Apparently, not for everyone. It’s when those other intimacies are missing that sex becomes a chore, and it’s when sex becomes a chore for one spouse, that it tends to dry up for the both of them. That was a big emphasis in our NFP training, using those fertile periods to build up those other forms of intimacy. I don’t think ten minute boinks are going to save any relationship if time and energy aren’t invested in those first.All of which stem from or lead to the sexual act.
I’ll say it again: sex is integral to the nature of marriage, but just the choice of referring to marital relations as a “bonk” was crass and insulting. That is not too likely to lead to a shared encounter that will give sex the place it deserves in a marriage. The effect is more likely to be the opposite. Just as the spouse who doesn’t feel too turned on by sex is not going to be enticed by the word “bonk,” the spouse who wants to give the uninterested spouse a more positive experience would do well to stop thinking about it in those terms. That isn’t the most flattering attitude in the world, obviously!Apparently, not for everyone. It’s when those other intimacies are missing that sex becomes a chore, and it’s when sex becomes a chore for one spouse, that it tends to dry up for the both of them. That was a big emphasis in our NFP training, using those fertile periods to build up those other forms of intimacy. I don’t think ten minute boinks are going to save any relationship if time and energy aren’t invested in those first.
Don’t do things for your spouse with a “prid pro quo” attitude. Do things for your spouse because you want them to be happy. And make sure that when you are being physically intimate that you continue in the same spirit. I think that’s where the disconnect in this discussion might lie. Lots of people have a really hard time imagining enjoying having sex with someone who isn’t enjoying having sex with them. Both partners need to be mutually invested in loving one another in order for the sex to be a bonding experience enjoyed by both parties. It’s not supposed to be a transaction. But when you practice being generous in other parts of the relationship, it shouldn’t be too hard to enter the bedroom with the same attitude.I’ll say it again: sex is integral to the nature of marriage, but just the choice of referring to marital relations as a “bonk” was crass and insulting. That is not too likely to lead to a shared encounter that will give sex the place it deserves in a marriage. The effect is more likely to be the opposite. Just as the spouse who doesn’t feel too turned on by sex is not going to be enticed by the word “bonk,” the spouse who wants to give the uninterested spouse a more positive experience would do well to stop thinking about it in those terms. That isn’t the most flattering attitude in the world, obviously!
You may as well tell the spouse who does the meal planning and cooking that “this slop could be a lot better, you know.” It is emotionally tone-deaf to put it that way. No one who is not already convinced of the value of sexual intercourse is going to be won over by putting it that way!!
Unfortunately, human beings are complicated creatures. For instance, husbands may try to cultivate other forms of intimacy and broaden the emotional connection with his wife beyond sex, but if the wife knows his husband is really hungry to get her interested in some sex, she can experience his broader bids for intimacy as nothing more than bids for sex. ("I really love it when he comes antiquing with me, but if he comes along then he’s going to want to have sex when we get home, I know it…oh, good gravy, he’s taking candles in by the tub. I know what **that **means…I see he washed my car. Perfect. I am just not in the mood. I know I should have run it through the wash on Friday when I had the chance…)
What is the party interested in having more sex (be that male or female) supposed to do with that? How DO you make satisfaction of your need for sexual intimacy something your spouse will give in generosity when your spouse does not see being generous in this area as any kind of a duty whatsoever?
Let’s hear it. Throw these poor people some ideas other than implying that the sex life between two decent human beings is always going to be dictated by the spouse with the lowest sex drive or the most compelling reasons to say “no.”
I think too much has been read into this word. I know my wife and I have our own little word for sex (not profanity), and I wouldn’t be too surprised to know that many married couples also have some similar.I’ll say it again: sex is integral to the nature of marriage, but just the choice of referring to marital relations as a “bonk” was crass and insulting
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people should be forced to have sex whether they want to or not. In the example I gave, the problem was not that the wife didn’t want sex, the problem was that the wife abused the husband for bringing up the subject and furthermore said that she would not have sex nor would she do anything to fix the problem. The wife’s approach is not a Catholic approach to marriage. Being generous to her is not going to fix the problem because she is too immersed in her comfort zone to think about anyone but herself.Don’t do things for your spouse with a “prid pro quo” attitude. Do things for your spouse because you want them to be happy. And make sure that when you are being physically intimate that you continue in the same spirit. I think that’s where the disconnect in this discussion might lie. Lots of people have a really hard time imagining enjoying having sex with someone who isn’t enjoying having sex with them. Both partners need to be mutually invested in loving one another in order for the sex to be a bonding experience enjoyed by both parties. It’s not supposed to be a transaction. But when you practice being generous in other parts of the relationship, it shouldn’t be too hard to enter the bedroom with the same attitude.
Comfort zone–i.e. zone where she does not experience re-traumatization.I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people should be forced to have sex whether they want to or not. In the example I gave, the problem was not that the wife didn’t want sex, the problem was that the wife abused the husband for bringing up the subject and furthermore said that she would not have sex nor would she do anything to fix the problem. The wife’s approach is not a Catholic approach to marriage. Being generous to her is not going to fix the problem because she is too immersed in her comfort zone to think about anyone but herself.
How much dopamine and oxytocin do you think that stinkcat’s friend’s wife with the history of sexual abuse was secreting during marital sex?All of which of course does not change the essence of the marital sexual relationship and what it should be.
**It’s not magic, it’s brain chemistry. Your mind uses oxytocin and dopamine to wire itself to whatever it associates with at that time. **The same process bonds mothers to their children, porn addicts to porn, food addicts to food, etc. Married couples actually store the name of their spouse in the same region of the brain as they store their own name: they think about them as they think about themselves. Almost sounds like a “one flesh” union of some kind. You don’t get there by being a good roommate.
The Church has the sacrament of marriage, and so many rules and teachings about it, because sex is an essential element and one of the most powerful activities couples can engage in.
Then it only makes sense for her husband to start off in her comfort zone. If she doesn’t want sex, what does she want? A snuggle on the coach, handholding on a car ride? Couples cooking lessons?I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people should be forced to have sex whether they want to or not. In the example I gave, the problem was not that the wife didn’t want sex, the problem was that the wife abused the husband for bringing up the subject and furthermore said that she would not have sex nor would she do anything to fix the problem. The wife’s approach is not a Catholic approach to marriage. Being generous to her is not going to fix the problem because she is too immersed in her comfort zone to think about anyone but herself.
I’m sorry, but this example has gotten extreme.Comfort zone–i.e. zone where she does not experience re-traumatization.
If she were a good wife, presumably she’d go ahead and allow herself to be re-traumatized, no matter how violated that makes her feel.
If your friend is a devout Catholic, I’d suggest he talk to his priest. This sounds like easy grounds for an annulment. You don’t marry someone, refuse sex, tell your partner you’ll be refusing indefinitely, and claim past abuse as some sort of absolution from present and future responsibility.I don’t think anyone is suggesting that people should be forced to have sex whether they want to or not. In the example I gave, the problem was not that the wife didn’t want sex, the problem was that the wife abused the husband for bringing up the subject and furthermore said that she would not have sex nor would she do anything to fix the problem. The wife’s approach is not a Catholic approach to marriage. Being generous to her is not going to fix the problem because she is too immersed in her comfort zone to think about anyone but herself.
Let me adjust your analogy for you.This sounds a like a person with a broken foot thinking that all movement is bad. They can get therapy, maybe heal much of what was injured, and maybe even learn to walk or run again. But they can’t swear off all walking and expect the world to come to them. As you indicated, sex is good. God created it. We should move ourselves towards God’s ideal, not form sex around our brokenness.
Right.**Then it only makes sense for her husband to start off in her comfort zone. **If she doesn’t want sex, what does she want? A snuggle on the coach, handholding on a car ride? Couples cooking lessons?
It’s possible, but it’s also certainly possible that someone can be traumatized by sexual abuse so that sex causes flashbacks of the trauma. Also, trauma can be one of those things that can be dormant for years and triggered later on. I have a hard time imagining a person being so vindictive that they forgo sex indefinitely, just to be mean. Other than her husband, who suffers from this? She’d only be hurting herself. It seems more likely to me that she’s trying to protect herself, albeit in an unhealthy way.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.
Stinkcat’s friend can follow that route. I’d say he has a fair chance of an annulment, but then he’ll still be a broke divorced guy who doesn’t live with his kids most of the time.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.
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.
In this case, divorce and annulment are more than appropriate.
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 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.
Right.It’s possible, but it’s also certainly possible that someone can be traumatized by sexual abuse so that sex causes flashbacks of the trauma. Also, trauma can be one of those things that can be dormant for years and triggered later on. I have a hard time imagining a person being so vindictive that they forgo sex indefinitely, just to be mean. Other than her husband, who suffers from this? She’d only be hurting herself. It seems more likely to me that she’s trying to protect herself, albeit in an unhealthy way.
She doesn’t want any physical affection. She wants him to do the laundry, clean the house and mow the lawn.Then it only makes sense for her husband to start off in her comfort zone. If she doesn’t want sex, what does she want? A snuggle on the coach, handholding on a car ride? Couples cooking lessons?
Well, congrats to her for effectively holding him hostage and refusing to even try to get any sort of help. Justify it all you want, but this guy deserves sympathy. She wins. She doesn’t have to even put forth a modicum of effort and he gets to choose between a lifetime of rejection by his wife or rolling the dice with future loneliness.Stinkcat’s friend can follow that route. I’d say he has a fair chance of an annulment, but then he’ll still be a broke divorced guy who doesn’t live with his kids most of the time.
Plus, how many nice Catholic women are willing to deal with that kind of baggage, annulment or no annulment? It’s a pretty big negative, especially if you want or expect 5+ kids of your own.
No dinners out? No movies? No walks? No family fun?She doesn’t want any physical affection. She wants him to do the laundry, clean the house and mow the lawn.
A good wife would acknowledge that there is a problem. That is really what he is asking for, an acknowledgement and a commitment to work on the issue.Comfort zone–i.e. zone where she does not experience re-traumatization.
If she were a good wife, presumably she’d go ahead and allow herself to be re-traumatized, no matter how violated that makes her feel.
Or, flipping this around, sex must sound really terrible to her if she’s willing to take the risk of being an overworked, poverty-stricken, lonely divorced single mother who doesn’t get to tuck her kids in every night, rather than put in a perfunctory effort at The Wifely Duty.Well, congrats to her for effectively holding him hostage and refusing to even try to get any sort of help. Justify it all you want, but this guy deserves sympathy. She wins. She doesn’t have to even put forth a modicum of effort and he gets to choose between a lifetime of rejection by his wife or rolling the dice with future loneliness.
I hope he rolls the dice, personally. Contrary to popular belief, men who fight usually succeed at joint custody. As for his future prospects, who knows? But his wife has made clear how she feels about him, so it’s hard to imagine he’d have any less love in his life single, whether or not he ever remarries (statistically speaking though, he has a pretty decent shot at remarriage).
I truly wouldn’t wish this on anyone. This is the equivalent of a spouse who refuses to be faithful knowing the other person “has” to stay for financial reasons, or “for the kids”. But as those people often find out, that feeling of being trapped only lasts for so long before the emotional hurt becomes too much.