there. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

[/size][/font][/color]

???

No I didn't...

Though this does support my theory that people have moved to the point of assigning opinions to others in order to dismiss them. Even the original article has been thoroughly convoluted.

 

This thread seems to have moved beyond discussion, which is too bad.

It was very interesting for a while there. :)

 

 

In what way do you believe the article is being distorted? Let's take some quotes from the article:

You give all these excuses for women not to have sex, but honestly, I wish women understood that for men, it really is that simple. Make love, and we’re putty in your hands.

 

Has any woman here who has been married more than 5 minutes experienced this?

 

If you make love with relative frequency, then, he knows that you truly love him and want him. If he feels truly loved and wanted, he’ll want to be home more. He’ll want to be with you more. He’ll want to be more involved with the family. He’ll find it easy to be more involved with the family! He won’t have to be fighting that feeling that he isn’t really wanted or appreciated; he’ll be able to pitch in and help knowing that he is. It invigorates him; it energizes him; it propels him to action.

 

These are definite statements without qualifiers. They are promises. I can tell you that in the experience of many people I know they are total BS. PLENTY of men don't come home at night, don't want to be involved with their kids, don't help around the house, and the frequency of sex is across the spectrum. There is NO WAY to be this simplistic and accurate. This quote is making women responsible for the *actions* of their husband.

 

Maybe this is accurate for some small percentage of women for whom sex is wrapped up in guilt or vestiges of a strict upbringing. But, sex (frequent sex, even great sex or freaky sex) will not, does not solve all existing problems, and women should not be made to think that it will.

 

Why do I feel so strongly about it? Because I know women who have put themselves to a LOT of trouble, even to the point of humiliating themselves with this sort of thing only to be ultimately rejected. They feel like they have lost a great battle. They give up. They feel that they aren't good enough and that they should stay with their crappy husband or in their crappy relationship because they wind up feeling that they aren't good enough to love. That is a lie. They deserve someone who loves them, who cares for them, who wants to do for them every day.

 

If the article was trying to say something other than this, it failed to communicate it.

[LucyStoner]

I wanna know who even wants a partner to be putty. I married a man I love and respect. Molding him to my whims is not even vaguely necessary nor would wanting to do so be even vaguely healthy.

[LucyStoner]

[/size][/font][/color]

???

No I didn't...

Though this does support my theory that people have moved to the point of assigning opinions to others in order to dismiss them. Even the original article has been thoroughly convoluted.

 

This thread seems to have moved beyond discussion, which is too bad.

It was very interesting for a while there. :)

 

 

It looks like I have mixed you up with something else I read on this topic. That said, despite my error I am not assigning opinions to you to dismiss you. The bulk of what you have posted is more than enough for me to know full well that I disagree with your perspective on this. You have also repeated that those who disagree with you aren't discussing the article or are distorting it. Um, I've read it and more like it besides. I am fully capable of knowing that the whole concept is a load of malarkey IMHO. I've seen some debase themselves trying to make abusive nasty lazy husbands into good men by trying this approach. Every day I thank my lucky stars to be married to a man and not a hyper gendered caricature.

[HomeschoolMamaOfTwo]

What about gay marriages? They would have 2 females or 2 males, so according to this, they'd both generally want the same things and wouldn't have this issue, right? They do have lower divorce rates... ;)

 

Really though, IMO, I think all people are different and they all want different things and have different needs. I don't think if the sex is good that will automatically fix everything else. It is just one part of a marriage.

[Scarlett]

I've known many happily married couples who have struggled in the teA department. One woman was scarred from childhood abuse so they were working through her problems. His loving patience was a testament to his devotion to her and her well-being. I know another couple who could no longer have teA because the husband was going through cancer treatments and one of the side effects was his inability to participate. They still were a beautiful example of a loving relationship - of people who were happy together. I've also known people who brewed often, but were unhappy.

 

I absolutely think it is an important element. But as you say things happen that make it impossible and although the absense of teA may be difficult for one or both, hinging marital happiness on nothing else is a bit naive.

 

And yes, I was in a 26 year long marriage, where plenty of teA happened to the very end, but it wasn't enough.