frozensprouts Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 there is a tread on here about a spouses obligation to have sex with their husband/wife... I was wondering about"obligations" in the wider sense... to me,"obligations" ( or what ever word one feels is more appropriate) in a marriage is pretty hard to tie down to any one specific area... to my way of thinking, the obligation is more general... to love and support your spouse...to be there for them when they need you, to give them some "space" when that is what they need, the recognize that they are, like you, a human being and that this will mean they may make mistakes...this doesn't mean that one should endure abuse or poor treatment- but rather that one should try and be understanding, to understand that tat may be some really rough things that you two may go through and that those are the times you'll need each other more than ever, that even if when it;s hard you have to talk about any problems , concerns or bad feelings you have...you spouse is not a mind reader, and it's not fair to expect them to know what's going on in your head... there's a whole lot more than that, but a lot of it is nebulous and can't be put into words... as for what women and men need...i don't know if anyone can really say that for everyone...each person is different and needs different things...
Plan 9 from OS Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Like I stated in the other thread, there are obligations that each partner has to follow through on in order to have a healthy marriage. I agree with you that the obligations aren't tangible in a classic sense. It would be ridiculous to have a contract drafted up to specify how the household duties have to be divided up between spouses, minimum number of sexual encounters, etc. However, there are components of a marriage that need to be there in order to maintain a healthy relationship. I think sex is an important component because on of the spouses will equate sex with being close to each other. Of course there are plenty of ways to be close; however, sex is a very fundamental act that is one of the best ways to show closeness. In a literal sense, no one should be forced to do anything in a marriage. However, if you want to maintain a strong, healthy relationship then there are certain things that you should do with your spouse to show your love for them. Whether that is sex, talking, helping around the house, physical touch without an attachment to sex, whatever those things may be for your marriage. I guess the best way to think about marital obligations, at least in my mind, is to think about it in terms of health. As adults, we are not obligated to eat fruits and vegetables as part of our diet. But if we want to maintain good health, then we will choose to eat them out of an obligation to maintaining a healthy body.
BetheButterfly Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 there is a tread on here about a spouses obligation to have sex with their husband/wife... I was wondering about"obligations" in the wider sense... to me,"obligations" ( or what ever word one feels is more appropriate) in a marriage is pretty hard to tie down to any one specific area... to my way of thinking, the obligation is more general... to love and support your spouse...to be there for them when they need you, to give them some "space" when that is what they need, the recognize that they are, like you, a human being and that this will mean they may make mistakes...this doesn't mean that one should endure abuse or poor treatment- but rather that one should try and be understanding, to understand that tat may be some really rough things that you two may go through and that those are the times you'll need each other more than ever, that even if when it;s hard you have to talk about any problems , concerns or bad feelings you have...you spouse is not a mind reader, and it's not fair to expect them to know what's going on in your head... there's a whole lot more than that, but a lot of it is nebulous and can't be put into words... as for what women and men need...i don't know if anyone can really say that for everyone...each person is different and needs different things... I don't consider them as obligations, but more as expectations and promises... My husband and I promised each other the following: - to love each other, which we define as placing the needs of the other above one's own. Ideally, both his and mine are met simultaneously. This idea is working very nicely I must say! - to be faithful to each other. We both promised to not have sex with anybody else and to enjoy sex together, making love: combining body, mind, and soul. - to live as a team. We are no longer 2, but rather we are 1 "flesh", 1 team who experiences life together as a joined unit, sharing material possessions, time, thoughts, and dreams! - to have children and be a strong family unit someday, if God wills - to make the world a better place through our lives: to contribute positively to society by using our talents and growing as kind and good people in a world where there is so much sadness, hatred, and strife. - to make a house our home, a place where people (both us and visitors) feel welcome, at peace, in a beautiful oasis - to communicate honestly and well with each other, to grow old together and enjoy the moments we have together. Again, the above are not obligations. However, they are our expectations and are what we strive to fulfill everyday, not because we are obligated to do so, but because we want to!!!
carhill Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Using myself as an example, my exW expected me to remain emotionally faithful to her throughout the marriage. I was obliged by the commitment I made to put her above all other women in that regard. Regardless of other actions in the M, that was an obligation, one which I failed at and suffered the consequences of. As I described in the sex thread, obligation is a term defining a person being morally or legally compelled to action. One can eschew their obligations, as I did in the example above, and suffer the consequences, which I did. The same goes for any agreement amongst the parties. Had my exW and I agreed to have a polyamorous/open marriage, then no such obligation would have existed. That was not the case, hence the obligation. Ideally, one should always 'want' to act and live in a loving manner to one's spouse, meeting all desires, wants, expectations and needs. Ideals are one thing. Real life is another. It's imperfect. People are imperfect. That's why we have verbal and written agreements and mouths to communicate and hands to sign marriage licenses. If/when one fails and is imperfect, that's one answer. It doesn't have to be the defining answer. People choose. Moving forward, taking away the lessons I learned from M and from the discussions in threads like the referenced one and this one, I'm going to move away from feeling obligated in a committed relationship, as I was socialized to feel, and move more into get a pre-nup and do what I feel. If things continue, that's great. If not, OK. Move on. Life's short. I think my exW, who had a lot more practice with moving on in her three marriages, had the right idea. Accepted.
Krytie TV Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Respect and reciprocity are about the only things I imagine to be obligations in a marriage.
RiverRunning Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 My feeling is this: The obligation is, if you learn about something troubling your spouse, it is your duty to try and explore avenues to solve that pain. If you're not physically attracted anymore, not interested in sex, etc., you need to delve into why. Medications you're on, health problems, weight gain/loss, emotional distance in the marriage, etc. Then the obligation extends to finding solutions to those specific problems, whether it's entering counseling, working out together, etc. And that extends to basically every other problem a couple might have. I should add that it's up to a person, upon learning about something that is troubling a spouse, to evaluate if the problem is something that needs to be fixed. For example, if he's wanting you to correct every little thing you do wrong to make him happy, it's not your place to solve that for him.
Radagast Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 I think your obligations to one another are whatever you explicitly promised and agreed. For some, that's sexual exclusivity, love, respect, and being together till death. For others, it may include some of those but not all, or perhaps includes other things such as raising a family together. My first wife and I married after living together for several years, because we agreed that the changes to the tax legislation meant that it made financial sense to do so even if we did not agree with the state or the church's assumptions inherent in marriage. We got the piece of paper with absolutely no intention of it changing a thing about our relationship, and did not consider ourselves bound by any expectations the state or church had in that regard. (It was a registry office marriage, no ceremony, no celebration.) So our understanding was that our obligations to each other remained unchanged by the fact that we were now being taxed as a married couple rather than as two independent adults. My second marriage was based on clear agreements of expectations and a full and complete commitment to the vows we wrote and signed before witnesses and our marriage officer. I consider myself bound by what I promised my wife, since I promised it freely and honestly, and she considers herself likewise bound by her commitments. If a couple commit to sexual exclusivity, that means not only are they committing not to have sex with others outside of the marriage, it means they are committing to meet (within reason) each other's sexual needs within the marriage. And if one or the other should consider those needs unreasonable, then that signals a need to renegotiate - either that those needs can be met elsewhere, or that the relationship needs to end. If one person's need for bodily integrity (not having sex if they don't wish to) bumps up against another's need for considerably more sex than they're getting, there is no automatic right of one person's needs to take precedence of the other. It becomes a problem of incompatibility which needs to be resolved through negotiation or counselling, or through splitting up. Forcing someone to have sex unwillingly is not a sustainable answer; neither is denying your spouse sex with you and telling them they can't get it elsewhere if you're unwilling to provide it.
Robert Z Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 If a couple commit to sexual exclusivity, that means not only are they committing not to have sex with others outside of the marriage, it means they are committing to meet (within reason) each other's sexual needs within the marriage. And if one or the other should consider those needs unreasonable, then that signals a need to renegotiate - either that those needs can be met elsewhere, or that the relationship needs to end. If one person's need for bodily integrity (not having sex if they don't wish to) bumps up against another's need for considerably more sex than they're getting, there is no automatic right of one person's needs to take precedence of the other. It becomes a problem of incompatibility which needs to be resolved through negotiation or counselling, or through splitting up. Forcing someone to have sex unwillingly is not a sustainable answer; neither is denying your spouse sex with you and telling them they can't get it elsewhere if you're unwilling to provide it. I don't agree that a woman can't willingly give of herself if she truly loves her husband. I have given of myself by risking and sacrificing my body through long hours, and in years past, dangerous work, in order to do my best to support our life together. I don't see how showing some tenderness is so different. I tend to think sex has been stigmatized to the point of being absurd. Whether giving hand, having intercourse, or anything in between, it is just a simple physical act. One can do it with love without feeling romantic or excited. And the fact is that I know a few men whose wives do this. So again, this notion that sex stands above all else that we do in life is just plain silly. It is a silly notion concocted through silly principles, based largely on religion and sexual suppression. I do agree that negotiations are reasonable. If a wife is willing to allow her husband to satisfy his need elsewhere, and if the husband can live with that, that's fair. This is also an excellent niche for prostitution. I would guess that most men seeking prostitutes are men who aren't getting enough or any at home as it is. As women get along in years, they are often far more interested in security, than their husband's fidelity. It doesn't always make sense to destroy a marriage just over sex from either point of view. In addition to prostitution, this is why kept women and mistresses have always been so common. When she lost her sex drive, my sister commented that she is starting to see the sense in married men having mistresses.
Recommended Posts