Enema Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 There are two big sacrifices that each person makes upon entering a marriage: His sacrifice: Joint Bank Account. Her sacrifice: Joint Puss¥. If she withholds, so does he so that the funds can be used to find a replacement puss¥.
Horse Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 What I don't get is why you would go negative. Wouldn't it be better to offer something special as an incentive to get what you want, rather than withholding sex. If you want him to do something extra for you, it only makes sense that you should be willing to do something extra for him.
pelagicsands Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 What I don't get is why you would go negative. Wouldn't it be better to offer something special as an incentive to get what you want, rather than withholding sex. You heard it first here - sex isn't special. In my view she is offering something special to get what she wants.
Storyrider Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 You heard it first here - sex isn't special. In my view she is offering something special to get what she wants. Maybe he just meant it is all in the wording. Like instead of withholding, saying something like, "I'll give you five blowj*bs and two rounds of sex in a public place if you buy me those diamond earrings." That is really romantic, right?
pelagicsands Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 Maybe he just meant it is all in the wording. Like instead of withholding, saying something like, "I'll give you five blowj*bs and two rounds of sex in a public place if you buy me those diamond earrings." That is really romantic, right? At least one person understands what I mean. Thank you so much. So... when are we going shopping for jewellery?
Storyrider Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 At least one person understands what I mean. Thank you so much. So... when are we going shopping for jewellery? :lmao: Throw in a digital camera and you're on. Now that is what I mean by true love.
Herzen Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 That tactic might have worked in the 50's, but times have changed. Many men won't continue in a relationship where withdrawal of affection is used as leverage by a partner on a regular or semi-regular basis. It's too easy for most half-decent men to get laid, now. Withholding sex only works when there's a lack of alternatives. That's no longer the case. As for manipulation in relationships, that's life in the big city. That's not a crime; it's what people do even when they think they don't.
Jane22067 Posted April 7, 2007 Posted April 7, 2007 I use both positive and negative reinforcement--I am very nice to him when he is very good to me I think most women to this without thinking about it--when they are pissed they withdraw and when the are made especially happy they are more accommodating It works for me, and many women I know whose husbands take very good care to make content
mental_traveller Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I think you've gotta use what you have to get what you want. If used correctly, it's very effective. If I knew my gf/wife was doing that, it would be an instant breakup. That's assuming I was really in love with her. If I wasn't, and it was a more casual relationship, I'd just go and find another girl to sleep with.
pelagicsands Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 , I'd just go and find another girl to sleep with. Easy come, easy go.
Topper Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 By withholding sex to get your way, you have in effect made your married sex life a commodity. You are saying that sex has some value as a bargaining chip in a negation. Like any negotiation you are saying if you do this I will do this. Now he says to you I am unwilling to do as you ask. I now feel I have the right to go find sexual pleasure in some other way. You then remind him that the two of you have a contract called marriage. He then tell you that in his opinion the unwritten part of that contract is a normal healthy sex life. Since you no longer agree to that part of the contract he feels he is free to also disagree with that part of the contract. He is therefore now free to seek sex with others. you can see this tactic is a bad idea.
Jane22067 Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 Husbands, when they are the principal bread winners, often use money to control their wives, either explicitly or implicity because of their growing dependence and narrowing options as the years go by. Controlling sex a bit (not overdoing it), just balances out the scales. Men also expect to be the rule makers, but the modern marriage contract does not seed that to them. Again, moderating sex a bit evens out the scales. Finally, women are not service stations for men's excessive sex drives. So often women are made to feel they must comply, no matter how much more their husband's want it than they do. I have to limit my husband or I won't enjoy it at all--I might as well give it out most when he is nicest.
lindya Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 If they are pissing you off by not giving you what you want. What is it you want that they're not giving you?
Enema Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 If a woman is purposefully moderating sex in order to gain leverage of some sort, she has no right to complain when the man finds it elsewhere. If she genuinely doesn't feel like sex occasionally when he does, that's fine. It's the willful deprivation in order to manipulate that crosses the line and dissolves his monogamous responsibility.
Jane22067 Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 Its usually not big stuff--he won't talk with me or he won't do something I ask after asking more than once. I don't confront him. I just withdraw. He usually responds before we ever get to bed.
Jane22067 Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I think many of the men here don't understand the subtlety. I don't confront him, I just get moody when he does not do as I like, and then loose interest. I get a bit chilly and withdraw. I never confront him directly. He generally comes around before we even go to bed.
Author bridget_jones Posted April 8, 2007 Author Posted April 8, 2007 So basically what the men are saying here is it is acceptable for them to cheat if they are not getting sex on demand from their wives.
Craig Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 I can't for the life of me see how an emotional connection to someone would be enhanced and not damaged by controlling them via sex.
Jane22067 Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 you think just because you marry you can have all you want on demand--it matters not how you treat us
Enema Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 So basically what the men are saying here is it is acceptable for them to cheat if they are not getting sex on demand from their wives. No one said anything about getting sex "on demand" from their wives. I'm apalled at your lack of reading comprehension, none of the posts used particularly difficult words either
Author bridget_jones Posted April 8, 2007 Author Posted April 8, 2007 It was implied. Let's stop with the attacks, Enema. You sure get worked up with the thought of a woman having a little control, aren't you? I apologize, this post was probably best for an all - women's board.
Enema Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 It wasn't implied at all. In fact, I knew that jaded women would grossly misinterpret anything a man said in this thread so I specifically mentioned: "If the woman genuinely doesn't feel like sex, that's fine. It's when she crosses the line and withholds it in order to manipulate that it becomes unacceptable" I'm sure even you can understand that there was no implication that sex is supposed to be at the mans disposal. Nothing could be further from the Quoted truth.
Author bridget_jones Posted April 8, 2007 Author Posted April 8, 2007 There are two big sacrifices that each person makes upon entering a marriage: His sacrifice: Joint Bank Account. Her sacrifice: Joint Puss¥. Here's a quote for 'ya. No subtly there. Case closed. Cheers.
Enema Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 That particular quote was my tongue in cheek reply. More serious one followed later. I can see i'll have to use Italics around here when I'm being sarcastic.
Recommended Posts