Bettina Arndt on sex starved husbands

[BlueEyedLady]

Yes, because your own insecurities lead you to the overwhelming need to be the only REAL man in the room. So every other guy is either a whiner, or a loser, or is just like you (totally rare though, right?) and all women are angels.

You hate men more than the most rabid feminist on earth could ever dream of. As to why… Who knows? History of abuse, inadequacy, trouble in “paradise” or maybe just social conditioning. It’s really sad though. Kinda funny in a morbid way, but really sad.

This is totally uncalled for. HD tends to take the side of women because he’s a man and he knows how they really think and is privy to all the tricks. Same reason I tend to err on the side of men - I know what women do and I have no patience for it.

It’s the same reason my brother and husband are very good at identifying a louse when a friend or family member dates one, but I always call it when a male friend or relative is dating a manipulator. It’s just an inherent difference in perspective.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it is clear some posters are just pushing an agenda. For example, they make vague claims, you question their claims or ask for more information and they are silent. Then in response to another post, they make another vague claim or assertion. Not that they ever follow up, or are interested in a true dialogue. Certainly, they are free to do that, nobody can force someone to act honestly and charitably, but one does have to wonder about their motivations.

“some posters,” eh?

Explain why it isn’t possible to just give a vague answer to a vague question without feeling in any way compelled to wonder about the poster’s motivations. Even if a poster were an utter troll, if someone is ever in the position being posed, why not just answer the question straight, perhaps noting that you believe it is a possible but rare circumstance, and move on?

 

[stinkcat_14]

“some posters,” eh?

Explain why it isn’t possible to just give a vague answer to a vague question without feeling in any way compelled to wonder about the poster’s motivations. Even if a poster were an utter troll, if someone is ever in the position being posed, why not just answer the question straight, perhaps noting that you believe it is a possible but rare circumstance, and move on?

When a poster makes a claim and then refuses to discuss that claim, it is a good sign of someone who is pushing an agenda. You may not like my opinions, but you can bet that if I make a claim, I can back it up and I am willing to engage anyone in intelligent conversation. Not all posters can say that.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, because your own insecurities lead you to the overwhelming need to be the only REAL man in the room. So every other guy is either a whiner, or a loser, or is just like you (totally rare though, right?) and all women are angels.

You hate men more than the most rabid feminist on earth could ever dream of. As to why… Who knows? History of abuse, inadequacy, trouble in “paradise” or maybe just social conditioning. It’s really sad though. Kinda funny in a morbid way, but really sad.

Whoa again. I think he’s going a bit too far to the other side–(No, if your wife does not want to have sex with you because she doesn’t feel attracted to you, that is *not *automatically your fault (I refer to post #164) and in fact it is rarely productive to use a system of one-target blame assessment as the first step in solving any marital problem)–but I have no reason to believe he’s not being genuine in stating the way he sees things. It is also possible for someone to mistate or overstate a point without being the most rabid partisan of that way of thinking. This is particularly true when we consider the difference between what we intended as we typed and what impression our readers actually got from what we added and where we added it to the conversation as a whole.

By the way, if someone truly is suffering from such great insecurities to the point that he hates all other members of his sex, dressing him down in such vehement terms is not likely to lead to any constructive end, is it?

 

[EasterJoy]

When a poster makes a claim and then refuses to discuss that claim, it is a good sign of someone who is pushing an agenda. You may not like my opinions, but you can bet that if I make a claim, I can back it up and I am willing to engage anyone in intelligent conversation. Not all posters can say that.

If he refuses to discuss the claim after you pose a question, the most reasonable thing is to say, “well, if you won’t answer, I guess I can’t help you” or else just let the point die. If he’s pushing an agenda, well, it didn’t get very far. If he’s not, well, no harm done, there. He got more out of the conversation than he put into it and you have not risked questioning the motives of someone who does not have the agenda you fear he has.

After all, who is going to say, “Oh, gosh, you’re right, I was trying to do an end run on you. My bad”? It isn’t going to happen. Once you’ve accused someone of bad motives, either you’re going to have a duel or the conversation is over. There is rarely a good outcome from it, let alone an intelligent conversation. It is possible, but not the way to bet by a longshot.

Once you’ve said “I disagree, and here’s why” and there is no reply, you’ve pretty much made your point and done your work. You have made a point and given evidence to support; they haven’t. All done.

 

[Xantippe]

The thread was about sex starved marriages. I would think two years without would qualify for that category.

I haven’t watched it at any length, but I believe the initial video is about how marital sex fixes every problem under the sun–which means that your story is evidence against that theory. You yourself have said that the non-sexual bad behavior is such that sex is less and less appealing.

You know the saying about how when you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail? I think sex therapists/sex writers can be like that.

 

[Xantippe]

For the record, I never asked for advice on this thread. Whether it is prudent and moral to get a divorce is between the husband and his priest. Nobody on this thread has any business commenting one way or another. The illustration was given because there are those on this forum who cannot conceive that a husband might have a valid complaint.

And who would that be?

Because I’m looking around and not seeing anybody. I’m one of the least gung-ho about the “wifely duty” as an approach for dealing with a refusing wife on this thread (it’s a completely unpersuasive argument when addressed to a fearful, traumatized person), but I’m also one of the first to say that spouses have an obligation to uphold basic civility and that yes, women can fail in producing that basic civility.

 

[pianistclare]

And who would that be?

Because I’m looking around and not seeing anybody. I’m one of the least gung-ho about the “wifely duty” as an approach for dealing with a refusing wife on this thread (it’s a completely unpersuasive argument when addressed to a fearful, traumatized person), but I’m also one of the first to say that spouses have an obligation to uphold basic civility and that yes, women can fail in producing that basic civility.

I agree. I don’t really see anyone taking sides. I see one person wanting everyone to agree that his wife is evil though.

Unsolicited advice:
Don’t go to see the priest with that tactic. He won’t tell you that you get to, or should pursue divorce. It just.won’t.happen.

 

[Xantippe]

There are a lot of people who go around with the attitude that no one has a valid complaint about anything. Sort of a, “fix it, get over it, but above all, shut up about it” attitude.

Anyway, I highly doubt that the presenter in the video at the beginning of this thread was considering people in your situation when she started talking. She’s probably thinking more along the lines of untraumatized people who haven’t made time for intimacy because they put their kids in too many soccer leagues or spend too much time on CAF when they should be in bed.

Exactly.

This sort of mainstream advice is aimed at the top 50-80% of couples–people who have a lot of responsibilities and just don’t get around to it.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I agree. I don’t really see anyone taking sides. I see one person wanting everyone to agree that his wife is evil though.

Unsolicited advice:
Don’t go to see the priest with that tactic. He won’t tell you that you get to, or should pursue divorce. It just.won’t.happen.

I agree that a priest is highly unlikely to recommend divorce. However a priest can outline the parameters in which a divorce is morally licit. Even the the ultimate decision would be left to the prudential judgement of the individual.

 

[pianistclare]

I agree that a priest is highly unlikely to recommend divorce. However a priest can outline the parameters in which a divorce is morally licit. Even the the ultimate decision would be left to the prudential judgement of the individual.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What are you confused about. Are you saying a priest cannot outline the parameters to decide whether or not divorce is morally licit?

 

[kptrs]

I’m sorry, but this example has gotten extreme.

What kind of selfish person is so scared and repulsed by sex but goes ahead and marries anyway (selfish mistake #1) and then refuses to get any sort of help and gets angry and her husband for seeking it out on her behalf? She sounds like a very entitled, spoiled person with mental health or personality disorder issues unrelated to past trauma.

**Those are some pretty harsh judgements there, BEL. If she waited for marriage to have consensual sex (i.e. sex that is not abusive) then she’d have no way of knowing it was repulsive to her. You are way out of line calling her selfish for getting married in the first place when you don’t know the whole story. **

Yes, she is a victim of sexual abuse, and that’s terrible. But she should NOT have married in this sort of mental and emotional state, and if she didn’t recognize this until after marriage when she tried it, she should be bending over backwards to get help.

We’re only hearing one side of the story, and we are hearing it second-handedly from someone whose business none of this is in the first place. Yes, she needs to do something about her issues. But I think she deserves a bit more compassion and leniency than you appear to be giving her here.

In this case, divorce and annulment are more than appropriate.

**Possibly. **

Being a victim of sexual abuse doesn’t entitle you to marry, and it certainly doesn’t obligate someone else to jump through years worth of coaxing and timid begging for what is an inherent and integral part of marriage out of fear of making the person “feel” revictimized.

I don’t know why you had to put the word “feel” in quotations but it leads me to believe you don’t take the trauma of abuse very seriously. Getting over abuse isn’t easy and it can take years, even a lifetime to do.

I say all the time on these boards that not everyone is cut out for marriage, usually in reference to someone who is too scared or selfish to do the basics like merge finances. But it applies here too; if you are not mentally capable of engaging in sex with your spouse, then you simply shouldn’t marry.

No, not everyone is cut out for marriage. I understand that very well. I’m an adult child of a narcissist and a codependent and have suffered my share of mental abuse. I questioned for a very long time whether I was fit for married life, but in the end discerned God was calling me there, and it seems to be working out so far. However, not allowing the effects of the abuse I suffered as a child to affect my marriage and family is a daily struggle and I admit sometimes I fail. It’s hard. Really hard.

Abuse victims need compassion.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, not everyone is cut out for marriage. I understand that very well. I’m an adult child of a narcissist and a codependent and have suffered my share of mental abuse. I questioned for a very long time whether I was fit for married life, but in the end discerned God was calling me there, and it seems to be working out so far. However, not allowing the effects of the abuse I suffered as a child to affect my marriage and family is a daily struggle and I admit sometimes I fail. It’s hard. Really hard.

Abuse victims need compassion.

I agree abuse victims need compassion, lots of it. But being an abuse victim does not give one license to abuse others. When an abuse victim becomes verbally, physically and emotionally abusive, then a very big line has been crossed.

 

[EasterJoy]

Exactly.

This sort of mainstream advice is aimed at the top 50-80% of couples–people who have a lot of responsibilities and just don’t get around to it.

Is it OK to “not get around to it” because it doesn’t make the list of responsibilities?

There is a saying among people in the occupational safety field that saying “safety is our first priority” does not work. Why? Because priorities are things that can change.

Instead, they say “Safety Begins and Ends With You!”

In other words, safety is a non-negotiable responsibility, not a priority. It would be fair to say that sexual intimacy really does belong in the category of things that should only be excluded as a last resort, when unchangeable factors or serious considerations (such as a serious need to avoid pregnancy or a medical issue that prevents participation) prevent including it for a time.

As for abuse in marriage, you are of course right that we should not pretend that this is usually one-sided or criminal or rooted in some kind of PTSD in one or both spouses.

Most abuse that leads to divorce is, as you put it, a consistent failure in basic civility that makes it more and more unlikely that even real needs being voiced by each spouse are going to be met. It is personal abuse. The two each start taking their own side, attacking the other and getting defensive about their own failures, showing contempt for their spouse and feeling pity only for themselves, and that is the beginning of the end, a one-way ticket to separation with the bond remaining because the pair have ruined their ability and/or willingness to live in peace under the same roof. Sometimes that also means annulment: that is, when a healthy marriage was never a realistic possibility.

If someone has a legitimate complaint in their marriage, the first thing they need to do, as you have pointed out, is to learn how to complain in a constructive manner likely to lead to less resentment in the person complaining and the highest likelihood of the spouse receiving the complaint to receive it with some willingness to change the status quo.

Pointing out that having the right to complain does not make all ways of complaining likely to get a positive result is only realistic. We can be sympathetic about someone’s plight all day long, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to falsely say that they are blameless if they choose an unrealistic way to work towards a resolution.

There is a lot we can’t know from the other side of a monitor. We aren’t therapists or marriage counselors. Even if we were, we wouldn’t diagnose from behind a monitor except in the most theoretical terms. Those who only get guesses as to what might be excusing the upsetting behavior have to understand that there is a limit to what else we can do. We can give them ideas of things to try, a view that they might not have considered. We can’t fix anything, though. That’s something they have to do in real time and in person.

 

[kptrs]

I agree. I don’t really see anyone taking sides. **I see one person wanting everyone to agree that his wife is evil though. **

Unsolicited advice:
Don’t go to see the priest with that tactic. He won’t tell you that you get to, or should pursue divorce. It just.won’t.happen.

Herein lies the problem. I don’t think anyone should deny their spouse sex. Sex is a part of marriage. Living as brother and sister is not how marriage is supposed to work. But all of these threads are the same. Poor husband doesn’t get sex and his wife is evil and it’s all her fault. Sorry, but I’m inclined to defend the wife. If the tables were turned and the woman was the one being denied and bad mouthed her husband left and right, I’d jump and defend the husband.

No, marriage without sex doesn’t work. But you know what else doesn’t work? One sided arguments.

 

[kptrs]

I agree abuse victims need compassion, lots of it. But being an abuse victim does not give one license to abuse others. When an abuse victim becomes verbally, physically and emotionally abusive, then a very big line has been crossed.

If this fellow’s wife is abusive in any way (especially physically abusive), why in the world is their sex life his primary concern? Why hasn’t he left the abusive situation (once again, especially if it’s physical abuse and his safety is at risk)? It’s really not the time to worry about one’s sex life.

Something’s not adding up here…

 

[EasterJoy]

Herein lies the problem. I don’t think anyone should deny their spouse sex. Sex is a part of marriage. Living as brother and sister is not how marriage is supposed to work. But all of these threads are the same. Poor husband doesn’t get sex and his wife is evil and it’s all her fault. Sorry, but I’m inclined to defend the wife. If the tables were turned and the woman was the one being denied and bad mouthed her husband left and right, I’d jump and defend the husband.

No marriage without sex doesn’t work. But you know what else doesn’t work? One sided arguments.

I wouldn’t even say “take sides.” I’d say that fixing blame doesn’t do much good because all solutions will require willing cooperation from both spouses and a generous spirit from both sides. Generosity does not come from giving or accepting blame. Generosity comes from a bounty of goodness, not from a bounty of guilt or shame. A healthy marriage, an enjoyable marriage, a secure marriage, a happy marriage: this comes from the security of knowing one is loved and gives love out of generosity. That labor of love isn’t a quid pro quo, but rather two persons working to weave the same fabric together.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If this fellow’s wife is abusive in any way (especially physically abusive), why in the world is their sex life his primary concern? Why hasn’t he left the abusive situation (once again, especially if it’s physical abuse and his safety is at risk)? It’s really not the time to worry about one’s sex life.

Something’s not adding up here…

Who said it was his primary concern? It was one concern, a concern which is the topic of this thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

If this fellow’s wife is abusive in any way (especially physically abusive), why in the world is their sex life his primary concern? Why hasn’t he left the abusive situation (once again, especially if it’s physical abuse and his safety is at risk)? It’s really not the time to worry about one’s sex life.

Something’s not adding up here…

Guys don’t like to admit that they are at any risk because their female counterpart is willing to hit them or throw things. A lot of women don’t, either. They like to pretend that physical violence from women is “OK” because the woman is by far the physically weaker partner. They do not realize that most women are very capable of finding an “equalizer,” if the fit of anger hits them hard enough.

Likewise, guys often think they ought to be “thick-skinned” enough to take verbal abuse–that they aren’t hurt by that, but only angered by that, that they aren’t harmed but merely feel a need to defend their “self-respect.” Men, after all, are much more likely than women to engage in “sparring” with their friends; sticking around and just dishing it back, they say, just shows how close they are. Again, it goes back to the myth that real men are too tough to be harmed by a woman or by verbal abuse from anybody, ignoring that men need to feel secure in their wife’s care for them as women need to feel cared for by their husbands. Both spouses in a marriage need to feel they don’t have to have a guard up, but men often feel that guarding themselves from “the weaker sex” shouldn’t be something they can’t manage quite well on their own. If a woman is abused, they’d say “go to a shelter.” If they’re abused, they say, “don’t let her get away with that! Show her who the man in the house is!” Once she respects him, the reasoning goes, peace will return to the house. It does not work like that.

With that attitude, the marriage dissolves into a battle of wills. Even if the husband doesn’t strike back in kind, his generosity towards his wife is destroyed.