In defense of duty sex.

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

- 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (ESV)

Cail Corishev recently posted a poll on his blog asking men how often they would ideally like to have sex with their wives.  So far the results seem to indicate that on average, men would like it about three to four times per week, but there is a lot of variance.  I’m sure the same is true for women.  And that variance can be a problem.  In about a third of marriages, the couple’s libidos are mismatched, and there are only two ways to deal with that problem:

1. Self Control

The higher drive partner can suck it up and deal with it by controlling his or her sexual impulses.

2. Duty Sex

The lower drive partner can accommodate the higher drive partner by engaging in duty sex.

Duty sex gets a bad rap.  We’ve had this conversation here before, where (usually) men will complain that their wives want it less often than they do and when I say, “Well, per the Bible, one partner cannot deprive the other, so she has to do it,” they’ll complain, “Oh, but we hate duty sex!  She has to want it.”  This conversation always annoys me because it’s essentially just a whine-a-thon.  What is the lower drive (usually but not always female) partner supposed to do?  She is in a lose-lose situation where neither having sex nor not having sex will please her higher drive husband.

I have a theory as to why duty sex gets such a bad rap; I think it is because there are actually two different kinds of duty sex, which I’m going to call attracted and non-attracted:

1. Non-attracted duty sex

Spouse A is not very attracted or not attracted at all to Spouse B; Spouse A may or may not have the same sex drive as Spouse B.

2. Attracted duty sex

Spouse A is attracted to Spouse B but just has a lower sex drive.

If the problem is a lack of attraction, that is going to come across loud and clear during physical intimacy.  Having sex with someone you aren’t attracted to is probably a fairly revolting experience, but if you are married (which is the only morally-licit situation for pursuing sex), you don’t have a choice.  I can see why the higher drive person in such a relationship would probably feel really discouraged and just say, “No thanks.”  Who wants to feel like they are grossing out their sex partner?  That’s a serious blow to the ego.

The solution here is to work on increasing attraction if possible, which is the focus of blogs like Married Man Sex Life.  However, even if the attraction is not there, there is still a good argument to be made for engaging in duty sex anyway.  If you are the one who is not attracted, you still have a moral obligation to meet your partner’s needs.  If you are the one whose spouse is not attracted, you too have a moral obligation to allow your partner to meet your needs even though you can tell that your partner does not physically enjoy it very much.  The unattracted wife, for example, may feel really badly about the lack of attraction she experiences for her husband and may wish to feel like she still has the competence to please him anyway.  Her husband would be doing her a kindness by allowing her to please him even if it bothers him that she isn’t physically enjoying it herself.

Yeah, I know this is kind of a drag, but sex can be a spiritual discipline, too, and this may just be the cross you have to bear if you are a Christian who is committed to following what the Bible says about marriage and divorce.

But what is probably the more common situation is the one that most of us find ourselves in at some point: you are very attracted to your spouse but you have a lower sex drive than he or she has.  My husband would like to engage around four times per week but I’m generally good with twice a week; that doesn’t sound like a big discrepancy, but actually that means his drive is about twice as strong as mine in an average week.  We deal with this by using both self-control and attracted duty sex.  Around twice a week, we’re both really into it, once a week he would like to engage but can tell that I’m sort of meh about it and so chooses to control his urges, and around once a week I can tell that I need to Woman Up for his sake.

One of the interesting things about attracted duty sex is that having it actually can lead to a situation where it starts as duty sex but doesn’t end up that way.  There is a phrase in French about eating when you are not hungry

L’Appétit vient en mangeant

which roughly translates in English to

Appetite comes from eating

which I think perfectly describes what I’m talking about.  I don’t know if this is true for men, but for women I know for sure that sometimes having sex precedes wanting sex.  Ladies, do you agree?

Both self-control and duty sex (whether attracted or non-attracted) have their proper place in marriage.  Part of being an adult is accepting reality and learning to deal with it.

Nota bene: I am not a sex blogger and have no particular expertise that credentials me to offer marital advice.  However, one of the major themes of my blog is the intersection of Christianity, sexuality, and culture, so the thoughts I offer here are simply my musings on how to navigate sexual morality in a depraved culture.  Never take my words as some kind of gospel and always compare everything I say with Scripture and the catechism of your particular faith.

Further reading:

MMSL:

Dalrock:

AMD:

RPW:

SSM:

388 thoughts on “In defense of duty sex.

  1. John

    As for MMSL, some people praise it like a salesman on a late-night infomercial.

    In reality, it may work in some ways for some men, but the so-called MAP isn’t a Holy Grail.

  2. feeriker

    In about a third of marriages, the couple’s libidos are mismatched

    Probably one of the unrecorded punishments God doled out after the fall, further exemplified by

    What is the lower drive (usually but not always female) partner supposed to do? She is in a lose-lose situation where neither having sex nor not having sex will please her higher drive husband.

  3. Brian

    Fatigue can be murder on libido, and when my hours shifted drastically at work, making a mess of my sleep cycle, nothing was going to change the fact that sleep deprivation made it extremely difficult to rise to the occasion. Ironically, rather than accept this and help me get more sleep to fix the problem, she’d start fights instead because she felt undesireable.

  4. sunshinemary Post author

    On non-attracted duty sex: I have no experience with this, but I would think that part of it would require being able to put on a good show. If any readers here have any advice for those unfortunate souls who find themselves in this situation…

    Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you? I think acting as if you desire your spouse is appropriate.

  5. feeriker

    @Brian:

    Yes. I would argue that STRESS is the number one libido destroyer among men (other causes attributed to the condition being stress-induced symptoms more than causes). Unfortunately, as much of that stress comes from within the relationship as from without.

  6. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Brian

    Yeah, I’d thought of that. Duty sex for a woman is different than for a man. If he’s not attracted to his wife, it might be difficult for him to, as you say, rise to the occasion. Christians of different stripes will have different beliefs about what is moral in such a situation, but if she desires sex and he cannot perform, most Protestants would probably say…how can I put it delicately…head south with your mouth.

  7. deti

    This is really a post that’s more aptly directed to wives than husbands. It’s also more about the level of sexual desire from wife to husband that’s present in the marriage. It’s pretty much a given that H wants sex from W; he wouldn’t have married her otherwise. That continues through marriage as a rule because it’s difficult for most men to get sex at all. Marriage is the vehicle which (ostensibly) provides (some) guarantee of sex.

    Yeah, men don’t much like duty sex because (1) they hate being turned away; and (2) they hate the “I’m only doing this because I know I have to” written all over some wives’ faces.

    The thing most men have to do is increasing their attractiveness as men concomitantly with insisting that wives “do their duty”. One way that men can do this is simply to be quite forward that they want sex, and then go for it. Don’t ask. Tell. Don’t suggest. Direct. And if she won’t, then get up and walk away.

    Women really should read that RPW (Red Pill Wifery) link below, “A Cautionary Tale”. Wives really should think twice about refusing husbands. Trust me: you don’t want your husband in a position where he doesn’t care if the marriage continues or ends.

  8. Velvet

    Appetite comes from eating

    There’s another element to this very true adage: the one who’s hungry must do most of the cooking.

    This is not literal, please don’t misunderstand – husbands doing chores does not lead to a wife’s increased desire. It has more to do with initiating and reading the situation. This could be as upfront as “I want to have sex 4 times a week instead of two”, and partner agrees, on down through considerably more nuanced scenarios, a la MMSL, but the principle holds. I’m floored by how clueless some couples are about their partners feelings/needs surrounding sex. A wife who is satisfied by 2-a-weeks is not really going to understand her husbands two or three fold desire by just sitting her down with a pamphlet, but there are ways, surely, to arrive at agreement where no one feels either entirely rejected nor put-upon.

    That said, I love duty sex, there’s much to be gained from it for both men and women, pursuer and pursued. Personally I think it’s underrated. It’s not just fulfilling an holy obligation, but it IS informative, another way in which right posture (npi) informs right-spiritedness.

    http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/duty-sex-it-does-a-body-good/

  9. feeriker

    SSM asked Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you?

    You don’t. Seldom ever is such an act convincing to the other spouse. Painful as it might be to have to face, I would MUCH rather have it made known that my spouse finds me unattractive (or even repulsive) than to have my intelligence insulted by having her put on a halfhearted, ill-concealed show of faux tolerance (forget about affection). That, to me, is worse than overt contempt.

    I think acting as if you desire your spouse is appropriate.

    Not if the act is a bad one (see above).

    Simply stated, if my spouse finds sex with me to be something that unbearable (or at best, barely tolerable), I’d much rather do without.

  10. sunshinemary Post author

    “I’m only doing this because I know I have to” written all over some wives’ faces.

    At some point, he has to decide whether he prefers her no face or her I’m doing this out of duty face. He could also try closing his eyes or turning out the lights. Face problem solved!

  11. sunshinemary Post author

    That said, I love duty sex, there’s much to be gained from it for both men and women, pursuer and pursued. Personally I think it’s underrated. It’s not just fulfilling an holy obligation, but it IS informative, another way in which right posture (npi) informs right-spiritedness.

    100% agree. Attracted duty sex is not this awful thing. I don’t have to put on an act when I do it because it doesn’t gross me out to have sex with my husband even if I’m not feeling particularly hot and bothered myself. I can see, though, how it’s rough if one finds one’s husband unappealing. But I’d still encourage her to do it and try to look pleasant about it.

  12. deti

    “SSM asked Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you?”

    Fee: “You don’t. Seldom ever is such an act convincing to the other spouse.”

    Or: Marry a man to whom you’re attracted. Don’t marry a man for his job, his money, his status, because you think he’ll make a good father for your children, or any reason other than stone cold hard visceral “I want to f**k him right now” sexual attraction. Of course, all those other things are important. But if attraction isn’t there, it isn’t going to be there simply because you’re having duty sex.

  13. Cail Corishev

    I don’t think the divide is between attracted and non-attracted; it’s a matter of the attitude the person fulfilling the duty brings to it. If attracted, the attitude will take care of itself; but if not attracted, that leaves the person with a choice.

    This morning, I feel like crap. For the past 2-3 weeks, for various reasons, it feels like I’ve been on a non-stop shuttle from one crowd of people to another, and as an introvert, I’m about to scream. I’m sitting here grinding my teeth, counting the hours until the next day when I’ll finally be able to get away to myself for several straight hours and get some real rest without anyone (even people I like) in my face. On top of that, I picked up a cold, so that’s just one more reason all I want to do is put my head down and sleep.

    But if my door chimes to tell me a customer just walked in, I’m going to take a deep breath (maybe swear once under it), put a smile on my face, and go welcome them, treating them like their visit is a highlight of my day. I won’t want to, but I will, because that’s business, but also basic human courtesy.

    I don’t see why “duty sex” should be any different. A married person certainly owes more to his or her spouse than I do to a random customer. If she puts a smile on her face and does her best to make me enjoy it and convince me she’s enjoying it, I’ll be plenty satisfied.

    And the sneaky little truth is that, when I act that way with a customer, I kinda do become glad to see them, at least for the moment. Likewise, I suspect a woman who performed “duty sex” by pretending to enjoy it would soon find herself enjoying it for real, which is probably what some of them are afraid of: becoming attracted to a man they currently find repulsive.

    Come to think of it, I’ve had that sort of thing happen: she comes in and says, “I’m not really into it tonight, but I know you need it, so let’s just get you off.” Then a little later she decides she wants some attention after all.

    [ssm: There's a lot of wisdom in your last two paragraphs here.]

  14. sunshinemary Post author

    It’s pretty much a given that H wants sex from W; he wouldn’t have married her otherwise.

    Provably untrue.

    Leeleebug’s husband has a much lower sex drive than she has. Margery has also mentioned that she is the higher drive partner. I believe Alte has said the same. It is untrue that the husband is always the higher drive partner. However, I would agree that it is often the husband who is the higher drive partner.

    Also, one has to keep things in perspective. My husband’s drive is higher than mine, for example, but I have an acceptably high drive for a woman, so he’s not exactly deprived, and I think that this is the case in many marriages. Just because his is higher doesn’t mean he’s desperately deprived. No one ever died from only getting laid twice a week.

  15. Velvet

    I can see, though, how it’s rough if one finds one’s husband unappealing. But I’d still encourage her to do it and try to look pleasant about it.

    He could also try closing his eyes or turning out the lights. Face problem solved!

    Turn her over? You never know, this could be a “two birds” kind of a thing.

  16. earl

    The propganda machine also gets the hamster revved up. Thinking that sex should be a magical carpet ride full of mulitiple orgasms and every one of your desires will be satisfied. It is another action that people do in the course of life…albeit the only one that requires two people.

    Sure it has components of physical, emotional, and spirtual…but then again so does eating. Sometimes you eat because you are hungry, other times because you are desiring to eat that particular food.

  17. deti

    SSM:

    Is one of the things you’re trying to suss out that duty sex will increase attraction? Because if you are, I agree. Duty sex with attraction sex/fun sex will bond spouses together.

    But if you’re saying that duty sex will help create attraction where there is very little or none; I would have to disagree. Attraction and desire can’t be negotiated or bargained for. And the wife knows she doesn’t want to have sex with him; and he knows she doesn’t want sex with him, and it’s all a mess; and the “duty” part of it just exacerbates the bad feelings and resentments.

    [ssm: The duty part of it does not have to exacerbate bad feelings and resentments. That is a choice. No one forces you to have a bad attitude. That's my first point. My second point: neither you nor I know for sure that attraction cannot be generated if there was none to begin with. I know there are several people who put forth that theory very strongly, but I am not convinced that it is impossible to become attracted to someone.]

  18. Velvet

    Sure it has components of physical, emotional, and spirtual…but then again so does eating. Sometimes you eat because you are hungry, other times because you are desiring to eat that particular food.

    Leave it to the chaste to have the advantage on perspective. Thank you, Earl, nicely put.

  19. earl

    @ Cali…

    I agree with your last statement. It’s more of overcoming your own emotions to please another. We’ve lost quite a bit of that in our society.

  20. deti

    SSM, 11/8/13, 11:12 am:

    You pointed to three examples of women who might have higher sex drives than their husbands. So what? It’s generally the rule that the man is the higher drive sex partner. And most men marry to lock in a regular sex partner. A man is simply not going to make that level of investment in and commitment to one woman unless he wants to have sex with her, and lots of it.

    Quite simply, there really is no other reason for a man to marry. Yes, I know, he wants to marry to have a family; but well, you know, families mean children, and children means sex.

  21. DrTorch

    ~Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you?~

    This is where men must take some responsibility and resume being masculine. Churches need to teach this as an imperative… and stop teaching the feminist script that Jesus wants us all to be milquetoast mangina husbands.

  22. feeriker

    Attraction and desire can’t be negotiated or bargained for. And the wife knows she doesn’t want to have sex with him; and he knows she doesn’t want sex with him, and it’s all a mess; and the “duty” part of it just exacerbates the bad feelings and resentments.

    This, times one hundred.

    [ssm: Resentment and having bad feelings is a choice. No one can force you to have those things against your will. If you are resentful, that is a choice you are making. To the resentful man, I would say this: are you a woman that you should be ruled by your emotions?]

  23. Zippy

    Deti:
    It’s generally the rule that the man is the higher drive sex partner.

    Anecdotally that doesn’t seem true once folks get into their 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. There are plenty of desperate housewives out there.

  24. Cail Corishev

    Feeriker,

    Maybe I’m just not very perceptive, but I don’t see why it has to be “half-hearted” or “ill-concealed.” Honestly, I think most women are better actresses than that. If you can tell the woman you’re with is repulsed by your touch, I’d say she’s not trying very hard, and thus not really doing her duty.

  25. feeriker

    If you can tell the woman you’re with is repulsed by your touch, I’d say she’s not trying very hard, and thus not really doing her duty.

    That brings up another relevant question, one which we discuss ad infinitem within the ‘sphere and on related sites: why should any wife try hard or do her duty? What possible negative sanction will she suffer for not doing so (hint: divorce court, cash and prizes)?

  26. Elspeth

    If she’s not outright refusing then just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it.

    I think you’re being sarcastic, but I’m not sure, so I won’t say what I was going to say.

    It was funny though.

    [ssm: I had the same reaction. Including holding my tongue. :)]

  27. Velvet

    If she’s not outright refusing then just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it.

    This. I’ve about decided some people are just thinking about this way too much. There’s your Desperate Housewife Abatement Initiative right there.

    Isn’t sex like pizza? – even if it isn’t great, you’re telling me you’re not going to eat it? You are, and you’re not going to complain much either, and since it’s the closest and they don’t charge for delivery, you’re going there every time. I mean, that’s part of marriage, and all this “she’s not attracted to me” is like complaining about the pizza you eat anyway, and like most dissatisfied customers, they generally don’t inform the person/people who can actually do anything about it.

    [ssm: +1]

  28. Zippy

    Elspeth:
    Interesting that you thought I was being sarcastic. I wasn’t. All this male whininess about “she doesn’t wannnnnnt me enough” is just too much. These men need an attitude adjustment. If she is consenting, then just take her — her body belongs to you, so have your way with her and don’t be apologetic about it.

    [ssm: I am SO glad you weren't being sarcastic. Since you weren't, let us repeat your extremely sage advice:

    If she’s not outright refusing then just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it.

    Of course the whining and shrieking from the whiners and shriekers will begin now, but before it does, let me say: +1000.]

  29. deti

    “ Anecdotally that doesn’t seem true once folks get into their 30′s, 40′s and 50′s. There are plenty of desperate housewives out there.”

    Couple of things going on there, I suspect: First is that as married couples settle into marriage after 10 or 20 years together, his drive drops a little and hers increases a little which probably evens things out.

    Second, as for the “desperate housewives” thing, I have to suspect that a lot of what’s going on there is any number of things: she’s not attracted, he’s got medical issues; he’s busy, she’s busy, whatever. For those who aren’t attracted, it’s been going on a long time, and he knows she’s not attracted, so they just have this kind of marital détente in which she makes it known she doesn’t want sex and he doesn’t press the issue because he doesn’t want the conflict.

  30. Elspeth

    This. I’ve about decided some people are just thinking about this way too much. There’s your Desperate Housewife Abatement Initiative right there.

    LOl. Since we went there, I think it’s perfectly fine if the husband just goes for it. Why shouldn’t he? What are you asking for? It’s your wife,

    I fear we’re going off topic…

    To something SSM said in her OP: The balance between being giving and self-control is a good way to look at it. There have been times when my husband wanted more, and I obliged. Other times when I wanted more, and he obliged. Thank goodness we’re attracted to one another or the latter would be a bit trickier. Still, love is about willingness to give to the other person in spite of your feelings. Love is not about tingles.

    Duty sex doesn’t mean that the wife isn’t attracted. It may mean she’s tired or not feeling well. Same with the husband.

  31. deti

    “These men need an attitude adjustment. If she is consenting, then just take her — her body belongs to you, so have your way with her and don’t be apologetic about it.”

    Agree, but the thing is, that’s not going to create attraction that isn’t there to begin with. It’s a side issue, but it’s an important one since we’re talking about frequency and regularity of marital sex.

    [ssm: I disagree with this so, so much. There is literature from women who were violently raped which contradicts this; a fair portion of them respond by unwillingly bonding to their rapist and also by becoming aroused and reaching orgasm. Some report fantasizing about their rapists for years afterward. Rape is a terrible thing, of course, but there is every reason to believe that the same neurological response can be generated in a forceful marital encounter. Legally, of course, there could be issues, so this is NOT advice. I'm just noting it is all.]

  32. Velvet

    I fear we’re going off topic…

    Yes, sadly we’re supposed be discussing the importance of right marital attitude and all I can think about is a slice of double pepperoni with goat cheese and jalapenos.

  33. earl

    See what happens when men are told to get in touch with their feelings.

    They get hurt feelings when their wives don’t give out the prescribed emotion they think they should. I can’t tell you how many times my poor wittle feewings were hurt and how little most people really cared. I for one am glad…because emotions are not the be all end all to life. Actions are what get remembered.

    Coming from a chaste man who has long since disregarded my emotions to a degree…her emotions about the whole matter don’t mean anything. It’s more about sharing the physical and spiritual aspect. Then I wouldn’t be surprised to see the emotions start to line up.

  34. deti

    “she’s not attracted to me” is like complaining

    Well, yes, but it’s something men need to think about. Initiating sex with a woman who isn’t attracted to you, is perpetually pissed off at you, and hates you, can be dangerous, particularly when you’re saying “It’s your duty”. Marital rape charges. Domestic violence charges. Her calling the cops and saying “I feel unsafe” leading to cops showing up and arresting husband. Frivorce. Cash and prizes. Wage slavery.

    [ssm: Well, this may be true, but it isn't the topic at hand. This essay was exhorting lower drive partners to offer duty sex and encouraging higher drive partners not to hesitate in accepting it. But nothing is ever good enough for you, is it? Women can do everything in their power to make a difficult situation better and you'll still shake your head and sniff, "No, not good enough. No, it's not perfect so why even try?" How could a woman ever please a man who refuses to be pleased and who purposes in his heart to find fault with everything?]

  35. Zippy

    Deti:
    Agree, but the thing is, that’s not going to create attraction that isn’t there to begin with.

    It may not, but who cares? She’s giving it up willingly like she should — so take it, you dumb m***** f*****, channeling Samuel L Jackson, whose other famous line is “It’s my duty to please that booty”. The guy who thinks he can do better by complaining about it is really just trying to lay the groundwork for cheating some time in the future.

    Hells man, you made the bed, go bounce in it.

    [ssm: ROTFL! Yes! Preach!]

  36. Elspeth

    Actually, I’m supposed to be typing up my menu (made by eldest daughter) as we chat. So I do have food on the brain or I did, until Sunshine decided to start talking about sex and stuff. Again.

    I could easily be with my husband 5-6 times a week. He’s fine with 3 times a week. I don;t really feel a compulsion to complain. He works hard, lots of hours, needs his sleep. I have been known to take a nap at 1PM to make up for my early rising hour of 5AM. I let him get some rest.

    We could all stand to loosen up a bit, really. Anyone having relations even weekly can hardly be considered deprived, can they/

    [ssm: ",until Sunshine decided to start talking about sex and stuff. Again." LOL, welcome to ovulation week on my blog. We'll get back to discussing how bad people's morals are nowadays next week. This week it's all penis water towers and sexx talk. :)]

  37. Zippy

    Earl:
    Every man should go deep within himself and get in touch with his feminine side. Then he should strangle the bitch.

    [ssm: Zippy, you're on fire today.]

  38. earl

    “Every man should go deep within himself and get in touch with his feminine side. Then he should strangle the bitch.”

    *stands up and applause*

    Strangling my inner bitch was one of the best endevours I’ve encountered.

  39. Laguna Beach Fogey

    What is your position ,on mistresses?

    [ssm: Yowza. You're new here, so I'll assume that was not meant to poke me in a sore spot.

    Mistresses...should be put up against the wall and sh-...wait, no sorry. I'm a Christian. What I meant to say is that adultery is immoral, but we must forgive that sin if the sinner repents. Let us talk about something else now.]

  40. Cail Corishev

    That brings up another relevant question, one which we discuss ad infinitem within the ‘sphere and on related sites: why should any wife try hard or do her duty? — feeriker

    I think what we’re sneaking up on here is that it’s extremely unlikely that a woman who is actually repulsed by her husband — not just experiencing a lessening of the tingles, but really feeling no desire for him at all — will be able to put on a smile and offer up good duty sex. Women are true to their emotions. If her emotions say, “Ew, gross,” it won’t even occur to her to do it. She won’t feel like she should; it will quite literally feel wrong.

    So we’re really talking about two different groups: women who are still somewhat attracted to their husbands, but not tingling enough to be especially interested in sex with them, able to put on a good act and give them a good time; and women who have gotten to the point of revulsion who will not and probably cannot. The first group can make their husbands happy, and may even gain some of the excitement back for themselves if they commit to making the sex as good as they can. The second group may be hopeless, because if she actually feels “wrong” every time she does it, it’s hard to see how it would get better.

    So it seems the best advice for women who are starting to lose interest in sex in marriage would be to make a special effort to step it up now, rather than waiting until they’ve gotten used to doing without it.

  41. alcestiseshtemoa

    sunshinemary Post author

    November 8, 2013 at 10:56 am

    On non-attracted duty sex: I have no experience with this, but I would think that part of it would require being able to put on a good show. If any readers here have any advice for those unfortunate souls who find themselves in this situation…

    Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you? I think acting as if you desire your spouse is appropriate.

    My experience with those couples and family arrangements is that while putting up a good show is possible, if there is no good and strong long-term social, economic or political incentive for it, sooner or later it will end in divorce and the like. The resultant children (if there’s any) come out between neutral and bad in those schemes. Just my 2 cents.

    [ssm: This is true. People do this. That does not, however, make it moral just because it is what people do. There are two points here:

    1. Divorcing your spouse because sexy time is not so good anymore is immoral and sinful.
    2. Withholding the marital debt just because your spouse doesn't make you hot anymore is also sinful.

    Some people will choose to be sinful. Just because people make that choice doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out that what they are doing is in fact sinful.]

  42. earl

    I’ll bring it up this issue again…

    Does birth control affect her emotions as well? It would have to if it keeps her in a constant state of thinking she is pregnant. And most pregnant women aren’t in the cheeriest of moods.

    [ssm: If there were just ONE piece of advice I could offer to couples, it would be: throw your birth control pills in the trash and never, ever touch that evil poison again. Be fruitful and multiple, or if you absolutely cannot do that, buy yourself a calendar and a thermometer, but do not put Satanic poison into your body.]

  43. Cail Corishev

    By the way, thanks for linking to my poll. I’m going to give it a couple more days, and then chart a comparison between that and the numbers reported by the GSS. It’s hardly scientific, but I think it suggests some interesting things.

  44. Cautiously Pessimistic

    At some point, he has to decide whether he prefers her no face or her I’m doing this out of duty face.

    Or he could just put a bag over her head. Or two bags to play it safe.

  45. feeriker

    Or he could just put a bag over her head. Or two bags to play it safe.

    Avoid the temptation to use plastic bags, overwhelming as that temptation might be.

  46. alcestiseshtemoa

    Cail Corishev

    November 8, 2013 at 11:57 am

    That brings up another relevant question, one which we discuss ad infinitem within the ‘sphere and on related sites: why should any wife try hard or do her duty? — feeriker

    I think what we’re sneaking up on here is that it’s extremely unlikely that a woman who is actually repulsed by her husband — not just experiencing a lessening of the tingles, but really feeling no desire for him at all — will be able to put on a smile and offer up good duty sex. Women are true to their emotions. If her emotions say, “Ew, gross,” it won’t even occur to her to do it. She won’t feel like she should; it will quite literally feel wrong.

    So we’re really talking about two different groups: women who are still somewhat attracted to their husbands, but not tingling enough to be especially interested in sex with them, able to put on a good act and give them a good time; and women who have gotten to the point of revulsion who will not and probably cannot. The first group can make their husbands happy, and may even gain some of the excitement back for themselves if they commit to making the sex as good as they can. The second group may be hopeless, because if she actually feels “wrong” every time she does it, it’s hard to see how it would get better.

    So it seems the best advice for women who are starting to lose interest in sex in marriage would be to make a special effort to step it up now, rather than waiting until they’ve gotten used to doing without it.

    Great comment. Cail Corishev nails why the whole “non-attracted duty sex” ends in divorce, disaster, family shame and the like. It’s bad for both parties involved and everybody at the end scratches their head and thinks, “What the heck?”

  47. alcestiseshtemoa

    Of course, speaking from personal experience, the divorce was finalized for all of the other families. Sometimes, I wonder why my parents are an exception in this regard. Weird…

  48. deti

    What is your position on mistresses? — Laguna Beach Fogey

    Cail: “Reverse cowgirl.”

    I don’t care who ya are, that’s funny right there……

  49. earl

    She’s not attracted to you at all…then she shouldn’t of made a big stink about wanting getting married or actually going through with it.

    Thems the rules honey. Marriage isn’t a one way street. It isn’t about your day getting fawned over at a wedding or having your own beast of burden…it’s as much about pleasing your man. So choose wisely.

  50. alcestiseshtemoa

    On the other hand, maybe stress contributes to a lower libido for attracted duty sex types (which is most normal people I think). Getting a massage can alleviate stress.

  51. Lee Lee Bug

    After dealing with mismatched libidos for 17 years, I’m convinced that sex is as much about appetite as it is about attraction. Some women just have a very low appetite. Their husband could look like Hugh Jackman and they still wouldn’t want to do it.

    My husband is like this. If I were in a horrible accident and could never have sex again it wouldn’t bother him in the least (the sex part, I mean). Sex has never been a priority for him, even when he was a teenager and in his 20s. His brother once told me that he didn’t think he had ever kissed a woman before he began dating me and he was in his early 30s at that point.

    I know that it’s not an attraction issue as I fit his type to a T: petite, thin, dark-haired, green-eyed with a curvy figure. It’s like God custom made me for him, according to his exact preferences. He’ll often tell me I’m pretty and point out specific features that he finds attractive on me. Plus, other men are still attracted to me even though I’m officially middle aged at this point. Heck, a few weeks ago I caught a jerk who had been checking me out at the gym snapping an iPhone photo of my rear view.

    Our situation improved quite a bit earlier this year, thanks to advice I found on this and other similar blogs, but it’s gone downhill in recent months and I’m at my wits end. He has an appointment for an annual physical coming up and I want him to ask to have his testosterone levels checked. Last year, the doctor seemed to think that was causing his problem, but he never went for testing to confirm it.

    I’m tempted to be a bi*ch by telling him I’m tired of living like roommates and he needs to do something. But, he knows I won’t cheat on him or divorce him so I don’t have much leverage.

    I don’t want duty sex. Duty sex is icky and demeaning. I just want normal, marital sex where BOTH partners do it because they want to.

    [ssm: Having seen your picture from the brief time it was your gravatar, I can confirm that you are an extremely pretty woman. Thanks for weighing in on this. I hope you're recovering well from your surgery; I was praying for you.]

  52. Emma the Emo

    I think the “non-attracted duty sex” option has two sub-caterogies:
    a)Sex with someone you feel disgust for.
    b)Sex with someone who produces neither attraction, nor disgust.
    Men are repelled by the idea of their wife feeling a), but what about b)? They make it work in some cultures.

  53. earl

    Is this something that gets discussed in the marriage prep or engagement phase? Duty sex or how many times you will do it in a given time period?

    Or does the man assume “hey I’m getting sex regularly now, I should get it regularly in marriage too”.

    Knowing what I know about females I want at least a verbal agreement about things like this and perhaps getting something like that down in writing with her signature. That’ll show how attracted she really is.

  54. Stingray

    If she’s not outright refusing then just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it.

    This right here. Seriously (and any feminist reading this blog, get a grip, we’re not talking rape here). If a man decided to do this, have his way with her how he wanted, especially after years of just trying to please her, he would probably leave her a very satisfied woman who would want more and more of this.

    [ssm: I agree with this 100%. If it were possible to agree with it more than 100%, I would.]

  55. DJ

    Not going to be a surprise for many folks, but this made Mrs. DJ a daily sex connoisseur who usually rattles the walls with her enthusiasm: just some normal-ass masculine dominance. I get the feeling that the beta skillset comes more readily to many in the manosphere and to the audience on the delightful SSM’s blog. There’s a big difference between a dude who’s kinda demoralized by whatever current temperament the Mrs. is in while they enjoy a conjugal visit… and the self-assured guy who’s taking his pleasure. Mrs. DJ likes some clit love, for example, but she squeals for amused mastery (and rougher sex than I’d imagined).

    But don’t be misled—an attraction mismatch murders you. A guy can happily fuck one or two sex ranks above/below his, but a woman NEVER EVER will (regularly, at least). If her vagina judges your genetic fitness to be about as good as she can reasonably get, all this stuff will come super easy.

    THE WORST THING EVER for a woman to realize is that her vagina might have made a mistake. No feeling is worse than this, and she will do her damnedest to make sure that feeling goes away.

    On the other hand, a woman who regularly feels just a bit lucky to have snagged you will usually do whatever/whenever you want.

  56. feeriker

    LLB said I’m tempted to be a bi*ch by telling him I’m tired of living like roommates and he needs to do something.

    Not a good idea if you really want to see your situation improve. Nagging/shaming/approaching the problem with your bitch costume on will only make him want to avoid both you AND the problem.

    [ssm: Yes, I think you are right about this. But what would help in her situation? Any thoughts?]

  57. sunshinemary Post author

    You know what?

    I am not buying this whole A man can’t accept sex from a wife if she doesn’t feel attraction for him thing. B.S. It may not be your preference, but a man certainly can enjoy sex with a woman who is not attracted to him. If this were not possible, there would not be an “oldest profession”. You think whores find their johns hot? Doubt it.

    The fact that men are ticked off about their wives giving them duty sex is just useless whining. Any man who’s that whiny about not wanting the free cookie his wife is offering him because it’s oatmeal raisin instead of chocolate chip is so beta that he’d have no hope of gettin’ any lovin’ outside of marriage either.

  58. Stingray

    Is this something that gets discussed in the marriage prep or engagement phase? Duty sex or how many times you will do it in a given time period?

    It wasn’t in my marriage prep and I really wish it would have been. I didn’t understand the importance of sex for a husband for quite some time and I said no far too often at the beginning of my marriage. What I remember most about my marriage prep was the importance of communication. It did nothing to help me.

  59. earl

    “THE WORST THING EVER for a woman to realize is that her vagina might have made a mistake. No feeling is worse than this, and she will do her damnedest to make sure that feeling goes away.”

    Hence why many men are growing apathetic to their many plights.

    Besides that feeling that was put in there…was due to media brainwashing that she chose to watch and read. She did it to herself.

  60. Farm Boy

    Trust me: you don’t want your husband in a position where he doesn’t care if the marriage continues or ends

    I dunno. Cash and prizes are nice.

  61. earl

    I’d like to know what radar women use to detect inferior sperm.

    I imagine it has something to do with the man’s bank account.

  62. Cail Corishev

    I don’t want duty sex. Duty sex is icky and demeaning. I just want normal, marital sex where BOTH partners do it because they want to.

    Fair enough, but “want to” could mean two different things:

    1. There’s an urge coming from somewhere south of my navel that says, “Do her now!”

    2. I love her and have made a commitment to her, so I’m going to perform this act for her in the best way I know how.

    As long as I don’t actually find her repulsive, I don’t see why I couldn’t do #2 and enjoy it for the closeness it gives us, or because I genuinely enjoy seeing her enjoy herself, even if the kind of lustful desire in #1 isn’t present.

    I mean, part of the fun of sex is giving the other person pleasure, right? So can’t you still enjoy that part of it even if it’s not doing anything for you?

  63. earl

    “What I remember most about my marriage prep was the importance of communication.”

    It’s a nice vague statement which is why it probably didn’t help much…but I think I understand it. If there is something important you desire before marriage…you better communicate it and get it out in the open. Don’t assume anything.

    Like I said I know of two things off the bat I’m getting out there.
    1) Both will stay a healthy weight
    2) Sex (x) amount of times during a time period unless mutually agreed reason not to (emotions don’t count…I’m talking physical or financial reasons)

  64. Farm Boy

    I’d like to know what radar women use to detect inferior sperm

    Doppler, of course. One can tell if it swimming fast or if it is petered out.

  65. Cail Corishev

    I am not buying this whole A man can’t accept sex from a wife if she doesn’t feel attraction for him thing. B.S. It may not be your preference, but a man certainly can enjoy sex with a woman who is not attracted to him. — SSM

    Yeah, I don’t really buy it either. Maybe I’m just easy. Now, it’s certainly not the ideal, and no guy would want to go into a marriage knowing that’s the best he could look forward to. We would absolutely prefer real enthusiasm to fake. But we’ll take fake. Heck, millions of guys jerk off to videos of women faking it. You can’t tell me if the same woman was in their room offering to fake enjoyment of the real thing, they’d say, “Nah, not if you don’t mean it.”

  66. deti

    “But nothing is ever good enough for you, is it? Women can do everything in their power to make a difficult situation better and you’ll still shake your head and sniff, “No, not good enough. No, it’s not perfect so why even try?””

    That’s not true at all, nor is it what I’m saying. If you’re going to try to restate my position so as to attempt to refute it, please do so accurately.

    All I am saying here is that duty sex isn’t going to generate attraction where there isn’t any. It might allow a spark of attraction to germinate and grow. It might improve attraction where there is some there to begin with. I do not, however, believe it will create something from nothing.

    As for whether prostitutes find their johns hot, no, but it’s not a useful analogy. The john doesn’t give a shit whether she finds him hot or not, because he doesn’t care about her. He doesn’t care about her because his only investment is a sliver of time and some money; and he’s not committed anything to her. She’s getting paid, and he’s getting sex. He gets to go home afterwards, and doesn’t have to deal with her anymore. The man wants his wife to be into the sex, and wants to not engage in sex she doesn’t want, because he … Oh, I don’t know, LOVES her and CARES about her.

    I’ve been going about it all wrong. Guess I should just slap Mrs. deti around and tell her to get on her knees while I whip it out.

    Complaining about the cookie because it’s oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip — LOL. Interesting but not really useful, either. Perhaps I should see marriage differently and not care so much about it. But the analogy would be more apt if you said the choice was between a free chocolate chip cookie and free fried okra.

    [ssm: Come on now.

    You know what? If her choice is to be slapped around and ordered to get on her knees versus having to listen to complaining and criticism...I can tell you which most women would prefer. Of course, we'd prefer neither of those options, and usually it doesn't come to that.

    Anyway, your analogy is not useful either. I like fried okra.]

  67. Cail Corishev

    If a man decided to do this, have his way with her how he wanted, especially after years of just trying to please her, he would probably leave her a very satisfied woman who would want more and more of this. — Stingray

    After reading this from several different women here over the past couple years, I’ve become convinced. If I ever marry again, my bride is going to owe y’all, one way or the other.

  68. sunshinemary Post author

    Heck, millions of guys jerk off to videos of women faking it. You can’t tell me if the same woman was in their room offering to fake enjoyment of the real thing, they’d say, “Nah, not if you don’t mean it.”

    LOL, exactly.

    As long as I don’t actually find her repulsive, I don’t see why I couldn’t do #2 and enjoy it for the closeness it gives us, or because I genuinely enjoy seeing her enjoy herself, even if the kind of lustful desire in #1 isn’t present.

    Such an important point. Maybe the performance won’t be perfect. And so what? Are we only as good as our lusts, then?

    Sex is unitive. It makes you feel close and loving toward your spouse even if you don’t have an orgasm. Giving comfort and love to one’s spouse, and receiving comfort and love from them, is just as valid as giving them sexual pleasure. Duty sex can be deeply unitive and loving even if it lacks the physical intensity of sexual attraction.

  69. earl

    “We would absolutely prefer real enthusiasm to fake. But we’ll take fake. Heck, millions of guys jerk off to videos of women faking it. You can’t tell me if the same woman was in their room offering to fake enjoyment of the real thing, they’d say, “Nah, not if you don’t mean it.”

    Yeah the male mind has a great ability to gloss over such important things like reality or putting on an act when a naked female body crosses their eyeballs.

  70. deti

    And by the way – the attraction part is important, because that’s one of the predictors that a marriage will stay together. And isn’t preservation of marriage important?

    [ssm: Yes, it is very important. Of course, as Christians, we must honor our vows, but we too operate on what Novaseeker calls the hedonic marriage model. Still, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have duty sex.]

  71. feeriker

    ssm: Yes, I think you are right about this. But what would help in her situation? Any thoughts?]

    What LLB (or any other ladies out there with a similar problem/frustration) should consider is to just sit down with her husband some evening, when the two are alone (and yes, I know all too well, firsthand, how much of a challenge that is with a house full of kids), and GENTLY AND LOVINGLY broach the subject, in as non-judgmental a way possible, with the goal of finding out the REAL source of the problem and expressing a real, sincere desire to help him fix it – for HIS sake as much as hers (and she should express it in this way too). I don’t know LLB or her husband and know nothing about the dynamics of their marriage other than what LLB has posted on this blog, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if her husband’s low sex drive is bothering HIM as much as –if not more than– it is bothering her.

    Let me let you in on a little secret, ladies: your husband, however much he dearly loves you and otherwise trusts you in all things, however much he might want to please you with every fiber of his being, is NOT going to just open up, even to you, his wife/helpmeet/best friend the world, about the problems that are affecting the most intimate part of him (and the psychological and emotional mechanisms that power it). Your husband instinctively knows that this is the Achille’s Heel of his being as a man, the one thing the failure of which he knows can have catastrophic consequences for him and his relationship with you. In other words, this is your husband at his most vulnerable. The reluctance to be open about this, even with the person closest to him, might not even be a conscious thing at all. It just might be another aspect of his “hardwiring” as a man, the biological imperative of not showing weakness where it can do the most potential damage.

    I would say that the one thing (probably the only thing) that might make him willingly open up to you about this is for you as his wife to make it clear to him, in word, deed, and attitude, and in NO uncertain terms, that you love him and have his best interests and long-term well-being at heart, that your goal is absolutely not to hurt him or judge him, and that it is your number one priority as his wife to help him find a solution that will restore the happiness and satisfaction that is marital intimacy. For all I know, LLB is already ready and willing to do this (or might even be doing it already), in which case God bless her. If she hasn’t approached it from this perspective, she really should make it priority. The results might just amaze her (and I hope she’s ready, if she succeeds, to drink from the proverbial fire hose).

    Just my two leptas worth. Other men here might have different opinions/perspectives, which I’m certainly interested in hearing and will gladly consider the merits of.

  72. A Throwaway Account Name

    I have an interesting perspective on this issue. My wife lost attraction for me, because I was fat, and had no understanding of how to lead as a man, and wasn’t aware of the concept of shit testing. Sex with her became far worse than starfish sex. I felt it was more like corpse sex. Having sex with her became worse than going without. I ended up starting to see escorts. I know this was a sin, and it is also bad idea in general, but I can also see why a significant number of men end up making this choice.
    Here is the point I wanted to make. The escorts I saw were not attracted to me, but they worked hard to please me sexually, for two reasons. One, they wanted to earn repeat business, and they wanted to be able to get good reviews on escort review sites. The second reason is even more interesting. They had a good work ethic, and they felt bad if they didn’t manage to satisfy their customer. You can go looking for escort blogs and forums, and find plenty of anonymous posters, who have no reason to lie, who will confirm these things.
    So, if an escort can take pride in her sexuality and ability to please a man, and can choose to act sexy and charming without getting any tingles from him, then so can a wife. A lot of women scorn escorts, understandably so. However, escorts are scorned for two things, and only one of them is actually wrong. Escorts are scorned for doing a full range of sexual acts which men frequently can’t get from their wives, and they are scorned for taking money per sexual encounter.
    Obviously, taking money per sexual encounter is wrong. However, a good wife should be willing to sex her man up, and take pride in doing it well. If a woman recognizes that a man is a good provider and a loving husband and father, and a godly leader of the family, but she isn’t getting tingles from him, she absolutely can knock his socks off in bed, and should do so, out of personal pride and as part of a basic work ethic.
    You may say escorting is not comparable with relationships, but as they say “All Women Are Like That” (AWALT). The aspect of women’s nature that allows escorts to do this is equally present in all other women. It’s cultural conditioning and brainwashing that makes women think it’s a fate worse than death to be sexual with your husband in the absence of attraction. I know its not true, because I’ve had my world rocked by women who weren’t attracted to me.

  73. Stingray

    After reading this from several different women here over the past couple years, I’ve become convinced.

    Ever read any female erotica? They don’t write a dominant, masculine and rough leading male for nothing.

    And Deti, come on now with the slapping your wife thing. You know that’s not what we’re talking about. Women fantasize about being taken. Feminist take this to rape, but you know that’s not what we’re talking about. To be utterly dominated is a huge female turn on. Again, see woman’s porn.

    Might a wife be against this at first? Yes, but if she is offering duty sex, you can dominate the hell out of her with your needs in mind only and it will probably blow her mind. It is highly attractive.

  74. feeriker

    SSM said I am not buying this whole A man can’t accept sex from a wife if she doesn’t feel attraction for him thing. B.S. It may not be your preference, but a man certainly can enjoy sex with a woman who is not attracted to him. If this were not possible, there would not be an “oldest profession”. You think whores find their johns hot? Doubt it.

    You failed to consider a very important attribute of whores: they are professionals who know how to “fake it” such that their customers enjoy the experience (they wouldn’t make much money otherwise; word about specific whores gets around fast). On the other hand, the average “non-professional” wife who is not sexually attracted to (or who is repulsed by) her husband has neither the training nor the inclination to exercise such a skill.

  75. Cail Corishev

    All I am saying here is that duty sex isn’t going to generate attraction where there isn’t any. — deti

    Right. There probably have to be some embers there, at least, or she’s just going to resent him for it. And you make a good point: husbands who want their wives to enjoy it aren’t just thinking about their own pleasure; they genuinely want their wives to enjoy it too. As I said before, a big part of the pleasure comes from witnessing her pleasure. If she doesn’t enjoy it — really dislikes it every time — we’ll feel like we’re doing something wrong. As guys, we want to fix it so it works for both of us.

    That’s where the dissatisfaction is coming from, not: “If she’s not totally into it, I’m getting ripped off.”

  76. sunshinemary Post author

    As for whether prostitutes find their johns hot, no, but it’s not a useful analogy. The john doesn’t give a shit whether she finds him hot or not, because he doesn’t care about her. He doesn’t care about her because his only investment is a sliver of time and some money; and he’s not committed anything to her. She’s getting paid, and he’s getting sex. He gets to go home afterwards, and doesn’t have to deal with her anymore. The man wants his wife to be into the sex, and wants to not engage in sex she doesn’t want, because he … Oh, I don’t know, LOVES her and CARES about her.

    OK, good. That’s an excellent point, and well-taken. But honestly, wouldn’t it be more loving and caring to let her please him? To be please-able? If she feels like she can’t please him even if she tries, she is going to feel so dejected.

    I really need to communicate this right and I’m really afraid I won’t but I want to try.

    Women have a very deep need to please their men. I don’t think men believe we have this intense desire to please them because all around us roam rebellious feminist wildebeests, but please believe me that the desire is still there. Even in the wildebeests actually, which is part of the reason they are so enraged. They know they really want to serve a man and they hate this desire that they cannot rid themselves of.

    But sometimes we feel like we can’t please them. No matter what we do, it won’t be good enough, it won’t be the best he’s ever had, and it just makes us feel worthless. Every time she tries to give him something, it’s not satisfactory because she isn’t as sexually-charged as he is. What happens is she starts to feel very rejected and then she just shuts down.

    That is why I say it is a kindness if he allows her to please him. Maybe she’s not great at it. Maybe he can see that she’s just doing it to make him happy. But making you happy is what makes us happy. If we aren’t in total rebellion, that is, or if we are not allowed to be in total rebellion.

    Maybe some other woman here can do a better job explaining that feminine need to please her man than I have done, but I’m sure every woman here knows the intensity of that desire.

  77. deti

    Stingray:

    OK, your points are well taken, but they’re beside the main one I was making, which is that attraction cannot be created where there isn’t any to begin with. Dominant, forceful, willful sex from a guy she’s not attracted to is not going to create attraction. Attraction has to be there first. And attraction is important because we’ve discovered here that W’s sexual attraction to H is a very good predictor of the long term health and durability of a marriage. If there’s no attraction, I don’t think duty sex is going to make things all that much better, other than carry out her obligations to the marriage.

    That is all I’m saying here.

  78. Stingray

    which is that attraction cannot be created where there isn’t any to begin with.

    This I can see. Yes, but I do think as someone said above, if there are embers than it can absolutely grow. And it goes to you point, do NOT get married if there is no attraction.

  79. feeriker

    Cail said And you make a good point: husbands who want their wives to enjoy it aren’t just thinking about their own pleasure; they genuinely want their wives to enjoy it too. As I said before, a big part of the pleasure comes from witnessing her pleasure. If she doesn’t enjoy it — really dislikes it every time — we’ll feel like we’re doing something wrong. As guys, we want to fix it so it works for both of us.

    This cannot be stressed heavily or often enough. I really do think that far too many women adhere to the stereotype that the only thing any man wants (and that includes their own husbands) is “a hole and a heartbeat,” the woman’s pleasure be damned. As cliched as these acronyms are becoming, all I can say here is MMALT.

  80. deti

    SSM:

    “Women have a very deep need to please their men. “

    That was a good and hearlfelt explanation of it. But it’s incomplete.

    Let me add this and I’ll leave it there because I think I’ve made the point.

    Women have a very deep need to please the man (men) they are attracted to. (I believe this to be 100% true.)

    If the attraction is not there, she will not care in the slightest if he is pleased or not.

    Because when women talk about “Men” or “their men”, one should always add “that women find attractive”.

  81. deti

    “but I do think as someone said above, if there are embers than it can absolutely grow.”

    Agreed. Cail said this. I also said it at the beginning of the thread.

  82. earl

    And men must be very careful with women when it comes to marriage…they can marry you without being attracted to you. They can play an actress to get you into marriage for their own devious ends.

    That’s why you need to be a good negotiator…that way you see what type of women you’ll be getting. Remember you should highly value your freedom like she should highly value her virginity.

  83. sunshinemary Post author

    do NOT get married if there is no attraction

    Of course not. However, I see no evidence that there is any widespread epidemic of women who have NO attraction for a man getting married to him anyway. I think there is almost always at the very least a spark of attraction that fades out as familiarity sets in. The possibility exists to bring that spark back. It may not always work, but it’s always worth a try.

    And in any event, even if there is no (longer) any attraction, that does not negate my original point. Sex is not optional in a marriage. First Corinthians 7 does not say that we can deprive one another if we find our spouse kind of icky.

  84. feeriker

    SSM said Women have a very deep need to please their men. I don’t think men believe we have this intense desire to please them because all about us roam rebellious feminist wildebeests, but please believe me that the desire is still there. Even in the wildebeests actually, which is part of the reason they are so enraged. They know they really want to serve a man and they hate this desire that they cannot rid themselves of.

    But sometimes we feel like we can’t please them. No matter what we do, it won’t be good enough, it won’t be the best he’s ever had, and it just makes us feel worthless. Every time she tries to give him something, it’s not satisfactory because she isn’t as sexually-charged as he is. What happens is she starts to feel very rejected and then she just shuts down.

    Flip the sexes here. It cuts both ways.

  85. deti

    Fee and Cail are steel on target here.

    Look, here’s the thing with duty sex., ladies. You don’t like it. We KNOW you don’t like it. We can SEE you don’t like it. We don’t like putting you through it. Because we, oh, I don’t know, LIKE you and LOVE you and CARE about you and don’t want to see you uncomfortable.

    I guess we should get much more selfish and care less and less about your needs and more about our own. I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.

  86. sunshinemary Post author

    Women have a very deep need to please the man (men) they are attracted to. (I believe this to be 100% true.)

    If the attraction is not there, she will not care in the slightest if he is pleased or not.

    The desire exists independently of whether or not there even is a man in her life. Women such as nuns who have no man undoubtedly still have that desire, but they use it to serve and please God instead.

  87. Stingray

    SSM,

    Agreed, and that’s why I think many of us are leaving the part about attraction out. Sure, it happens, but I think there are at least embers in most marriages today and they burn out, as you said. Dominance is what gets them burning.

  88. Zippy

    feeriker:
    Flip the sexes here. It cuts both ways.

    Sure, but you can break the, uh, logjam by waking up one fine morning and deciding that you are sick of overthinking it and no longer give a crap.

  89. feeriker

    I guess we should get much more selfish and care less and less about your needs and more about our own. I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.

    That really does seem to be the bottom line. I’ve decided, however, that sacrificing my personal and spiritual integrity for the poon is just too high of a cost.

  90. modernmathetes

    The fact that men are ticked off about their wives giving them duty sex is just “useless whining. Any man who’s that whiny about not wanting the free cookie his wife is offering him because it’s oatmeal raisin instead of chocolate chip is so beta that he’d have no hope of gettin’ any lovin’ outside of marriage either.”

    I agree that many men tend to be whiny about this but I think there is more to the story. The relationship between husband and wife is to image Christ and the Church. Will heaven be populated by people begrudgingly praising God?
    Does God desire our enjoyment of Him?

  91. Zippy

    I guess we should get much more selfish and care less and less about your needs and more about our own. I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.

    That’s one way of saying “stop being a supplicating wuss dancing on the strings of pwincess’s every wittle feewing.”

  92. Stingray

    Ok, I think I might see some of the problem here. We are getting a “flip the sexes” and the men want to love and care for their wives. Completely on target and completely understandable. However, the sexes love and care for each other differently. You want to show a women you love and care about her during sex? Great, she wants and desires dominance. This idea of your wife thinking that you are using her as a hole is not an issue when she can see that, not only are you going to dominate her, but that you desire her so much you can barely stand it. That is very loving to us. Especially as we age. Showing us that we still have it is loving and caring and doing that in a way that you can barely contain yourself and just have to have your way with us is extremely exciting.

    A lot of the men here seem to want to love their women as they want their women to love them. Understandable, but it doesn’t work the way you want it to. Conversely, the women reading need to learn to love their men as men want to be loved and that means that 99 times out of 100, it might start out as duty sex but will usually rock your world either way. If you can’t do that yet, learn how.

    [ssm: Well-said.]

  93. deti

    “The desire exists independently of whether or not there even is a man in her life. Women such as nuns who have no man undoubtedly still have that desire, but they use it to serve and please God instead.”

    True enough as far as it goes, but it’s a non sequitur. We’re talking about a wife’s attraction for a husband and how that affects duty sex. It’s hard to believe that we even HAVE to talk about duty sex, but St. Paul thought it needed to be addressed. It would be a hell of a lot easier for everyone involved if there’s attraction there. If there’s none, I just don’t see how duty sex is going to help the marriage. Certainly it’s biblically required. Perhaps all that can be done is pleasing God, if you cannot please each other.

    OK, point made, dead horse beaten.

  94. Deep Strength

    Let me let you in on a little secret, ladies: your husband, however much he dearly loves you and otherwise trusts you in all things, however much he might want to please you with every fiber of his being, is NOT going to just open up, even to you, his wife/helpmeet/best friend the world, about the problems that are affecting the most intimate part of him (and the psychological and emotional mechanisms that power it). Your husband instinctively knows that this is the Achille’s Heel of his being as a man, the one thing the failure of which he knows can have catastrophic consequences for him and his relationship with you. In other words, this is your husband at his most vulnerable. The reluctance to be open about this, even with the person closest to him, might not even be a conscious thing at all. It just might be another aspect of his “hardwiring” as a man, the biological imperative of not showing weakness where it can do the most potential damage.

    What feeriker said is correct.

    From what I’ve observed it needs to be broached in a submissive way. If you nag him it’s obviously going to cause him to be defensive.

    Maybe it was RPWifey or one of the other women in the ‘sphere who said to adopt a submissive posture. Sit him down and then kneel at his side and talk to her husband about what she is feeling and why it is making her upset/angry/deprived/etc.

    As long as it’s done in a submissive and not an accusatory way it will appeal to his masculinity to want to help fix the problem (instead of being the aforementioned defensive).

  95. earl

    “I guess we should get much more selfish and care less and less about your needs and more about our own. I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.”

    Exactly.

    Besides most of her needs are emotionally based anyway. Your needs probably have some logic behind them and by extention benefit her.

  96. feeriker

    I just don’t see how duty sex is going to help the marriage. Certainly it’s biblically required. Perhaps all that can be done is pleasing God, if you cannot please each other.

    Y’know, maybe that statement serves as both explanation and a description of the root of the problem (or at least a part of it). I doubt very many people who consider themselves to be Christians actually read Scripture thoroughly and extensively enough to recognize this message and I can almost guarantee that no pastor ever delivers a Sunday sermon on the subject (in other words, we’re talking about churchians here rather). Even if a few do recognize and absorb the message, even fewer are willing/able to act on it.

    Dare we ask any men out there how often they’ve invoked Scripture to prod their otherwise unwilling wives (or ask how often they’ve SUCCEEDED in their attempt)?

  97. OffTheCuff

    Sting: “I am going to pick on you for a minute because even though I completely understand this idea, I have come to hate it. Masculinity does not equal jerk.”

    That’s because you are taking advice given to a man, by a man, and trying to apply what it looks like from the outside, as a woman.

    What *feels* like being a jerk to a lifelong gamma, will on the outside merely look like a baseline level of healthy confidence. In his mind, he will be feeling “I’m being a cruel, horrible person”. On the outside, everyone will think “he’s standing up for himself”.

    This is why the rhetoric towards Roissy-betas tends to be full of hyperbole: such men have get past their own internal frame, in order to project the right thing to the outside world.

    How you see yourself is not how others see you.

  98. sunshinemary Post author

    I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.

    I dunno, from what I can tell, you’ve already done that pretty well.
    :) OK, I’m razzing you, but in all seriousness, when you say this:

    It would be a hell of a lot easier for everyone involved if there’s attraction there. If there’s none, I just don’t see how duty sex is going to help the marriage.

    I agree BUT I think that overstates how often there is NO attraction. Just using myself for example, I am attracted to my husband but I just can’t help having a lower drive. And he can’t help having a higher one. And neither of us is weirdly off the charts or anything, so it just is what it is. Therefore, duty sex is part of our life on a weekly basis. And it really isn’t that big a deal. It’s not something dreadful, and I think most married couples are more like us than like the couple who has zero desire for each other.

    Really, aren’t all of us here in marriages where we are attracted to our spouse but just have a slight (or maybe for some folks more than slight) mismatch in drive? It’s not the end of the world, and I’d rather put out the duty booty than leave him unsatisfied. That’s really the main point of my essay.

  99. feeriker

    Stingray said Masculinity does not equal jerk.

    Uh huh. Apparently some ninety percent of the ambient female population either didn’t get that memo, didn’t bother to read it, or thought the message to be completely irrelevant.

  100. Dalrock

    @sunshinemary

    On non-attracted duty sex: I have no experience with this, but I would think that part of it would require being able to put on a good show. If any readers here have any advice for those unfortunate souls who find themselves in this situation…

    Plainly spoken: how do you make it look like it doesn’t disgust you? I think acting as if you desire your spouse is appropriate.

    I think non attracted duty sex is quite rare, but like so many other issues it is a convenient distraction whenever the issue of the obligations of a biblical wife come up. What if he is gross! In short, I would wager that 90% of the time the issue is raised it is really about rebellion and power. She doesn’t want to feel any sense of obligation to her husband, so out comes the trump card.

    But for those few who do find themselves married to a man they find repulsive, how did they find themselves in such a situation? Did they go against Paul’s advice in 1 Cor 7 and marry a man they didn’t burn with passion for? If so, who can they blame but themselves? Or, did they marry a man they had passion for and make him grovel/Love Dare to repulsivity? If so, she has a choice; her girlpower or her attraction for her husband. If she insists on choosing the former, I beg her to stop bitching to the rest of us about not having the latter.

    As for what is required of the (corner cases) where the wife finds herself having to offer unattracted duty sex, aside from fixing what she broke, all she needs to do is act loving. No need for her to fake attraction, just act like she loves and cares for him. She doesn’t need to sound like a parody of the hooker in Good Morning Vietnam, she just needs to be loving, and sincerely show her husband that she wants to meet the need that only she can licitly meet. I strongly suspect that most women who do this will find themselves quickly falling into the “attraction duty sex” category which you describe, but either way this is the solution.

    As for the potential bitchfest from the husband, men who bitch about a wife who is sexually loving but not attracted have no more of my patience than women who marry men they aren’t attracted to or who manage to betatize the husband they were commanded to submit to.

  101. Rollo Tomassi

    Prostitution is the template for ‘duty’ sex. Think about that for a minute – biblical interests aside, marriage is contract that is essentially an arrangement of negotiated desire, and as I’m often quoted, you cannot negotiate genuine desire.

    When you pay a prostitute to have sex with you you’re essentially negotiating contractual desire. She pretends to want to have sex with you, makes it a good performance (if she has the talent for it) and the transaction is complete when you exchange dollars. In marriage, duty sex is a similar, but obviously protracted arrangement. Let me emphasize ‘duty sex’ is a similar arrangement, that’s not to say there might not also be ‘desired’ sex on occasion.

    If you subtract the difference between how often women want sex and how often men do, you will find the average of how often women engage in sex that they have no genuine desire to. If a guy wants it 7 times a week and a woman only 2 times that desire differential would be 5. Reduce that fraction and you have a couple where ‘desired’ sex only happens once per of every 3.5 sexual acts. If your wife’s idea of a good sex life is twice a month, well then you can see what kind of a differential that would be.

    I voted 2-3 times per week (with an off week hummer) on Cail’s poll, because I’m fully aware of this genuine desire dynamic. Ideally I would love to bang Mrs. Tomassi 7-8 times a week, but I know that performance and enthusiasm (married sex or single sex) declines with that kind of frequency. You also have to consider women’s cyclic nature of their sex drives. When women are in the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle the desire and enthusiasm intensify. The best ‘desired’ sex you have will be during this phase, the “are you finished yet? I have clothes to fold” sex is usually around her down cycle.

    And that’s really the crux of it, if sex is a chore to add to a wife’s list when she’s on her off week, that association starts to be applied to her ‘on’ weeks. Maybe I’m a bit jaded because my N count is probably higher than most commenters here, but from personal experience, I’d much rather have sex with a woman who genuinely can’t keep her hands off of me, because she’s into having sex with me, not because she feels she has to. In marriage that requires more finesse and logistical understanding than when you’re single, but it’s not impossible.

    As a married man you can always pull rank and convince your wife to perform her biblically mandated wifely duties to have your needs met, but you can’t make her want to bang you. It’s interesting to consider how against porn most christians are in that it’s considered sexual immorality and has the effect of removing the human element out of sex, but the way I see it ‘duty’ sex is only one degree of difference from porn. The human is there, and technically it’s not immoral if it’s your wife, but the function is the same.

    Just as an aside I should mention that ‘duty’ sex is how feminists define most marital rape. If a woman engages in sex unwillingly, or is obligated to, it’s sex she didn’t want to have and is therefore rape.

    [ssm: Good point about the cyclical nature of women's desire.

    I totally don't agree with you about porn, and not only because porn is immoral. Sex is not only about satisfying our sexual urges. It is also about bonding and uniting the couple. A woman who isn't feeling very sexual but engages in duty sex with her husband (let's say that she is attracted to him but just has a somewhat lower drive than he has) is still going to feel bonded and united to her husband. Porn doesn't bond or unite you to anything. Not anything good anyway.]

  102. Stingray

    Really, aren’t all of us here in marriages where we are attracted to our spouse but just have a slight (or maybe for some folks more than slight) mismatch in drive?

    All of us here, quite likely. But we are not representative of the rest of the world and I think this is where a lot of the men are coming from. I know couples where sex is nothing but a chore for the wife. However, I don’t think there is no attraction because most of these folks were having sex long before marriage. During that time, there was definitely attraction.

  103. Stingray

    OTC,

    I can definitely see that, I just don’t want these guys to keep feeling that way when it is completely unwarranted.

    feeriker,

    Meh, to the 90% of the female population. Them calling you a jerk is simply their way of trying to maintain control.

  104. earl

    It is probably one of the many side effects of premarital sex is that the desire really fizzles into marriage. If the lady herself is trying to convince a sucker to marry her by blinding him beforehand so that he will agree to anything…with her endgame being that she will use him as she wishes in the marriage and/or divorce him.

    I agree with Rollo that real genuine desire can’t be negotiated…but it can certainly be faked for a time if you are trying to get something.

  105. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Dalrock

    But for those few who do find themselves married to a man they find repulsive, how did they find themselves in such a situation? Did they go against Paul’s advice in 1 Cor 7 and marry a man they didn’t burn with passion for? If so, who can they blame but themselves?

    Oh, I completely agree with you. I didn’t really address that in the OP, since I was just referring to people who are already married, but to the unmarried I would definitely say don’t marry someone with whom you don’t have good physical chemistry.

    I would wager that 90% of the time the issue is raised it is really about rebellion and power.

    A very wise observation. No doubt most marital problems have rebellion and power issues at their root, as we learn in the very first book of the Bible:

    Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

    As for what is required of the (corner cases) where the wife finds herself having to offer unattracted duty sex, aside from fixing what she broke, all she needs to do is act loving. No need for her to fake attraction, just act like she loves and cares for him. She doesn’t need to sound like a parody of the hooker in Good Morning Vietnam, she just needs to be loving, and sincerely show her husband that she wants to meet the need that only she can licitly meet. I strongly suspect that most women who do this will find themselves quickly falling into the “attraction duty sex” category which you describe, but either way this is the solution.

    Do other men here agree with this? I don’t have experience with non-attracted duty sex but what I keep reading is that one of the things men really love about porn is that the woman appears to be out of her head with enjoyment and lust. Is just being loving okay?

    Anyway, one thing I agree with: even if she’s not attracted to him, submission and a desire to please can generate attraction. I know most of my readers don’t believe it’s possible to generate attraction where none exists, but I do not agree with them.

  106. Lee Lee Bug

    @SSM
    Thank you for your prayers. My procedure was more complicated than anticipated and I had to spend nearly a week in the hospital, but I was blessed to have one of the best cardiac surgeons in the Northeast and a wonderful team of nurses who kept me well cared for and well entertained during my stay. I’m already feeling well enough to hit the gym this weekend .

    @Freeriker
    I have brought this issue up to my husband in the past and I always try to do it in a respectful way. Most recently, he blamed his lack of interest on constant worry about our finances and guilt over how hard I work to help support our family. I told him I don’t mind working and that God probably has me at my very liberal organization for a reason, and i asked if there was anything I could do to help. I even suggested that we could sell our home in the country and move into town to save on mortgage and property tax expenses.

    I think he appreciated that I want to help, but it didn’t fix our bedroom situation, which I believe is most likely related to a physiological problem that he’s hesitant to address.

    Peacefulwife.com recently had a blog post about this that I plan to re-read. The blog hostess there is a pharmacist as well as a Christian who helps women become more submissive, respectful wives so she may have some good, practical tips.

  107. earl

    Masculinity is a foreign concept to most women nowadays with our feminized men. A guy doing normal masculine things would probably be a jerk or creep in her eyes because he isn’t following the herd thinking.

  108. Elspeth

    “I guess we should get much more selfish and care less and less about your needs and more about our own. I guess from what I’m hearing more today, I need to get in touch with my inner douchebag.”

    Put it however you want, but yes. I guess you should. Or am I like the only woman here who has woke to find I had to like…get with the program?

    I don’t know what’s “douche-baggish” about that, really. When you marry, you consent.

    And I still believe that most women who marry have some level of attraction to their husband at the time they marry.

    That can be rekindled.

    [ssm: Of course most women marry men they have some attraction to. This idea that lots and lots of women are marrying men whom they find sexually repulsive right from the get-go is silly nonsense.]

  109. Deep Strength

    @ SSM

    Anyway, one thing I agree with: even if she’s not attracted to him, submission and a desire to please can generate attraction. I know most of my readers don’t believe it’s possible to generate attraction where none exists, but I do not agree with them.

    I think all of us fully agree with this. BUT it’s so rare that do you even know of anyone who has actually done this in real life?

    The only people I’ve seen that do this are a handful of ‘sphere women.

    It requires a woman/wife to (1) admit she is wrong, and (2) humble herself before both God and her husband, and (3) truly repent.

    This is also something that the man has control of even if he is in a dominant, masculine, Christian frame. Women still rebel against that as well.

    [ssm: Actually a number of my readers have strongly disagreed that it is ever possible to generate attraction where there was none to begin with. Just because something is difficult or because few people choose to do it does not mean that it is impossible.]

  110. Dalrock

    I mistakenly wrote Good Morning Vietnam, but I meant the hooker in Full Metal Jacket. For those who don’t know the reference (language warning):

  111. Looking Glass

    @SSM:

    Can’t comment on the sex bit, but I can respond on the “be treated well” aspect. A Husband will drive a car through a building for a Wife that treats him well. Let’s be kind of clear here: Life is *always* pretty terrible for Men. You either learn to “overcome” Life or it breaks you. There’s no in-between point. There’s rarely any life-lines offered. (And having to take one has its own consequences for your psyche)

    Wives really have lost the art of “building up” their Husbands. A little self-control & forethought (i.e. don’t dump all over him before he’s even taken his coat off from work) will produce a very valuable Husband. At least, assuming you didn’t marry a Man that’s completely incompetent. (That’s an issue that a Wife can’t fix, period)

  112. Elspeth

    And I agree with (was it Dalrock?) who said that if a woman married a man she in unattracted to, for whatever reason, she has to do her duty. And with the right attitude.

  113. Dalrock

    I posted a correction to my Good Morning Vietnam reference, including a link to the applicable scene in Full Metal Jacket. I think the spam filter picked it up.

    [ssm: Thanks for pointing that out. It was indeed in the spam folder.]

  114. Cail Corishev

    This calls back to something I was saying the other day, and believe to be true:

    Very few women marry a man they aren’t attracted to at the time. Maybe the attraction fades, maybe it turns to loathing, but it existed once.

    If I’m right, that means that the idea of women finding themselves obligated to pay the marital debt to a man they’ve never desired is a bit of a strawman. That might happen in societies with arranged marriages, but it doesn’t happen here. So what we’re usually talking about is a woman who was enthusiastically sexing up a man in the past, and now she doesn’t want to. As Dalrock says, how did she get there? She can’t claim there’s nothing attractive about him, because there once was, and even if he turned fat, bald, and broke, there must have been other things that drew her, which she could focus on to stir the embers. If her libido seems low, she could see a doctor or make dietary changes. If she refuses to make those attempts, it probably is more about rebellion than anything else.

    Dalrock also nailed it by saying she needs to be loving. If she approaches sex with the same loving attitude she would use while surprising him with breakfast in bed, it’s gonna be fine. When we talk about enthusiasm, we’re not talking about porn-star acrobatics and moaning to wake the neighbors. A smile and an attitude that says, “How can I please you?” goes a long way.

    I’m talking about women here because that’s usually the direction it goes, but for the record, the same thing applies to a man like Lee Lee Bug’s husband. If he knows she’s not satisfied, and he’s physically capable of servicing her more often, he should get off his ass and do it lovingly because that’s his job, whether he feels like it or not. If he’s physically incapable, he should get that looked at. Unfortunately, I have no idea what to suggest to her that could help. She can’t shame him or nag him into it. Another man could, but that’s not something she can make happen.

  115. Opus

    You Americans are sex mad.

    Reminds me of that girl at college who when (cheekily) asked by the lecturer in Tort what she understood by ‘a thing in action’ (a legal concept I have long ago forgotten) replied that she ‘always looked at the ceiling’.

    Sex (as they tell you in Scotland) is what coal comes in.

    So far as I can tell the marriages of my closest friends are pretty much sex-free – we would not dream of forcing ourselves.

  116. deti

    SSM: “Anyway, one thing I agree with: even if she’s not attracted to him, submission and a desire to please can generate attraction. I know most of my readers don’t believe it’s possible to generate attraction where none exists, but I do not agree with them.”

    Deep Strength: “I think all of us fully agree with this. BUT it’s so rare that do you even know of anyone who has actually done this in real life?”

    I don’t agree. I have never, ever seen a woman submit to a man she’s not attracted to and thus generate attraction, even if she has a desire to please. Attraction is either there, or it isn’t. It either exists, or it doesn’t.

    Again, the very specific point I’m making here is that duty sex isn’t going to create or generate attraction from W to H where it doesn’t exist. She still has a duty to do it. He still has a duty to let her do it. But it’s not going to create attraction.

  117. sunshinemary Post author

    Again, the very specific point I’m making here is that duty sex isn’t going to create or generate attraction from W to H where it doesn’t exist. She still has a duty to do it. He still has a duty to let her do it. But it’s not going to create attraction.

    Based on what evidence? I say I think it’s possible, you say you think it isn’t possible. Neither of us has any personal experience with this, so we’re just kind of guessing here. It’s not like anyone will admit that they are in such a marriage, so we can’t just poll our friends and find out.

    Until someone presents clear evidence one way or another, I would say that the issue of whether or not attraction can be generated where initially there was none is unknown. That being said, it is unwise to marry someone to whom one is not attracted. However, if one finds oneself in such a situation, the wise course of action would be to try like heck to generate the missing attraction.

  118. feeriker

    @LLB
    @Freeriker
    I think he appreciated that I want to help, but it didn’t fix our bedroom situation, which I believe is most likely related to a physiological problem that he’s hesitant to address.

    Happy to hear that you’ve made efforts to address your hubby’s issue from the “submissive wife” perspective. That’s definitely an auspicious start.

    (Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor or a psychologist and don’t even play one on TV, so read the following as just one man’s opinion)

    The root of his problem might be that maddening combination of the physiological and the psychological. Been there, done that. Certainly his worries over the household finances are a contributing factor (NB: most of us guys worry obsessively and constantly about this, and other ever-looming threats characteristic of the modern world we live in, even when times are good). While low T might be your husband’s issue, and one that he most certainly SHOULD have looked into, he might be hesitant to address it not only for the reasons I listed upthread, but also because of a well-earned distrust of the medical profession today. My own opinion, one that I know is widely shared, is that any condition that is represented by a constant barrage of advertisements in the sheeple-targeted MSM for the latest miracle drug (that in almost all cases will be tomorrow’s banned/dangerous drug) is one to be very skeptical of (for example, I have a congenital problem with high “bad” cholesterol, one that every Establishment MD I’ve ever visited has insisted that I treat with some form of statin drug, a toxic poison with long-term catastrophic effects that I REFUSE to ingest). You know your husband better than any of us, but is it possible that he doesn’t want to entrust the return of his libido to the medical cartel?

    In any case, if I were to offer any more advice, it would be to GENTLY urge him to seek help for his physiological issue. If he (or you too, for that matter) don’t like or are uncomfortable with the treatment prescription that he gets from one doctor, seek additional opinions (as long as you can do this before ObamunistCare takes the option away). In fact, it might be worth investigating homeopathic treatment options. These are non-traditional and not covered by most insurance (and might be a bit more difficult to find), but I’ve gone that route for other ailments and conditions and have nothing but good to say about it.

    Again, take the “free” advice for what it’s worth (i.e., what you paid for it), but it might be another option to consider.

  119. Dalrock

    @Deti

    Again, the very specific point I’m making here is that duty sex isn’t going to create or generate attraction from W to H where it doesn’t exist. She still has a duty to do it. He still has a duty to let her do it. But it’s not going to create attraction.

    I disagree, and it is all in the frame. As Cail wrote:

    If she approaches sex with the same loving attitude she would use while surprising him with breakfast in bed, it’s gonna be fine. When we talk about enthusiasm, we’re not talking about porn-star acrobatics and moaning to wake the neighbors. A smile and an attitude that says, “How can I please you?” goes a long way.

    The secret most women here would no doubt agree with is having this attitude is tingle creating. Being owned by a man is sexy. Having a duty to her husband is sexy. There are two ways she can get there. He can overcome her feminism with his game, or she can overcome her own feminism with her submission. The latter is the biblical answer for wives, but a loving husband (also biblical) should want to give his wife the feelings good Game will help her feel. So if we are talking to the husband, the answer is up your Game, etc (Romance 101). If we are talking to the wife, the answer is to fulfill her vows as 1 Cor 7 instructs regarding not depriving/defrauding and as Eph 5-22:24, 1 Pet 3:1&5, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11, and Tit 2:5 instruct regarding submitting to her husband.

    @Rollo

    Prostitution is the template for ‘duty’ sex. Think about that for a minute – biblical interests aside, marriage is contract that is essentially an arrangement of negotiated desire, and as I’m often quoted, you cannot negotiate genuine desire.

    You are right about negotiating desire, but wrong about marriage. If the point is to have desire, then as you advise spinning plates is the solution; marrying is insane from that perspective. If desire is paramount, get good at the uncommitted sex game so it works in your favor (but it isn’t, so you shouldn’t). But biblical marriage isn’t about negotiating desire. As I explained above, the biblical wife can fulfill her vows without either feeling or counterfeiting desire. This isn’t ideal, and I would argue is even tragic, as marriage can be so much more. But this gets back to the question of inversion; marriage is the only moral place to pursue sex and romantic love (what you are calling desire), but the common misconception is that romantic love (desire) is the only moral place to pursue sex and marriage.

  120. Zippy

    Dalrock:
    But this gets back to the question of inversion; marriage is the only moral place to pursue sex and romantic love (what you are calling desire), but the common misconception is that romantic love (desire) is the only moral place to pursue sex and marriage.

    Yes, this is a very important insight, and despite the attention you’ve given it it doesn’t seem that many people get it. But the inversion is everywhere.

  121. Elspeth

    We understand that inversion Dalrock is referencing. It’s just that it requires a paradigm shift that isn’t easy even for the most devout.

    We are products of our culture after all and most of us made it to the altar the wrong way. It is grace that has kept us married. That, and a bit of maturity.

  122. nightskyradio

    just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it

    I’ve violated dozens of women like this. One confident stroke of my Pen is all it took.

    …we’re talking about probation, right?

  123. tbc

    there are lots of people who are quite happily married despite having little attraction and not much drive for sex with their spouses…what do you think people who have same-sex or bi-sexual attraction do who are married (I mean real married, not ‘ghey’ married)? And sex is a discipline in marriage. It is not always the man who has the higher drive as LeeLeeBug reminds us. I have a relative in the same situation. The husband just doesn’t care that much about sex. Of course they have other issues as well, many of which would be solved if he were more dominant (in my opinion), but on the sex thing — he just doesn’t care that much and in fact he’s like that about a lot of things. I mean he will go a whole day and not eat because he forgot. He just doesn’t view it as important.

    Where was I? Oh yeah, sex as a discipline. Sex is very much like exercise but more so, what with all the endorphins and so on released. And people get very much hooked on running (aka the runner’s high) because of these hormones, so why should sex be any different. Something my taekwando instructor said once seems applicable. You may not want to come to practice, but you never regret having come. And it was true. Sex falls in that category. Yeah, you may not feel like (and sometimes I am the one who doesn’t feel like it even though I’m the man), but I don’t think we’ve ever regretted making the effort. In fact I would prescribe duty sex for a man like LeeLeeBug’s husband — everyday for two weeks he should have sex with his wife, whether he feels like it or not. Why? Because it is good for the marriage. It is good for his health, and you know it might actually increase his libido.

    I was single a long time before I married, so when I married, it was actually a bit of a discipline to get have sex with my wife — strange though that may seem. I was VERY used to NOT having sex and to exercising self-control (as was she) so it felt strange to suddenly have this licit outlet for sexual expression

  124. modernmathetes

    I think wives often lose desire for their husbands because they develop a sense of entitlement. I remember my wife complaining a few years into our marriage that I didn’t take her on dates much anymore. I had to point out that while I bought her dinner from time to time while we were dating, I bought every meal now that we were married. And put a roof over her head. And paid for her car. And… Funny she never even gave that a thought until I pointed it out.

    [ssm: Gratitude is sorely lacking in modern women, especially gratitude toward men for all that they do for us.]

  125. feeriker

    I had to point out that while I bought her dinner from time to time while we were dating, I bought every meal now that we were married. And put a roof over her head. And paid for her car. And… Funny she never even gave that a thought until I pointed it out.

    And if she took this lesson to heart, learned from it, stopped complaining, and started showing some actual gratitude, then you, sir, landed a keeper. Congratulations and well done!

  126. earl

    “However, if one finds oneself in such a situation, the wise course of action would be to try like heck to generate the missing attraction.”

    Well that depends…

    Is attraction a choice or not?

    Some people say no…I’m more of the department that it is a yes.

  127. everydaybride93

    Feeriker – That is my hubby and although I am far from perfect I am thankful for my husbands leadership and honesty with me. I appreciate his leadership and care for me and our boys and will take it anyday over romantic dates. I take pride in being a “low maintenance wife”. I see marriages and families falling apart all around me but I am blessed with an absolute assurance that he is commited to the Lord and to taking care of me and our family. He has not wavered from that for 20 years.

  128. empathologism

    Its happened a few times where I was called on for duty sex. Tired, whatever. That it becomes wanted sex after starting, eh, you can always eat another ice cream bar even if you are not wanting it and its enjoyable like that, but nah, it doesnt transform from duty to passion.

    This duty sex thing is psychologically perhaps more trap laden and tricky than the roller coaster of refusal then agreement. My wife is pretty much a not say no gal 70% of the time, meaning months on end then a season of a couple of months she is different. When it is duty, very very subtle things she says or does can wreck the illusion that sustains a man through duty sex.
    If she grimaces….which lets face it most people men and women make some faces I tell ya….but if it looks like discomfort……The End. If she sighs, if she gets too verbally encouraging, counter intuitive but rasping out “come on baby” is microns from “hurry the hell up” under certain circumstances.

    The best is if it at least playful, poke fun, etc. during duty times. My wife tells me she firmly believes that it is the right thing to do, don’t like the word, but she subscribes to the duty when its an off day for passion.

    Its a heck of a lot easier for men getting duty sex if the wife is sexually attractive to them.

  129. empathologism

    they develop a sense of entitlement. I remember my wife complaining a few years into our marriage that I didn’t take her on dates much anymore

    Mine used to do that too. I think she grew out of it. With 4 kids, 7 animals, wife full time student and me recently taking on new and massive responsibilities and work load at work, we grab the time when the kids are brushing teeth for petes sake

  130. tbc

    It would be better said that attraction is learned, not that it is a choice. There is something to be said that is true of the song, “I’ve grown accustomed to her face”. We think our attraction vectors are set, and to a certain extent they are, as far as attractiveness is a measure of biological fitness. But there is a great deal of variance within that. For example very slim women were not always thought to be attractive, but rather women who were plump (not fat, plump). The same with having a tan… it used to be considered very unattractive — a sign that you were low class and had to work outside.

    So we learn what is attractive based on what we see around us all the time. Which is one of the reasons we tend to be attracted to women (or men) that sort of resemble our opposite sex parent – women marry men who have their father’s temperament (often) and men marry women who are sorta look like their mothers (often)

  131. sunshinemary Post author

    Dalrock:

    marriage is the only moral place to pursue sex and romantic love (what you are calling desire), but the common misconception is that romantic love (desire) is the only moral place to pursue sex and marriage.

    Zippy:

    Yes, this is a very important insight, and despite the attention you’ve given it it doesn’t seem that many people get it. But the inversion is everywhere.

    This is a critical insight. I have a number of lurking readers who come from outside the manosphere who might not be familiar with Dalrock’s foundational essay on this issue, so suffer me to quote from it at length:

    Lovestruck

    What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage. Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.

    Lifetime marriage, with separate defined roles for husband and wife and true commitment is what makes sex and romantic love moral in the biblical view. In our new view, romantic love makes sex moral, and the purpose of marriage is to publicly declare that you are experiencing the highest form of romantic love. Thus people now commonly refer to a wedding as “making our love official”.

    The gradations we now apply to romantic love are symptomatic of the problem. We take great care to distinguish between “pure love” or “true love” and mere “infatuation” or “puppy love”. But there is no biblical basis for this kind of thinking, and scientifically there is no reason to believe the hormones/chemistry is any different. The reality is (physical) sex naturally tends to create feelings of romantic love. When channeled correctly this is both moral and incredibly enjoyable.

    I highly encourage readers who have not already done so to read that essay in its entirety:
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/lovestruck/

  132. empathologism

    if we are talking to the husband, the answer is up your Game, etc (Romance 101)

    Game and Romance 101 are polar opposites are they not? I get your point, but romance 101 is about wallowing and serving her and flowers and all that….game is about frame, or…..whatever.

    If he ups his game to overcome duty sex and make it desired sex, this is a sort of inversion or reversal or something. he is doing “duty-man-up-and-game”. Its not a perfect analogy but there is an analogy between duty sex and upping game. Its unfavorable if looked upon dispassionately

  133. orion

    Methinks that duty sex is pitiful.

    However, duty blowjobs are not half as bad,

    How much is that, 30 minutes for 2-3 blowjobs a week?

    What, she can shave her legs, brush her teeth, watch soap operas, gossip with her friends, but not worship her husbands cock?

    That is an interesting set of priorities right there.

  134. Deep Strength

    Yes, it is the entitlement vs gratitude dilemma. Women do not take into account and/or are not aware of all that a man will sacrifice for her and the children (hmm, I’m beginning to sound like Rollo although this is prevalent in the Scriptures).

    In fact, this attitude change frequently occurs when we have in abundance such as in Western civilization. The people in poor countries do not have this problem because they have little. They are very grateful for anything they receive.

    This is why Jesus commented that it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. He wasn’t just talking about money.

    This is why women who have sexually sinned need to *truly* repent because they realize that they made mistakes (just like any of us in our mistakes) and they don’t deserve anything. The “blaming it on others” attitude and lack of responsibility is another symptom of entitlement.

  135. empathologism

    men who bitch about a wife who is sexually loving but not attracted have no more of my patience

    Why? I understand you. But think through all the possible iterations of this. The couple, married 20 years, 15 of which were burning hot sexually, then she gets unhaaapy, which manifests in her saying she is not attracted, refusing sex, finally maybe a divorce. She tells friends “I’m just no longer attracted to him”. he is as fit at 45 as he was at 25, successful, same personality, etc. This is not uncommon. Why would we not give him the time of day

  136. sunshinemary Post author

    tbc

    sex as a discipline

    Yes. I’m going to write a post on that soon. There is a spiritual aspect there because it is the physical manifestation of the one-flesh union.

    Rollo:

    You also have to consider women’s cyclic nature of their sex drives. When women are in the proliferative phase of their menstrual cycle the desire and enthusiasm intensify.

    Men who don’t know about this should learn about it. It’s startling how much a woman’s drive goes up during the week of ovulation. I’ll go from desiring it twice a week to twice a day during ovulation, and I think many women (if they would get off those darn contraceptive pills) are exactly the same.

    Also, a happy bit of advice for female readers:
    No one ever talks about the ONE good thing about being in your forties: as you become peri-menopausal, your estrogen drops, which makes the T ratio higher, and your sex drive goes up. Your window of intense desire around ovulation gets longer…up to about seven days in length, in my experience. Everything else about aging is horrid, so try to enjoy the one good thing about it while you can.

  137. earl

    Sex, attraction, romantic love, chivarly, etc…was all destroyed when we decided to worship upon the altar of emotions and whims instead of putting the emotions in the proper place.

    Emotions are to submit to righteous actions. They were never meant to lead or dictate a situation. In fact I think the best order on deciding an action is spiritual, physical, emotional.

  138. earl

    Women should also learn the male sex drive. Basically at almost any time, in almost any place, with any attractive woman. That’s what 12-20 times the testosterone feels like.

    The fact we have as much self-control as we do is more of a factor of God’s grace than anything.

  139. Rollo Tomassi

    No one ever died from only getting laid twice a week.

    Maybe not, but it can prompt one to seek sex from other avenues.

    One of the best relationship Game moves I ever made was to let go of ‘quota sex’. When I first got married (and was far less Game aware) I used to keep track of how many times Mrs. Tomassi and I would knock it out. Like most couples our married sex frequency declined in comparison to our pre-marital sex frequency, and like most men I thought this was a raw deal rather than just a result of logistics and living together.

    I did the predictable Beta thing and had ‘the talk’ with her about it because that’s what I’d been conditioned to think men should do – communication, etc. et. al. This is never the right play because, as I’ve written about, appeals to women’s reason never works. In fact ‘having the talk’ only exacerbates the problem since you can’t avoid coming off as whiney or sulky, AND you only confirm that you’re not a guy who “Just Gets It”. This is anti-seductive.

    I was keeping tabs on our sex life, because she obviously wasn’t – I had a quota for acceptable sexual frequency, that she’d begrudgingly keep to, but the sex was lackluster.

    As my career progressed and I was increasingly around more attractive women in my line of work, and as I became more Game aware it hit me; I was going about it all wrong. Women don’t want a man to cheat, but they love a man who could cheat. When you have a quota of acceptable sex with your wife, you only confirm for her that you are a man who doesn’t have the options to cheat on her.

    At one point I said, OK no more sex quota, and just left it at that. This simple act of dropping my quota condition increased her frequency and desire overnight. The imagination was running; what had been so important to me in the first couple years of marriage wasn’t a big deal to me anymore and she wondered why. I learned that it serves a man better NOT to have quotas and become the Man that other men want to be and other women want to bang. You simply wont inspire genuine desire by overtly negotiating terms of acceptability. Genuine desire stems from anxiety, urgency and uncertainty, this is why single sex is so much more intense than married sex will be. As I’ve said before the make-up after a fight or breakup will always be more memorable and intense than any preplanned, contrived, make-it-romantic-again date-night sex ever will be.

    Now it’s Mrs. Tomassi who say we need to have sex tonight and keeps track of how often we do. This is as it should be. Your wife needs to be the one on call with regards to sex, she needs to have a reason to be concerned with your sexual fulfillment as a priority.

  140. redpillsetmefree

    I am purposely censoring what I actually feel, i.e., gut reaction, and what I actually want to say. Once I work it out I’ll post my fit-for-public-consumption thoughts.

  141. earl

    “Now it’s Mrs. Tomassi who say we need to have sex tonight and keeps track of how often we do.”

    From my friends who do NFP…that’s how they do things. The wife keeps track of what her body is doing, when they are having sex, and they go from there.

  142. FuzzieWuzzie

    The appeal to encourage women to have duty sex is all well and good, until you consider wives in rebellion. It would seem that a lot of wives never quite grow out of this.
    Should I thank the “wildebeests”?
    Btw, referring to them as widebeests is insulting to wildebeests. Apologies from the bear.

  143. Hipster Racist

    LOL, welcome to ovulation week on my blog. We’ll get back to discussing how bad people’s morals are nowadays next week. This week it’s all penis water towers and sexx talk

    LOL this is why I read this blog, SSM and Elspeth essentially competing with each other over whose husband is the Greater Stud and which one wants to sex him up more often.

    I’m telling you, it’s like a breath of fresh air compared to the typical manosphere and relationship blogs, where everything is divorce, lack of sex, etc. Even a never-married cad like myself sometimes thinks it may be worth actually settling down when I read women like y’all.

    Also, my apologies for leading riff raff like Laguna Beach Fogey here.

  144. infowarrior1

    @Zippy
    “These men need an attitude adjustment. If she is consenting, then just take her — her body belongs to you, so have your way with her and don’t be apologetic about it.”

    I still remember that on christian radio. A man did just that and apparently this traumatized woman when recounting this story burst into tears. Hence implying she was raped in marriage.

  145. feeriker

    Stingray said feeriker,
    Meh, to the 90% of the female population. Them calling you a jerk is simply their way of trying to maintain control.

    Rereading my original post, it is now obvious that I didn’t make my intended meaning clear. Allow me to completely rephrase my clumsily worded original statement:

    Whenever women make the statement “masculine != jerk,” or some pedantic variation thereof, they are usually addressing men to whom they feel no attraction whatsoever. When it comes to men for whom they are hawt, then the bigger the “jerk factor,” the more attracted the woman feels. In fact, he can’t be “jerk” enough for her in most cases.

    Fixed.

  146. feeriker

    I still remember that on christian radio. A man did just that and apparently this traumatized woman when recounting this story burst into tears. Hence implying she was raped in marriage.

    [*Shaking head and rolling eyes*]

    Sounds like the type of tripe that’s regularly regurgitated on programs like Dobson’s and various FotF outlets.

    “Christian” radio stations and their programming are the ultimate in churchian propaganda and disinformation.

  147. Stingray

    feeriker,

    Understood, but I think that has more to do with the fact that that stems from women defining masculinity rather than men. I am coming from the male definition of it. Did you read the link I left? It explains my position in far more detail.

  148. tz2026

    One can make the duty pleasant or burdensome.
    If it is alternative to masturbation, it won’t really be pleasant for either, But even if the partner with less drive is seduced, or the aim is to give more than to receive then the focus is different – sometimes I find although I didn’t want to do something, when I went through with it, I found it more than worth it. It depends of whether the goal is taking or giving, selfish or selfless.

  149. Pingback: Quote of the Day- November 8th, 2013 | Donal Graeme

  150. Dalrock

    @Empath

    men who bitch about a wife who is sexually loving but not attracted have no more of my patience

    Why? I understand you. But think through all the possible iterations of this. The couple, married 20 years, 15 of which were burning hot sexually, then she gets unhaaapy, which manifests in her saying she is not attracted, refusing sex, finally maybe a divorce. She tells friends “I’m just no longer attracted to him”. he is as fit at 45 as he was at 25, successful, same personality, etc. This is not uncommon. Why would we not give him the time of day

    I mentioned one thing, but you took it to something else entirely. A husband who complains that his wife is sexually loving but not attracted to him is being entirely unreasonable. As Rollo rightly points out, you can’t negotiate desire. But this is different than the denier, or the wife who doesn’t outright withhold but makes a big show of what a chore it is. And you took it a step further, and put the loving (and marriage honoring) but not attracted wife in the same category of the withholding divorcée. So my question back would be why would you categorize these as the same when they are so completely different?

    @Rollo

    Now it’s Mrs. Tomassi who say we need to have sex tonight and keeps track of how often we do. This is as it should be. Your wife needs to be the one on call with regards to sex, she needs to have a reason to be concerned with your sexual fulfillment as a priority.

    I think this is the natural place both men and women would ultimately prefer to be in, and I think this dynamic is extremely common especially as couples move through the SMV chart. I don’t doubt that your Game/frame helped a great deal, but I don’t think it is entirely a coincidence that when you were younger you were more beta/needy, and that as you grew professionally and in other life experience that you both fell into this much more natural frame.

  151. alphabetasoup

    I am a bit skeptical of those guys whining about the emotional damage they “feel” when given duty sex.I think it is far more likely it is their ego suffering the damage. I think that men have been duped by the culture and some Gaming ideas that their wife should should be a raging ball of lust for him all the time.

    I know that when my wife simply obliges versus enjoying it it makes me “feel” like a failure and I have found that this is because i have bought into the romantic lie of the culture.I want her to be overpowered with lust for me and to squirm in ecstasy because of my studly performance and frankly sometimes it just aint that good. Sometimes sex is just sex.

    It should go without saying that men want to please their wives.For a wife to not be pleased could easily seem like failing but really thinking like this is just being solipsistic and a slave to your wife’s approval. In the end you are better off to take the cookie and shut up.

  152. Rollo Tomassi

    @Dal, Not so much Beta neediness as it was my being accustomed to more frequent and more intense sex prior to marriage (with both my wife and other women), but the Beta reaction was what I was defaulting to. Unless you’re going into marriage as a virgin, and thus are blissfully ignorant, I think there’s always going to be a sense of bait & switch for a guy when he realizes his ‘sure thing’ married sex came with a lot of small print and disclaimers a year or two into marriage. As I’ve said before, I’ve yet to meet the guy to tell me he was getting more sex after he got married than when he was dating his now wife.

    And yes, SMV has everything to do with it. The age at which most women want to get married 27-30 is when they begin to recognize their SMV decline, while men are just beginning to experience their SMV ascend. It’s a cruel joke that once again puts men into a tough position when evaluating whether marriage is worth it. Once that peak potential comes into play the sexual paradigm shifts to his control, but when a woman wants to get married is after she’s used up her own SMV potential.

    Yet one more sacrifice a man must make that no woman will ever have the capacity to appreciate.

  153. orion

    “Yet one more sacrifice a man must make that no woman will ever have the capacity to appreciate.”

    Must make?

  154. Cane Caldo

    @Dalrock

    Despite your error, when you said “Good Morning Vietnam”, I immediately thought, “Five dollars is more than my mom’ll allow me to spend.”

    My experience is that humor goes a very long way towards negotiating these shoals while keeping the ship of dignity intact and both crew on board. I won’t trespass on upon Mrs. Caldo’s repertoire, but I–perchance after being too long in port, and thus without my sealegs–have been known to say something like, “I’m just going to rest my eyes, now. What you do is your business. Please: Enjoy yourself.”, or, “Hey, if you can catch it, you can clean it.”

    If it’s the other way around, then, “Lady, I paid for dinner AND a show.”, or, “I understand you are not yet sold on the value of our service. That’s why I’m going to give you a free demonstration.”

    I’m also a believer in the pre-game show, but not flowers and footrubs. You’re leading her mind into the sack. “That’s What She Said” jokes are always easy fodder (Her: Oh, I am so stuffed. Him: That’s What She Said). If she says, “Have you seen my big spatula?, you say, “In the shower this morning.” Tickling is always good too. (On the subject of Kino: Take every opportunity to put your hands on your wife. It almost never transpires that I walk within three feet of Mrs. Caldo’s ass without slapping, pinching, or rubbing it.)

    This humorous leadership removes all the pressure for this to be a “tender” encounter, and it makes it more than just animal rutting (Though I recommend these also, this is for those other times). We’re just having fun, and that’s more than acceptable. That’s the secret behind dress-up, and shoes, and all that stuff.

  155. grey_whiskers

    @Laguna Beach Fogey November 8, 2013 at 11:55 am

    What is your position ,on mistresses?
    I’ve never had one, nor shall I. But I surmise that usually the first position would be either standing (just couldn’t wait) or missionary.

  156. grey_whiskers

    @RolloTomasi on November 8, 2013 at 2:05 PM, @ssm
    [ssm: Good point about the cyclical nature of women's desire.

    I totally don't agree with you about porn, and not only because porn is immoral. Sex is not only about satisfying our sexual urges. It is also about bonding and uniting the couple. A woman who isn't feeling very sexual but engages in duty sex with her husband (let's say that she is attracted to him but just has a somewhat lower drive than he has) is still going to feel bonded and united to her husband. Porn doesn't bond or unite you to anything. Not anything good anyway.]
    Tsk tsk tsk, @ssm, and you hinted the sexy subjects were because you were ovulating.
    Duty sex provides a wife with her required allotment of “husband’s magic elixir” also known as Vitamin S. (administered in liquid form, you know.)
    Unless she’s kneeling under the computer desk when he finishes, teh pr0n doesn’t do that.

  157. Sarah's Daughter

    Lee Lee Bug,
    You’ve been around for a while, you’ve told us a lot of what is going on in your marriage. I was first thinking on the lines of what tbc expressed above: http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/in-defense-of-duty-sex/#comment-35771
    I have a few other thoughts that you may want to consider.
    You are a fit and very attractive woman. You are committed to fitness, so much so that you are ready to head back to the gym already after your procedure. You already have a stronger sex drive than your husband and you are in the habit of doing things that create more of a sex drive. I was reminded of this scene in Spanglish. Forgive me, I have no idea how to post a video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHRXkt34caI
    We’ve heard how your husband doesn’t make assertive decisions, and your desire for him to. Well darling, you may in fact need to get over the fact that you are married to a natural Delta and perhaps a Gamma. He is not on this blog looking for advice in changing anything about his life. It is unlikely that any change that will be made will come from you.

    Have you given any thought to becoming softer? Not as hardcore? Skip the gym – I know that can become addictive. Lighten up some. I say this because I know what it’s like being married to a man who is not interested in a rock hard, balls to the walls woman. I’m not saying you aren’t feminine, you obviously are and are turning the heads of other men – though that might just be out of raw sex appeal and not femininity (I know a few women like that at my gym). But are you turning the head of your husband. Does he feel like he’s competing with you? Is he intimidated by you?

    Plenty of men here and around the ‘sphere will offer up advice on what your husband should do – how can that possibly help you? How can you translate that advice to a man who seems prone to a Gamma mentality. Since he is your husband and you are committed to him. Submit yourself to him. That may mean lowering your standards and growing comfortable with what his standards are.

    I’m tempted to be a bi*ch by telling him I’m tired of living like roommates and he needs to do something. But, he knows I won’t cheat on him or divorce him so I don’t have much leverage.

    You don’t respect your husband and it shows. Hit your knees and pray that God will change that in your heart. He will not change based on any amount of leverage you could possibly have. He, actually, does not need to change. It is quite possible, however, that once he actually feels that you genuinely respect him, that he will change.

    I don’t care if you have every reason in the world to not respect him. That has nothing to do with the call you have from God to respect him.

  158. Pingback: The Righteous Alpha | Donal Graeme

  159. grey_whiskers

    @nightskyradio November 8, 2013 at 3:30 pm

    just violate her, and don’t be so sniveling and apologetic about it

    I’ve violated dozens of women like this. One confident stroke of my *Pen is* all it took.

    I see what you did there!

  160. lgrobins

    “I’m tempted to be a bi*ch by telling him I’m tired of living like roommates and he needs to do something. But, he knows I won’t cheat on him or divorce him so I don’t have much leverage.”

    I appreciate lee’s humility here. She recognized the temptation to bitch, that she can be “like that”, but doesn’t. If you see her comment at Elspeth, she admitted to going to therapy once in awhile to bitch to a therapist and spare her husband, a much more healthier way of dealing with emotions given her home situation.

  161. lgrobins

    “That may mean lowering your standards and growing comfortable with what his standards are.”
    If his standards are depression, misery, grumpiness, should she too become those things?

  162. lgrobins

    “Duty sex can be deeply unitive and loving even if it lacks the physical intensity of sexual attraction.”

    When you gain some actual field experience on this, please report your findings. Until then its all speculation. One thing I have learned in blogging is to not claim to “know” anything for a fact until experienced and then even then it is just your experience. I use to have a lot of assumptions about motherhood that I am now embarrassed to admit that I got all wrong, because I was writing from false authority that I had actually experienced motherhood when I had not yet.

  163. Je Suis Prest

    @ SSM

    But sometimes we feel like we can’t please them. No matter what we do, it won’t be good enough, it won’t be the best he’s ever had, and it just makes us feel worthless.

    I know this is slightly off topic, but I just realized that this is what I was trying to get at when I commented in a post a couple months back about being scared about not being able to please a man because I don’t have any ummm pre-marital experience. A number of the male commenters assured me that so long as I was pleasant and willing everything would be fine and I think that’s probably because I may have come of as worrying about not knowing what to do, but what I was/am worried about is wanting him, whoever he turns out to be, to be pleased with me…

    [ssm: I think the key is making sure you marry a man to whom you are very attracted. Actual technique isn't the issue; I'm guessing your husband will be more than happy to teach you that. All a chaste woman needs to bring to the marital bed is desire, attraction, and a willingness to please. You'll be fine. :)]

  164. Sarah's Daughter

    lgrobins,
    I haven’t found bitching to therapists to have any benefit for my disrespectful heart. In fact, I’ve found the more people enable me to give voice to my complaints, the deeper the conviction becomes that am justified in my disrespect. The only help I found with my disrespectful heart was to give it to God, to pray and repent of it.

    If his standards are depression, misery, grumpiness, should she too become those things?

    Those are not standards, they are outward expressions of discontent.

    Respect is regard, esteem, concern, appreciation, consideration, and deference. When a woman respects her husband, she casts aside judgement and her covetous heart. She puts her expectations and standards in check and accepts her husband no matter the condition of his heart. I’ve not known this to be possible without prayer when a wife has already conjured up all manner of judgement and expectation in her heart toward her husband. I’ll be honest, it is probably the most difficult thing God calls us to do, as wives. Especially when our husbands have been back sliding on the masculine characteristics that command respect. But it is not impossible, with God.

    It is not a list of rules followed or actions – it is a condition of the heart.

    There is nothing uglier than a woman who judges her husband and is covetous. We do a disservice to the marriage covenant when we agree with a woman on why her husband is unworthy of her respect – God does not tell us wives to respect our husbands when conditions are perfect to do so, in fact the mystery is revealed when we respect our husbands despite their worthiness. Well meaning Christians judge this and pity the woman who does it – God doesn’t… he blesses it.

  165. Amanda

    @SSM

    Thanks for the link to the Dalrock article — it’s excellent.

    ** “Also, a happy bit of advice for female readers:
    No one ever talks about the ONE good thing about being in your forties: as you become peri-menopausal, your estrogen drops, which makes the T ratio higher, and your sex drive goes up. Your window of intense desire around ovulation gets longer…up to about seven days in length, in my experience. Everything else about aging is horrid, so try to enjoy the one good thing about it while you can.” **

    Yay!!!

  166. a good ROI

    The caveat from the survey… if you were (or are) married to a woman you found attractive — not a supermodel, but someone who doesn’t repulse you or make you want to avoid her…”

    10 years ago before the extra 60-70 pounds, 10 years ago before all of the other “stuff” and now there ARE days where I do want to avoid her. Because from the way she acts she MUST hate me. Thankfully me wanting to avoid her does not last for more then a day (or two), but that could change I guess, unfortunately. Seems to be getting worse, when I feel like I have been doing better as a man, husband, father. And I know (hope) that she does not truly hate me. She softens many times, based on how I react and respond. Which I grow pretty tired of, having to play the game we all know. I understand having to be tough and be a man, but to figure out that the woman you married has no clue and no desire to learn about the social dynamics of relationships between a husband and wife. Yeah, that is depressing.

    I use to want it nightly and sometimes twice a day. Almost never had it more then once a week.

    Now, it actually makes me sad, but I definitely do not think about sex with her as often. Maybe once a week. Just thinking. We still do not normally have sex more then once every 2-4 weeks. I have stopped initiating or showing that type of interest, because frankly I am not interested anymore in having sex with her.

    For awhile she was actually initiating, 2-3 times a week, for about 3 weeks, I think she was reading one of the red pill / red pill woman blogs I had bookmarked or left open. Or maybe responding to my drop in initiation. Anyways, that did not last and I, again sadly enough, was not bothered by it. Did I enjoy it? Sure, because it was sex. Was I longing for it like I used to, no. I’ve gotten use to the default, not having sex with her. During the few weeks she was initiating there were times I thought, oh “duty” sex. Then laughed because I figured I would have never been the one to be performing duty sex. Of course the very few times I have refused her since being married, because I was upset or some other reason she goes nuclear and goes off on herself to me about being overweight and I do not desire her and etc, etc, etc wanting validation that I really still do desire and love her. I still do love her.

    Although if I had know that it was going to be like this I would not have gotten married. I am in no way saying I have been perfect as a husband. I have failed a multitude of times, especially in the leadership category. Hey, aren’t we supposed to be equal and have consensus in making decisions? Yeah, I know the answer to that question now.

    What really annoys me though is getting hit on by other women, brushing them off and half way wishing, I would have not been so “Christian” when I was younger and taken the girls up on their offers in high school and college, so I would have at least had those “memories” to hold, probably make me even more miserable. Ha!

    Eh, life sucks and then you die.

    (Yes, I know how I sound in the above; sad delta / gamma / bordering omega, I am probably depressed right now).

    Sorry, wow… that was a rant and a half and mostly off-topic. Leaving it so maybe someone else can learn from my mistake(s).

    [ssm: I'm sorry to hear about your situation. Could I offer you a moment of encouragement? Nothing is impossible for God. I am not spouting a platitude here: I was married to an atheist and an adulterer who is now a Christian and faithful. I encourage you to engage in intense prayer, especially of the warfare sort, because it sounds to me like your marriage has been taken captive as a stronghold. You may email me for more of my thoughts on that if you wish.

    Second: have you tried Married Man Sex Life's MAP? I know Athol Kay has written several books that a number of married people have found helpful. I haven't read them yet myself, but his forum is full of discussion that might be helpful to you.

    Third: I have prayed for you and your wife.]

  167. imnobody00

    There are two types of duty sex, because they are two attitudes when it comes to duty.

    First, we have the “it’s my duty and I’ll do it with love and the best I can” attitude. Or, as someone put it:

    If she approaches sex with the same loving attitude she would use while surprising him with breakfast in bed, it’s gonna be fine. When we talk about enthusiasm, we’re not talking about porn-star acrobatics and moaning to wake the neighbors. A smile and an attitude that says, “How can I please you?” goes a long way.

    I don’t have any reasonable man can be dissatisfied with this.

    Secondly, we have the “it’s my duty so I’ll do it but I will do as little as possible and I am not going to hide my lack of enthusiasm. I hope this ends as quickly as possible” attitude.

    If duty sex were of this second kind, I would prefer to go to the bathroom and masturbate. My hand is not going to humiliate me. I am not the only one:

    I don’t want duty sex. Duty sex is icky and demeaning. I just want normal, marital sex where BOTH partners do it because they want to. (thank God this has been said by a woman)

    The day after my wife gives me this treatment I would approach my job with the same lack of enthusiasm she has for sex. I understand she wants to have sex less frequently I want her to have. But I also want to work less she wants me to work to finance her lifestyle. She has a lower sex drive. I have a lower slave drive and I can’t fake it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  168. tbc

    @inforwarrior — the arguments he advances are technical and complex, and indeed are substantive arguments based primarily on lexical studies; they are not easily dismissed. Most laypersons and even most pastors do not have the linguistic chops to wade into his arguments with any degree of efficacy. His arguments is based however on a certain hermeneutical approach to scripture that ‘reads’ the passages in question through the lens of equality in Christ, which influences how he then interprets disputed words. So it isn’t the technical aspects of his argument that are necessarily problematic — indeed they are strong. It is, rather, his initial assumptions that guide his exegesis — assumptions that are broadly egalitarian and anti-hierarchical.

  169. mrsdarlings

    Duty sex doesnt haaaaaave to be duty sex. There are so many ways a woman can increase her libido no matter her age. I’ve seen older meopausal women resurrect their sexuality. BUT only after she BELIEVED she could. Submission is a direct link to sexuality. The lower the libido is basically a sign of submission that has yet to be acquired. After that KEGELS! Weak muscles = weak results (pleasure). Therefore once was a duty is a self sought and desired pleasure. UNTIL then yes duty sex. Which is for her benefit to keep herself emotional stable.
    http://www.housewifesexuality.wordpress.com

  170. earl

    “BUT only after she BELIEVED she could.”

    90% of the problems we all face can be fixed with an attitude adjustment.

    The other 10% requires elbow grease and good old fashioned gumption.

  171. grey_whiskers

    @Je Suis Prest November 9, 2013 at 12:31 am

    @ SSM

    ” But sometimes we feel like we can’t please them. No matter what we do, it won’t be good enough, it won’t be the best he’s ever had, and it just makes us feel worthless.”

    I know this is slightly off topic, but I just realized that this is what I was trying to get at when I commented in a post a couple months back about being scared about not being able to please a man because I don’t have any ummm pre-marital experience. A number of the male commenters assured me that so long as I was pleasant and willing everything would be fine and I think that’s probably because I may have come of as worrying about not knowing what to do, but what I was/am worried about is wanting him, whoever he turns out to be, to be pleased with me…
    People on this thread have been alternately dancing around / disagreeing on this one.
    I take it you are not yet married?
    Please be warned, this may be fairly graphic.
    Giving notice for any who are offended by such to skip the comment..
    3.
    2.
    1.
    OK.
    There are two types of men: sexual connoisseurs and regular guys.
    The first kind are often found among some of the alpha / playa / PUA types:they don’t just want sex, they want porn star sex. They are very into *technique* and want the exotic.
    Regular guys may want some spice, but what they really want is *ENTHUSIASM* — very much like your wanting him to be pleased with you — they want you to be *adoring* of him: to enjoy *him* because of his c**k, and to delight in his c**k because it’s *HIS*.
    They want to be able to see and hear your desire for him — and how this is communicated is between the two of you, whether it is running your hands up and down his torso while staring into his eyes during foreplay, lovingly servicing him, the intensity with which you receive and return his thrusting, your moaning, or digging your claws into his back, or the pet name for his c**k you call him by when answering his phone call — try any or all and see how he responds.

    For the guys: in order to get this response out of your wife, you have to not “man up” but “alpha up” — lose the beer gut, exercise, do the cocky and funny routine as though you were hitting on her before you started dating — do this even around the house. Combine this with blowing through shit tests to set the mood.

    Then, when you are in bed, don’t simperingly ask if you can have some — that’s a turn off.
    Instead, be confidently assertive, with the attitude “I’m going to bone you silly until you can’t walk straight. You can choose to be pouty and miss out on the fun, or you can enjoy it. Guess which one will make you happier tomorrow morning.” Then follow through with it!
    In the words of the secret diary of William Byrd II of Virigina, (thanks Hillsdale College!) :

    “I rogered my wife vigorously.”

    Look at it this way: @ssm and similar sites are telling today’s “modern empowered woman”
    — your man has to fight a hard cruel world all alone. They don’t want to come home to another *man*. Similarly, women don’t want to go to bed with another *girl*.
    “Life is hard, women are soft.”
    “Women are soft, they want something *hard*.”

  172. grey_whiskers

    grey_whiskers November 9, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Follow-up on the previous post.

    [Graphic menu list of erotic expressions deleted for brevity].

    Two comments —
    1) would you guys agree that the difference between “duty sex” and “good sex” is the extent to which she does or does act like the things in that list?
    2) This also touches on the alpha widow: for a woman, sexuality, desire, and emotion are all intensely coupled, and the idea for seduction as in marriage is to get her into a self-reinforcing spiral (triggered by and associated with *you*) to the point that she literally cannot say “No” — and in fact is engaging her hamster ON YOUR BEHALF.
    May I suggest that the alpha widow phenomenon is such that the alpha is a man for whom she has done this, the willing loss of identity and self-will (whether through tingles or as @ssm had said, horrifyingly, even sometimes due to an indecent assault), and her inability to bond subsequently is not that she really “loves” him, but that she has *internalized* him, and to reject or supplant his place in her heart is to betray *herself*.
    @Elspeth, @ssm, by analogy to how you feel about your alpha husbands, am I hitting fairly close here?

  173. tbc

    @infowarrior — I should also add that that blog is primarily about apologetics so i don’t think feminism is his ‘gig’ so to speak

  174. grey_whiskers

    @mrsdarlings November 9, 2013 at 4:26 am

    Duty sex doesnt haaaaaave to be duty sex. There are so many ways a woman can increase her libido no matter her age. I’ve seen older meopausal women resurrect their sexuality. BUT only after she BELIEVED she could. Submission is a direct link to sexuality. The lower the libido is basically a sign of submission that has yet to be acquired. After that KEGELS! Weak muscles = weak results (pleasure). Therefore once was a duty is a self sought and desired pleasure. UNTIL then yes duty sex. Which is for her benefit to keep herself emotional stable.
    http://www.housewifesexuality.wordpress.com

    Kegels help at *any* age. But if you do the sex right, you don’t need the Kegels so much.

    When we went to the midwife visit midway through my wife’s first pregnancy , the midwife put several fingers inside my wife’s vagina and asked her to squeeze, in order to evaluate muscle tone.
    This was one of those touchy-feeling blue-pill-drenched places, where even though having a baby is *good*, the fact that a man had to be involved to get you pregnant is *bad*, because he was probably just using you anyway.
    The midwife hinted my wife would probably need to do Kegels in order to help with delivery, and my wife told her “I don’t need to do Kegels, I’m fine as it is.”
    So, my wife squeezed.
    The midwife’s eyes bugged out, and she quickly pulled her hand out, stammering something like “You’re in shape” and gave me a *very* strange look, one from which all the hostility had somehow disappeared.

  175. grey_whiskers

    @infowarrior1 November 8, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    @Zippy
    “These men need an attitude adjustment. If she is consenting, then just take her — her body belongs to you, so have your way with her and don’t be apologetic about it.”

    I still remember that on christian radio. A man did just that and apparently this traumatized woman when recounting this story burst into tears. Hence implying she was raped in marriage.
    You can’t do that kind of thing *cold* — going straight from being a beta herb to “putting it down like a King”. She’ll get the emotional equivalent of a diver getting the bends.
    You either have to do Athol Kay (Married Man’s Sex Life) MAP first, or at least acclimating her over time to being more and more masculine in bed: but again, that works best in the context of overall increasing masculinity.
    I remember once reading in a book by James Dobson (“Focus on the Hamster”) that someone wanted him to write a sequel to his book “How To Live With A Strong-Willed Child” to be entitled “How To Live With A Strong-Willed Woman” and he said more or less that he wouldn’t touch that with a ten-foot pole.
    Ironically enough, touching it with a ten-foot pole *is* how you tame a strong-willed woman.

  176. Obliterated

    This made me think of Matthew 21:28-31. Why did the first son say, “No” in the first place? Probably because he didn’t want to or didn’t feel like it. But he changed his mind and did what he was told anyway. And really, for a Christian–when we see sex as not just the sole (exciting!) reason for getting married, but also as unifying and a duty and a reflection of Christ and His bride in some mysterious way…sex is no longer just about pleasure but rather obeying God and doing His will. As a Christian should that not be our primary focus regardless of our “tingles”? Yes. And I’m coming from a place of very real, painful betrayal affecting my desire for my man. But I’ve still done it (duty sex when the betrayal involved sexual sin primarily) and I don’t regret ever doing something that God says is right, even if it wasn’t fun or I didn’t feel like it.

    [ssm: Agreed.]

  177. earl

    I’m starting to like embracing the hardness and pain of life…it makes me feel alive and masculine. Comforts are only good for a short time and make you soft in the long run.

    Of note…I’m talking about the God given events or my choices of hardness and pain that I like. Once women start dictating what pain I should get, things will get out of whack.

  178. Elspeth

    @Elspeth, @ssm, by analogy to how you feel about your alpha husbands, am I hitting fairly close here?

    My husband has never been sexually timid, so I wouldn’t know what the opposite dynamic is like. I can say that aggressiveness (at least to me) is very attractive in itself.

  179. grey_whiskers

    @Elspeth —
    Thanks for the comment — but I guess I didn’t ask my question right.

    I mean — if you were (God forbid) widowed — thought experiment — do you feel or think or believe you’d *ever* be able to yield to another man as you now do to your husband?

    Or, if there were a war and you were *forced* to “re-marry” — would you always carry the touch and scent and memory of your husband in your mind, even when in bed with the new husband?
    (If you *can’t* let go, and resist even a suggestion that you should want to — is *that* what an alpha widow is? Or is it even less self-aware than that? (“Love him? I am him.”)

    Respectfully tendered,
    g_w

  180. Elspeth

    I mean — if you were (God forbid) widowed — thought experiment — do you feel or think or believe you’d *ever* be able to yield to another man as you now do to your husband?

    Oh, heavens no! This is it, for always and forever. No remarriage, no other men. Said hypothetical new man deserves much better.

    Or, if there were a war and you were *forced* to “re-marry” — would you always carry the touch and scent and memory of your husband in your mind, even when in bed with the new husband.

    See answer to question number 1.

    I guess it’s a good thing that I’ve already hit the wall and it isn’t something I need concern myself with if the worst were to happen, LOL.

  181. sunshinemary Post author

    OK, we’re leaving for the football game in a few minutes, but I wanted to quickly respond to a couple of things before we go.

    ssm: “Duty sex can be deeply unitive and loving even if it lacks the physical intensity of sexual attraction.”

    lgr: When you gain some actual field experience on this, please report your findings. Until then its all speculation. One thing I have learned in blogging is to not claim to “know” anything for a fact until experienced and then even then it is just your experience. I use to have a lot of assumptions about motherhood that I am now embarrassed to admit that I got all wrong, because I was writing from false authority that I had actually experienced motherhood when I had not yet.a

    It’s true that I haven’t experienced non-attracted duty sex personally. What happens for attracted duty sex is that you aren’t feeling the urge, he is, so you do it, but more often than not, you end up getting aroused, too. So the duty part is really in the getting started phase. I’m sure it is very different with duty sex that lacks physical attraction because that would probably not involve any sexual arousal for her.

    However, I stand by my assertion that duty sex *can* be deeply unitive even if it lacks sexual attraction because it squares with what is written in Scripture. We don’t have to personally experience something in order to know about it (otherwise there could not be male obstetricians), and we definitely don’t have to personally experience everything in the Bible to believe that it is true.

    Consider:

    For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Ephesians 5:1

    Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24

    Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 1 Corinthians 6:16

    He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matthew 19:4-6

    The Scriptures don’t say that we are united as one flesh if and only if we join our bodies together with sufficient lust. When we join our bodies together (notice that particularly in 1 Corinthians 6:16), we ARE united as one flesh.

    If a woman is not attracted to her husband, she should still have duty sex with her husband and he should not refuse her. They should do so for the unitive purpose if for no other. And in any event, they would be violating the 1 Corinthians 7 command not to deprive one another if they did not come together.

  182. grey_whiskers

    @earl November 9, 2013 at 9:12 am

    I’m starting to like embracing the hardness and pain of life…it makes me feel alive and masculine. Comforts are only good for a short time and make you soft in the long run.

    Of note…I’m talking about the God given events or my choices of hardness and pain that I like. Once women start dictating what pain I should get, things will get out of whack.

    Sorry, Earl, but I can’t let that one just past by unchallenged. :-)

  183. earl

    Mandy doesn’t have the sufficient upper body strength or imagination for a good flogging. That’s why kids shouldn’t watch her or her bad technique.

  184. lgrobins

    If we experience something not written in scripture, what do we make of that…is our experience false, an illusion? Is it that we are not praying enough, submitting enough, leading enough, otherwise all of our experience would line up to the bible?

  185. tacomaster

    SSM, thank you for posting the Bible verse above from 1 Corinthians. In particular, the last verse really stuck out to me:

    5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    If you truly believe that the Bible is truly God’s word and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow you will see how much wisdom is behind this verse.

    I’m especially referring to the portion of the verse that says “…so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”. I’m seeing this verse come to fruition in my own life right now with older family members who have been married close to 30 years, both in their late 50s/early 60s. My aunt and uncle have separated since August and he has moved into his RV, where he is totally fine being. She’s still in the house. I’ll call her Betty and him Bob. Both of them have told me things that the other person doesn’t know about and I see what they say and do when the other person isn’t around.

    Betty’s perspective is that Bob refuses to retire and has become a workaholic these last few years. He now wants to hang out with people in their twenties and thirties instead of the people from church in their sixties and older. He’s also lost about 50 pounds and goes to the gym regularly and got a nutritionist to make a healthy meal plan he can go by. She doesn’t like this. I see her put him down about the weight loss and his new friends to her friends and church people. She’s going to file for divorce because she’s not happy (really said that).

    Bob, when I asked him what was going on, told me that she hasn’t had sex with him for ten years and that she chose when she found out she couldn’t have more kids that there was no point in being intimate. He’s wanted her to at least get mani/pedis, go to the salon–get a hair style, etc but she has never wanted to do any of that. Her clothes are from the 80s. It’s not like they don’t have money. He has become a workaholic to stay away from her because it is a distraction for him and the lack of sex he’s endured. He told me they hadn’t even been sleeping in the same bed for the last several years.

    Recently he’s started buying Viagra and going to bars, hanging out with young girls, etc. That’s why this verse struck me. “…So that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control”. I think all of this could have been diverted had they been having sex all along. This whole thing is depressing. He should be retired now and they should be driving around the country living it up. Instead he’s partying with young people and she’s miserable in their big house alone.

    Moral of the story: have sex with your spouse

  186. Pingback: Quote of the Day | A Northern Observer

  187. tacomaster

    Deti:
    you said ” One way that men can do this is simply to be quite forward that they want sex, and then go for it. Don’t ask. Tell. Don’t suggest. Direct. And if she won’t, then get up and walk away”

    I’ve been doing this since I got advice from the group and it has been working wonders. I appreciate you guys.

  188. Elspeth

    If we experience something not written in scripture, what do we make of that…is our experience false, an illusion? Is it that we are not praying enough, submitting enough, leading enough, otherwise all of our experience would line up to the bible?

    I have a question Laura:

    Are we allowed to disobey what the Scripture commands on the basis that we are not feeling sufficient sensual support for the command? I’m not talking just about sex here, by the way.

    Once we answer that question, then we can come back and relate it to the sex issue, because we have to remember that througout most of human history marriage was not hedonic. It was about greater goals: extending the genetic lineage, family honor, and financial security as well as the release of sexual energy in a culturally and religiously sanctioned way.

    I admit fully that I don’t have the field knowledge you speak of in this area which is why I haven’t said a whole lot on the issue of duty sex per se, but I wonder how we can excuse neglect or submit that obedience here is so much more detrimental than in any other area of life?

  189. Amanda

    ** “If we experience something not written in scripture, what do we make of that…is our experience false, an illusion? Is it that we are not praying enough, submitting enough, leading enough, otherwise all of our experience would line up to the bible?” **

    Whenever I’ve experienced anything like this, where my experience wasn’t lining up with the bible, my default position is to consider my feelings false, and the bible true. Do what the bible says in faith, and leave the outcome up to God.

  190. Pingback: Rebellion as Deadly Threat, and How to Love Men « Calculated Bravery

  191. lgrobins

    I agree about the history of marriage not being hedonic, but if that is the case…why not arranged marriages? Why worry about attraction? Let’s just marry the first person that makes logical sense, not feelings sense. But then as we see over and over again…that never works without attraction.

  192. Amanda

    ** “I agree about the history of marriage not being hedonic, but if that is the case…why not arranged marriages? Why worry about attraction? Let’s just marry the first person that makes logical sense, not feelings sense. But then as we see over and over again…that never works without attraction.” **

    I see what you’re saying here, but might I posit to you something? I believe marriages don’t seem to work without heavy attraction today because people are weak in flesh and without faith, not because God is not able to bless those marriages and change circumstances.

  193. AnonS

    Does this mean prostitutes and porn stars have greater sexual discipline? They have trained to get the job done because they value the paycheck more than the discomfort. Does this point to the fact that many wives don’t very much value their husbands’ being happy (along with SSM’s point on husbands not recognizing that temporary discomfort can bring greater returns in the future)?

    Surprised Karezza / Cupid’s Poison Arrow hasn’t been brought up yet (sex without orgasm). Physical closeness releases all types of positive bonding hormones, but too many orgasms can create distance on the neurological dopamine level.

    We eat healthy and exercise even when we are not in the mood for the health of our bodies, we should spent time in physical intimacy for the health of the one-flesh union. When you are fat, exercise is at its most important; and when a couple is unhappy with each other can be the most important time for physical closeness.

  194. Elspeth

    I believe marriages don’t seem to work without heavy attraction today because people are weak in flesh and without faith, not because God is not able to bless those marriages and change circumstances.

    Not only that, but we have created consequence-free divorce, labeled everything under the sun abuse, and just made it acceptable all around to be faithless without guilt.

    I highly doubt that this is a new phenomena, the wife who isn’t attracted to her husband, or vice versa. Duty gets a bad rap in today’s culture, and to be sure we should be making every effort to build relationships were sex is a joy and a pleasure. I just don’t know how we reconcile keeping the vows we make and our commitent to Biblical truth if we throw out duty in the most intimate areas of our lives.

    Doing what you already want to do doesn’t really account for much in the eternal economy does it? That’s how the heathens live. And this is true in all areas of life, not just sex.

  195. Obliterated

    Oh my…@tacomaster, that situation is soooo painfully close to my in-laws. Seeing their dynamic and what their marriage has become is part of why I found the ‘sphere early this year–our Christmas break with them was so painful and I felt like God was saying, “This is where you guys are headed if you don’t focus on getting yourself right!”
    Plus, acknowledging that that kind of marriage IS HORRIBLE, regardless of what’s husband or anyone else may think, helps me have grace for him since that was his primary example. His dad is the most whipped, passive man I know. I’m thankful for these guys here too.

  196. tbc

    Elspeth, I don’t think SSM approves of women preachers, but you’re definitely preaching here:

    I just don’t know how we reconcile keeping the vows we make and our commitent to Biblical truth if we throw out duty in the most intimate areas of our lives.
    Doing what you already want to do doesn’t really account for much in the eternal economy does it? That’s how the heathens live. And this is true in all areas of life, not just sex.

    Duty, honor, obligation, integrity and so on are virtues that used to be highly valued and were cultivated in the context of very hard things. Harder things than a wife having to have sex with a husband she doesn’t ‘tingle’ for. To say that marriage “doesn’t work” without attraction is to misunderstand what marriage is altogether. Although our marriage relationship can be great sources of joy and pleasure and happiness, marriage is not about those things. Making it about such things is why people can so easily and readily divorce when they are unhaaaaappy.

    Marriage is about sex, about love, about companionship, about childrearing, about mutual support, about economic advantage, about socialising, about many many many things and a marriage can indeed be a good marriage if (due to some unforeseen problem) sex isn’t even present (which is not to say it isn’t important — it just isn’t the point).

  197. earl

    “I believe marriages don’t seem to work without heavy attraction today because people are weak in flesh and without faith, not because God is not able to bless those marriages and change circumstances.”

    They don’t work because woman via the state have too much power…and they use it for disastrous means.

    Take the state and the financial incentive out and I bet things would work out just fine.

  198. Dalrock

    @Sarah’s Daughter

    There is nothing uglier than a woman who judges her husband and is covetous.

    This is very true. The converse is also true, which is the endearing quality of a woman who is loyal and loving to her husband (and even more so in cases where he isn’t making this easy for her).

    We do a disservice to the marriage covenant when we agree with a woman on why her husband is unworthy of her respect – God does not tell us wives to respect our husbands when conditions are perfect to do so, in fact the mystery is revealed when we respect our husbands despite their worthiness. Well meaning Christians judge this and pity the woman who does it – God doesn’t… he blesses it.

    This is huge, and I would say one of the great failures of our age. Christian men and women both are failing greatly here. As I’ve written before, what takes courage, obedience, and faith is to witness a failing Christian husband and remember that the Bible is clear that husbands are the head of the household, and wives are called to submit to their husbands even if the husband is not leading her as Christ leads the Church. So the question becomes, are his flaws so great that you are ready to destroy that family, to take that woman’s husband away? Are you confident enough in your judgment to know that God would want this family destroyed? If not, when the dust settles and the gossipers disperse he is still her husband. But now on top of his imperfections as a man his position as husband has been gravely undermined as well. The wife doesn’t have a better husband, she has a worse one. A more perfect husband could most likely overcome this, but it is the husband’s very lack of perfection which is used to excuse undermining his position in the first place.

    @LGR

    I agree about the history of marriage not being hedonic, but if that is the case…why not arranged marriages? Why worry about attraction? Let’s just marry the first person that makes logical sense, not feelings sense. But then as we see over and over again…that never works without attraction.

    It isn’t that romantic love and sexual attraction don’t belong in marriage, or that they don’t matter. It is in fact exactly the opposite. They are wonderful things which are to only be pursued within the context of (real, biblical, lifelong) marriage. The Apostle Paul even advises us not to marry if we don’t burn with passion. The fundamental problem lies with the inversion we discussed upthread. The modern view is that romantic love/passion/attraction is the moral place for sex and marriage, instead of marriage being the moral place for sex and romantic love/passion/attraction. The difference is subtle but profound. It is the difference between “This is where you do it” and “This is why you do it”.

  199. Amanda

    ** “Take the state and the financial incentive out and I bet things would work out just fine.” **

    Yes. Part of the reason I started reading Christian manosphere is because I found women’s behavior concerning divorce and child support absolutely appalling. I’ve seen many examples of badly behaving women in my sphere of acquaintances. I’d really like to see some change in these areas to disincentive this.

  200. lgrobins

    “The modern view is that romantic love/passion/attraction is the moral place for sex and marriage, instead of marriage being the moral place for sex and romantic love/passion/attraction.”

    Excuse me for being dense here, but how is that different than what I said? Modern view says you need romance/passion in order to get married, the biblical view apparently says you just need to get married to whoever and then you have the framework to pursue and cultivate romance/passion/attraction.

  201. OffTheCuff

    LGR, by pursue, I think Dalrock means “consummate” and then “explore deeply”. Obviously, according to Christian rules, you’d initially pursue it in the chaste, but not asexual, sense leading up to marriage. Seems rather obvious to me. (I don’t personally agree with it, but, I do see the reasoning here.)

  202. OffTheCuff

    Oh, on topic.

    Duty sex is fine if it’s maintenance sex, or reactive desire… meaning you enjoy it. Few partners have exactly matching desire levels and I think it’s a hallmark of a good relationship. You’re not really into it at first, at least not enough to initiate, but you are receptive to advances because you know both will enjoys

    Duty sex is not fine when it’s grudging, or disconnected, or “zoned out”. In that case it behooves the higher sex drive to person to work on structural issues, rather than accept poisonous scraps that breed resentment at best, and (right or wrong) are considered rape at worst.

  203. Winter

    The “default yes” works very well in my marriage. I think I would start to feel unloved and unwanted and disconnected if I always got a “no” every time I desired intimacy. I can only imagine my husband would feel the same way. We also choose to work with a “default yes” so that the occasional “no” doesn’t feel like a horrible rejection…if one of us needs to say “no” we can respect that because we know there’s a good reason, and we know there’s another “yes” waiting right around the corner. We are fortunate in that we have similar drives, but there are occasions when I’ve had “duty sex”. I don’t consider it “rape”, I consider it “relationship maintenance”. I can enjoy it even if I’m not entirely in the mood. It helps that I married a guy I’m wildly attracted to, respect as a husband and father and partner, and love so much that sex with him is more important than getting the laundry folded.

  204. Farm Boy

    sex with him is more important than getting the laundry folded

    It is odd that this is even an issue.

  205. Lee Lee Bug

    SD,

    I don’t understand why you think I’m “covetous” for wanting to have sex with my husband in view of the following Scripture:

    3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

    – 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (ESV)

    I am merely asking that my husband abide by this, which is fair given we were married in a Christian ceremony. I’m not coveting any other woman’s husband.

    It is interesting how when Tacomaster and Deti complain about wives not honoring this precept, the women who post here rush to their defense and some have even encouraged them to take sex by force, if necessary. Shouldn’t wives be equally entitled to conjugal rights?

    Where is it written in Scripture that a celibate marriage is OK as long as it’s the husband’s choice? Or, would this fall under the general “wives submit to your husbands” verse in Ephesians 5:21?

  206. Elspeth

    Where is it written in Scripture that a celibate marriage is OK as long as it’s the husband’s choice?

    It isn’t. You just quoted it, so you know it says the exact opposite. I wsa a little confused about the word “covetous” also.

    I do think SD was on to something with regard to making sure you aren’t confusing the fact that you turn other men’s heads with what is required to turn your man’s head. I never got the impression that this was a problem you struggled with, but it’s worth considering.

    You should email me LeeLee. Or, I’ll just email you at the addy you used when you commented on my blog because I have a question.

  207. FuzzieWuzzie

    Granting exception to all the women commenters, it seems that there are a lot of women out there who are, or want to be, married and don’t knoe, won’t learn, and don’t care about their men’s needs and desires. This is not how to treat a valuable asset.
    Let’s at least hope that these guys are getting fed regularly.

    LeeLeeBug,
    I’m going to take a wild stab at your and ask if your husband might have been sexually abused when he was young? Probably barking up the wrong tree on this as he is functional.

  208. Hipster Racist

    @JSP

    (SSM) All a chaste woman needs to bring to the marital bed is desire, attraction, and a willingness to please. You’ll be fine.

    Take SSM’s advice, she’s completely right. I saw your pictures, you’ll have no problem keeping your future husband happy. So, how did that thing with the unnamed reader work out? If it didn’t, don’t forget I have a bottle of Balvenie 30 I’ve been saving for a special occasion.

    @grey_whiskers

    they don’t just want sex, they want porn star sex. They are very into *technique* and want the exotic.

    I just have to disagree with this. It’s never about technique, it’s always about enthusiasm. In my experience, it’s the women that want “exotic” far, far more than men. Besides, technique can be learned and teaching her technique is part of the thrill.

    Also, grey_whiskers, thanks for that Mistress Mandy video, I had no idea where it came from, but I randomly used that picture to illustrate the character “Crazy B*tch” in my completely fictional “Manhattan Murder Mystery” story. It was uncanny seeing it here.

  209. FuzzieWuzzie

    LeeLeeBug,
    I didn’t see your 5:06pm comment until mine posted. You’re ll right for wanting what you want and you have all the sympathies of men that have been “shelved”.

  210. Farm Boy

    This is not how to treat a valuable asset.

    Up til now the asset worked and paid taxes. Why change?

  211. Stingray

    Lee Lee Bug,

    Yes, women should absolutely have equal conjugal rights. Elspeth and SD bring up an interesting point. I recommended husbands forcing themselves** on their wives because I firmly believe that most women are highly turned on by a dominant man having his way with them. It likely isn’t a problem for you as you strike me as someone who would do what it takes to turn her husband on how he likes to be turned on, but as Elspeth said, maybe it is worth looking further into his attraction triggers. If there is something he isn’t telling you about, simply finding it and acting it out can increase his T naturally, not to mention get you more of what you want.

    ** Let me be very clear here. I agreed with Zippy when he said violating her when she has given consent (also, the word violate is going to turn people off. Yet, used in an erotic situation, it is not a turn off at all. I choose to look at this word used in the latter situation). Whether you believe in marital rape or not, a husband could get himself into a whole heap of trouble if she has not given consent and she sees the violation not in the erotic sense.

  212. Calliso

    “Oh, on topic.

    Duty sex is fine if it’s maintenance sex, or reactive desire… meaning you enjoy it. Few partners have exactly matching desire levels and I think it’s a hallmark of a good relationship. You’re not really into it a first, at least not enough to initiate, but you are receptive to advances because you know both will enjoys

    Duty sex is not fine when it’s grudging, or disconnected, or “zoned out”. In that case it behooves the higher sex drive to person to work on structural issues, rather than accept poisonous scraps that breed resentment at best, and (right or wrong) are considered rape at worst.”

    Yes to all of this. Though I will also add to your second part that the low drive spouse needs to be doing some work as well. They need to work on increasing their drive or at the very least improving their attitude!

  213. Zippy

    Stingray:
    …when she has given consent …

    Yes, I believe I was quite explicit about that. The premise of “duty sex” is that she is consensual, just not enthusiastic; that is the required context for interpreting my remarks.

  214. Stingray

    Zippy,

    You were quite explicit about that, as I recall. I wanted to highlight that phrase for those who like to link Sunshine Mary and take things they read here while glossing over and (changing for their own benefit) the obviously stated.

  215. Lee Lee Bug

    Elspeth,

    OK. I just thought of an attraction trigger that my husband likes and I don’t naturally possess. He loves curly hair. Mine is poker straight and very difficult to curl because it’s long and heavy.

    So, this week I invested in a fancy curling iron called the “You Curl” by Conair. It gets so hot that you have to wear a special heat-proof glove when using it. Yesterday, I had the day off and while my husband was at work I spent an hour transforming my hair into a mass of loose curls while my toddler watched bemused.

    He noticed as soon as he walked in the door and kept telling me how much he liked my hair this way. It’s too time-consuming to do every day, but I can definitely manage it every Friday so that I’ll look somewhat glamorous for him through the weekend.

  216. Carlotta

    @ Deti

    OK, your points are well taken, but they’re beside the main one I was making, which is that attraction cannot be created where there isn’t any to begin with. Dominant, forceful, willful sex from a guy she’s not attracted to is not going to create attraction. Attraction has to be there first.

    Yet woman commenter after women commenter has told you you are wrong. This is simply not true and you are not able to comment on it, not being a women.

    Biologically, the sexual processes are hormonal and can be adjusted and learned. From even that perspective, you are wrong.

  217. sunshinemary Post author

    Cane Caldo:

    On the subject of Kino: Take every opportunity to put your hands on your wife. It almost never transpires that I walk within three feet of Mrs. Caldo’s ass without slapping, pinching, or rubbing it.

    Ah, you come from the same school of thought as my husband on that.

    And you know, to the ladies, I say this can go both ways. Personally I am not a naturally touchy-feely person, but over the past few years I have become a lot more physically flirtatious whenever I’m around my man, and I do recommend this approach. It doesn’t have to be anything big; I will just brush up against him on purpose as I’m walking by, give him a light hip bump if he’s standing near me, or make little suggestive comments under my breath in passing for his ears only. Keeping that mildly sexual dynamic going all the time really helps with not falling into roommate mode, if you know what I mean. Plus, it’s just fun.

  218. Artisanal Toad

    Perhaps I should explain the rule of “Das Boobs.”” No woman, anywhere, at any time, rubs her boobs against a man she isn’t attracted to. Period. End of discussion. If a wive seemingly “innocently” rubs her boobs against her husband, he will know it and understand it was intentional. It’s perfectly subliminal. There are no contradictions here.

  219. Sarah's Daughter

    @LLB
    I don’t understand why you think I’m “covetous” for wanting to have sex with my husband in view of the following Scripture

    Having read several comments from you over the span of several months there appears to be a trend going on. Your husband doesn’t meet your expectations. You covet something you do not have from him. This has included his decision making abilities and lack there of, his indecisiveness, and his willingness to have sex with you.

    I am merely asking that my husband abide by this

    Who are you asking? How are you asking it? And what does God have to say to wives who’s husbands do not obey the word?

    Shouldn’t wives be equally entitled to conjugal rights?

    You continue to use words that give me a glimpse into your heart. Step one, get rid of the word entitled when it has to do with your marriage. Step two, do not concern yourself with what your husband needs to abide with regards to his relationship with God.

    There are plenty of Christians who will entertain your plight. They will eagerly partake in The Whispers. And wring their hands “what could this possibly be about.” Politely overlooking the condition of your heart. If I can read disrespect and contention in your comments, how much does your husband feel it? Long before you concern yourself with the Scriptures your husband is not abiding, you need to fix your heart toward him. You will need God’s help in this. You may find what you’re looking for with commenters offering you every suggestion possible on what your husband needs to do. I can no longer do that with you LLB. You have said so many things that reek of expectations not met and disrespect toward your husband.

    My husbands grandmother often retold a story about her husband. He’d been having heart problems. He said to her with tears in his eyes how sorry he was he could not make love to her. She told him, “Don’t even say such things, we laid in bed this morning holding hands.” When you have developed that level of intimacy with your husband, you will find your needs and expectations will change. When your husband knows this is the extent in which you love and respect him, you might enjoy some changes from him. But that’s not what you want to talk about. You saw I said the word covetous and completely missed everything else I was saying. Bowing up with haughty expressions of that which you are entitled.

    Ladies, there will be disappointment and suffering in your life. This has nothing to do with what God asks of you in relationship with your husband. Stop with the expectations, stop with the entitled heart and learn what respect means.

  220. Sarah's Daughter

    It is interesting how when Tacomaster and Deti complain about wives not honoring this precept, the women who post here rush to their defense and some have even encouraged them to take sex by force, if necessary. Shouldn’t wives be equally entitled to conjugal rights?

    Men and women are different. It is unlikely a woman will get very far attempting to take a husband by force. The same can not be said about a man taking his wife in the same manner. It is not the same, not equal, and from some peoples’ perspective, it is not fair. Get over it.

    Advice for men who’s wives are not having sex with them necessarily will be different than advice for women who’s husbands are not having sex with them.

  221. Sarah's Daughter

    Take every opportunity to put your hands on your wife.

    When you have older children, it should be a common occurrence for them to say, “Daaaad…we’re right here. We saw what you did to mom.” or “Mooooom…nice, I can’t believe you just did that…” I don’t know, maybe I’m just really bad at being incognito. I always seem to get caught running my hand up, well…you know.

    [ssm: This also works as a deterrent. We learned this tip from one of HHG's coworkers.

    Awhile ago the kids were being loud and unruly on a long car ride, and after repeatedly warning them to simmer down, HHG pulled the car over. The girls fell silent, thinking they were going to get lectured or maybe even spanked, but instead he grabbed me and started kissing me. I'm telling you, they were grossed out. And then he told them from now on if they were loud or naughty in the car, we were going to pull over and start making out until they quieted down.

    It works like a charm; all we have to do is say, "Do we need to pull this car over?" and they start laughing and begging us not to and promising to be on better behavior. It's sort of a joke now.]

  222. Elspeth

    Personally I am not a naturally touchy-feely person, but over the past few years I have become a lot more physically flirtatious whenever I’m around my man, and I do recommend this approach.

    Another similarity.

    Stop with the expectations, stop with the entitled heart and learn what respect means.

    I agree. Doesn’t change what the Scripture says about a man’s responsibility to have sex with his wife.

  223. Zippy

    Cane and Sunshine:
    The “kino all the time” advice is just the old “slow cooker” wisdom without the feminist poison that was added into the stew last thursday. The manosphere would do well to show a little less arrogance about genuine traditional wisdom. The “tradcons” much despised in the manosphere are despised because they are not really either traditional or conservative.

    Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that the “slow cooker” paradigm was rising up under a new label as a way of making it acceptable to the rebellious children of the post-feminist manosphere.

  224. Farm Boy

    But now on top of his imperfections as a man his position as husband has been gravely undermined as well. The wife doesn’t have a better husband, she has a worse one

    This is so very common. A woman tries to “improve” her man, but stuff just gets worse. Perhaps this should be a post topic.

  225. Matamoros

    A copy from “Words of advice to a man on his wedding day” over at Vox’s that seem apropos here:

    A few thoughts:

    I tell men getting married to remember it is easy to get married, and hard to find someone to live with.

    Also, that in the three main departments – sex, cooking, and cleanign – decide which one is most important to you and put your stress on that. You can get one, maybe two if you are lucky, but the third will probably side more or less.

    So if sex is important set the pattern early, whether you want daily sex, or however often, and don’t let her get away with excuses, or “why do I have to do this all the time” – “Why, because you are a wife, and wives must submit to her husband. The Bible/God says so. And because I love you.”

    If she says, “but I don’t enjoy it that often”, say: “Well sex is always enjoyable, and you can either enjoy it or not, that is your choice; but we will have sex when I want it.

    Women are far more malleable than men, but must be trained into conditioned behavior. Remember it takes 21 days of constant repetition to set a new habit or behavior.

    To the above I would add that duty must be taught. A woman does not grow up having sex, or really understanding all the ramifications. Duty in women, as in men, must be taught. It cannot be magically expected to appear – or to remain without repetition and reminder.

  226. earl

    “This is so very common. A woman tries to “improve” her man, but stuff just gets worse.”

    She’s trying to turn him into her.

  227. Cane Caldo

    The “kino all the time” advice is just the old “slow cooker” wisdom without the feminist poison that was added into the stew last thursday.

    There is a reason my blog is called “Things We Have Heard and Known; Dark Sayings from of Old”.

    Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that the “slow cooker” paradigm was rising up under a new label as a way of making it acceptable to the rebellious children of the post-feminist manosphere.

    You ought to take this to those leaders who poisoned slow cooking when they said the stew should be spiced with flowers, footrubs, and other flaccidities.

  228. sunshinemary Post author

    You ought to take this to those leaders who poisoned slow cooking when they said the stew should be spiced with flowers, footrubs, and other flaccidities.

    Even worse are those who added this poison:

    Be her kitchen bitch and she’ll surely give you what you want then!

  229. Calliso

    “So if sex is important set the pattern early, whether you want daily sex, or however often, and don’t let her get away with excuses, or “why do I have to do this all the time” – “Why, because you are a wife, and wives must submit to her husband. The Bible/God says so. And because I love you.”

    If she says, “but I don’t enjoy it that often”, say: “Well sex is always enjoyable, and you can either enjoy it or not, that is your choice; but we will have sex when I want it”

    In a marriage one really needs to ideally compromise on these situations. In other words if you want sex every day but your wife only wants it once a week a compromise could be having sex a few times a week. Sadly of course I realize it often doesn’t work out quite so nicely and in many cases the amount of sex is determine solely by whoever the lower drive spouse is. But ideally compromise is important not just saying my way or the highway!

    Also from experience I can say that sex is not always enjoyable. In fact it can be outright painful. If a husband demands sex from his wife all the time despite this he is not a good husband.

  230. Dalrock

    @Zippy

    The “kino all the time” advice is just the old “slow cooker” wisdom without the feminist poison that was added into the stew last thursday. The manosphere would do well to show a little less arrogance about genuine traditional wisdom. The “tradcons” much despised in the manosphere are despised because they are not really either traditional or conservative.

    Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that the “slow cooker” paradigm was rising up under a new label as a way of making it acceptable to the rebellious children of the post-feminist manosphere.

    I don’t think the charge regarding past knowledge is fair. Who in the manosphere isn’t aware that what we are discovering is largely a rediscovery? Even Roissy tends to acknowledge this. And we shouldn’t leave out Great Books For Men.

    Regarding Trad Cons, I’ve always been clear in my own criticism that the problem is not that they are traditional and conservative, but that they are neither.

    On the “Slow Cooker”, as we all acknowledge the “kino all the time” advice upthread has nothing to do with what is being advised with this term. Moreover, I think Cane and the others here would agree that you don’t do this because you want sex. You do this because it is fun and loving, and because it sets a positive frame. While it is true that it almost certainly will increase your wife’s attraction for you, if you are doing it to get sex paradoxically it very likely won’t work as intended.

    On the note of Kino, my personal favorite is to grab my wife around the waist and pull her into me. Very often this involves her coming off balance and falling into my arms as I catch her. My wife absolutely loves this, as it makes her feel needed/possessed and also lets her feel my strength both pulling her and catching her. It is both unsettling (exciting) and reassuring. Of course you have to be careful not to let her fall, and if she were to start falling you would need to go down as well to cushion her fall (never happened, but I’m always ready). This one has the added benefit of being more appropriate to do around the children.

  231. Je Suis Prest

    @ HR

    I probably should have been more clear in my original comment, it’s just that what SSM said made me realize that what I was worried about wasn’t not knowing what to do, it was the pleasing him aspect if that makes any sense. I’d been trying to figure out before why I was worried about something that I couldn’t logically be expected to know how to do and when I read her comment, it was a mini lightbulb moment for me. I just like understanding the why of things I guess..

    As for Mr X, things are going well. And with the scotch, you do know how to tempt a girl though lol =).

    @ g_w

    You are correct, I’ve never been married.

  232. Zippy

    Dalrock:
    On the “Slow Cooker”, as we all acknowledge the “kino all the time” advice upthread has nothing to do with what is being advised with this term.

    That doesn’t match my experience with the idea at all. I’ve always understood it to mean that regular doses of masculinity outside of the context of sex itself are necessary to build a wife’s[*] attraction to sex with her husband. Absent those regular doses she won’t want sex or won’t enjoy it as much, etc. This is quite different from husbands, whose attraction to the same woman he has been with for years can be turned on like a light switch with the right stimuli.

    As with many bits of traditional wisdom, feminism perverted the “masculine” part to mean regular doses of kitchen bitch, effeminate angst about whether she is turned on or not, and “foreplay” that resembles a puppy begging for scraps. Perversions of traditional wisdom don’t represent a refutation of traditional wisdom though.

    The “slow cooker” traditional wisdom about female attraction is right, given the right objective content. But anyone who suggests as much gets pelted with rocks and garbage in manosphere comboxes. Try it yourself under an alias that nobody knows, and watch the excrement fly.

    A similar thing has happened with “man up”, and any number of other ideas that, in the traditional frame and with traditional content, are absolutely right. “Man up” is great advice; “and X” is frequently the switch part of the bait-and-switch.

    [*] Note that this may not apply to sluts, whose ONS/STR/LTR attraction parameters don’t matter to me in the slightest.

  233. Cane Caldo

    Zippy said: The manosphere would do well to show a little less arrogance about genuine traditional wisdom. The “tradcons” much despised in the manosphere are despised because they are not really either traditional or conservative.

    Dalrock rejoined:I don’t think the charge regarding past knowledge is fair. Who in the manosphere isn’t aware that what we are discovering is largely a rediscovery? Even Roissy tends to acknowledge this. And we shouldn’t leave out Great Books For Men.

    Regarding Trad Cons, I’ve always been clear in my own criticism that the problem is not that they are traditional and conservative, but that they are neither.

    Bingo. Hence my admonition for Zippy to take it to the leaders (of self-identified traditional conservatism). It is slightly perverse to chastise “rebellious children” when they are advocating for wisdom–as we all agree they are. A rebellion towards truth is a just condemnation of the leaders…not the rebels.

  234. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    A similar thing has happened with “man up”, and any number of other ideas that, in the traditional frame and with traditional content, are absolutely right. “Man up” is great advice; “and X” is frequently the switch part of the bait-and-switch.

    Totally agree, but this was all the more reason for me to abandon the labels “traditional” and “conservative”–despite the cast of my mind. The people who have camped out on the ground so marked TradCon are nothing like, but the fact is they have that ground and they’ve been there so long that they can conserve the tradition of feminism without a twinge of irony or doubt.

  235. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    (I should have added to my last response)

    But anyone who suggests as much gets pelted with rocks and garbage in manosphere comboxes. Try it yourself under an alias that nobody knows, and watch the excrement fly.

    A similar thing has happened with “man up”, and any number of other ideas that, in the traditional frame and with traditional content, are absolutely right. “Man up” is great advice; “and X” is frequently the switch part of the bait-and-switch.

    You’re the one pulling a bait-n-switch, here. No one here is rejecting traditional wisdom (we’ve all agreed that Kino and “slow cooker” in fact are the same wisdom). What you actually take umbrage to is the fact that the tradcons aren’t credited.

    In your defense, I will say that two very prominent Game bloggers–Vox and Rollo–most certainly do try to represent Game as a new realm of thought and discovery. The reason for this is plain: Nerds get an introverted thrill to consider themselves in possession of esoteric knowledge; especially if they believe it is novel. In another age these guys would be theologians.

  236. Zippy

    Cane:
    You’re the one pulling a bait-n-switch, here.

    No I’m not. I’ve seen the pavlovian response that the term generates — even though, actually, as a matter of fact, wives are like slow cookers when compared to their husbands.

    No one here is rejecting traditional wisdom (we’ve all agreed that Kino and “slow cooker” in fact are the same wisdom).

    I thought we had, at any rate.

    What you actually take umbrage to is the fact that the tradcons aren’t credited.

    It wasn’t umbrage; just a passing observation that traditional wisdom was be re-presented using novel terminology as a way of making it marketable in the manosphere.

    I will say that two very prominent Game bloggers–Vox and Rollo–most certainly do try to represent Game as a new realm of thought and discovery. The reason for this is plain: Nerds get an introverted thrill to consider themselves in possession of esoteric knowledge; especially if they believe it is novel.

    Yes they do. One of the consequences of Dalrock’s view of the manosphere as a conversation without doctrines is that characterizations of it become difficult to falsify. But that won’t keep you from getting pelted with rocks and garbage if you suggest that wives are sexual slow-cookers compared to their husbands — as opposed to other more Manosphere-Correct things we could say that are equivalent in content.

    [ssm: What do you mean by "wives are sexual slow cookers compared to their husbands."? That gets used to mean two things. If it means we do well with a lot of physical reminders of our husband's dominance, then yes. If you means it takes us eight hours to become aroused, as many Christian marriage sites seem to say, then no. That's false.]

  237. sunshinemary Post author

    Zippy

    Anyway, I just thought it was interesting that the “slow cooker” paradigm was rising up under a new label as a way of making it acceptable to the rebellious children of the post-feminist manosphere.

    Dalrock

    On the “Slow Cooker”, as we all acknowledge the “kino all the time” advice upthread has nothing to do with what is being advised with this term. Moreover, I think Cane and the others here would agree that you don’t do this because you want sex. You do this because it is fun and loving, and because it sets a positive frame. While it is true that it almost certainly will increase your wife’s attraction for you, if you are doing it to get sex paradoxically it very likely won’t work as intended.

    Zippy

    That doesn’t match my experience with the idea at all. I’ve always understood it to mean that regular doses of masculinity outside of the context of sex itself are necessary to build a wife’s[*] attraction to sex with her husband. Absent those regular doses she won’t want sex or won’t enjoy it as much, etc. This is quite different from husbands, whose attraction to the same woman he has been with for years can be turned on like a light switch with the right stimuli.

    Zippy, I understand what you are saying about the regular doses of physical masculinity (what Dalrock and Cane are calling kino) being a kind of slow cooker model, but that isn’t what is meant now by that term. It’s been coopted.

    Consider this, from the article Turning On Your Crockpot from a Christian marriage site.

    I highly advise reading this article because then you will understand exactly where the Christian manosphere writers are coming from on this issue, but here is an excerpt:

    “I think many men are surprised to learn that women typically don’t think about sex “every six seconds,” and that their idea of foreplay is waking up to a full coffeepot that she didn’t have to brew herself.

    So, if you need some help, here are some tips for cooking up something hot in the Crockpot…

    Turn her on in the morning.

    Go out of your way to be helpful with your morning routine.
    Get up early enough to pour her a cup of coffee before she is up.
    Tell her she looks great.
    Help get the kids breakfast.
    Make that goodbye kiss slow and long.
    Tell her she looks great.
    Ask her what she’s looking forward to for the day.
    Let her know you’re looking forward to coming home to her tonight.
    Even if she’s still got “bed head,” tell her she looks great.

    Check on her in the middle of the day.

    Call her and tell her you’re thinking about how great she looks.
    Text her just to say “I love you.”
    Tell her you miss her.
    Leave her a special note someplace– like on the bathroom mirror or in her purse.
    Let her know you’re ordering pizza so neither of you need to worry about making dinner.

    Don’t rush it at the end of the day.

    Check in to see if there is anything you can grab for her on your way home.
    If she’s home when you get there, greet her warmly before you greet the kids.
    Be helpful with the kids and dinner. Pour her drink before you pour your own.
    Tell her she looks great.
    Ask her about her day, and listen.
    Offer to clean up after dinner (this works especially well if you rarely/never do this).
    Give her a nice long hug, without being too grabby.
    Share with her one of your favorite memories of your early days together.”

    And this is what is meant by the slow cooker model. In reduced form, it’s this:

    Women’s sexual response is very, very, very slow –> so husbands should do lots of stuff and –> hope she eventually gets up to temperature so that you can *finally* have sex for the second time in a month.

  238. Elspeth

    And this is what is meant by the slow cooker model. In reduced form, it’s this:

    Women’s sexual response is very, very, very slow –> so husbands should do lots of stuff and –> hope she eventually gets up to temperature so that you can *finally* have sex for the second time in a month.

    This is also my understanding of the “slow cooker” model. In fact, too much touching and groping without a corresponding amount of help around the house is deemed detrimental, a turn off. Those hands could be more useful!

  239. sunshinemary Post author

    By the way, that whole “women think foreplay is waking up to a fresh pot of coffee” B.S. is truly what Christian men believe because this is what their wives are telling them. In the women’s defense, they really have no idea what attracts them to their husbands, so they aren’t usually deliberately trying to deceive them.

    From my post Why do Christian women perpetuate myths about attraction?

    My husband and I attend a large Protestant church of the superfunrockband denomination. On Wednesday evenings, our church holds small group Bible studies, and HHG and I attend the one for married couples. We meet in a large room and split into small groups, each group with its own table and leader.

    This past week was rough because the topic was sex. I just could not believe that all the things we joke about Christians saying were actually said. For example, one young woman actually used the women-are-like-a-crockpot crock of crap. This is not true, in case anyone has not figured it out yet. It does not take a woman, Christian or otherwise, eight hours to become sexually aroused. The idea that a man needs to spend eight hours giving her tender kisses, helping with the laundry, telling her how much he loves her, and bringing her flowers just to turn her on is wrong. She may like all those things very much, they may be nice things to do, but they will not make her sexually aroused. Why do Christian women keep telling men this? It’s like we’ve all succumbed to mass delusion.

    Unbelievably, another woman told the group how hot it is when her husband does the dishes and plays with the kids. She actually said that as a serious comment, and all the other ladies laughed and nodded.

  240. Zippy

    Sunshine:
    I think we all agree that the concept has been coopted and poisoned by feminism.

    I suppose at issue is how to respond to cooption of traditional wisdom: to point out what has happened and resist it, or to capitulate to it and make up new and novel terminology as a marketing ploy.

    But I hadn’t even thought it through that much in my initial comment.

  241. sunshinemary Post author

    I guess it is a form of feminism, but it’s a form that is being touted by the very people who call themselves traditional conservatives, which is a group largely comprised of Christians. It’s not all of them, of course, but it’s enough to make things very confusing. This image is from a Christian marriage site, the authors of whom are very devout and conservative:

  242. Farm Boy

    A dishwasher is shown. Does that count as “doing the dishes”? What if he bought a dog? Would that get him some action?

  243. Zippy

    Sunshine:
    the authors of whom are very devout and conservative

    They are anything but traditional, whatever else may be said about them.

  244. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    It wasn’t umbrage; just a passing observation that traditional wisdom was be re-presented using novel terminology as a way of making it marketable in the manosphere.

    You called them arrogant, rebellious children for using different terms. If you say that isn’t umbrage: Ok, but it ain’t nonchalance, either.

    @SSM

    [ssm: What do you mean by "wives are sexual slow cookers compared to their husbands."? That gets used to mean two things. If it means we do well with a lot of physical reminders of our husband's dominance, then yes. If you means it takes us eight hours to become aroused, as many Christian marriage sites seem to say, then no. That's false.]

    No, I don’t think it is false, and yes it usually does take “eight hours” for women to become aroused. My Bunn coffeemaker appears to magically brew a full pot of coffee in four minutes. The truth is that the water in this “fresh” pot of coffee has been heating for quite some time. When I pour in the water for this pot of coffee it’s actually in preparation for the next pot, but to uniformed observer it appears to have percolated immediately. In the same way a husband can keep his wife warmed up, and then later it when he actually flips the switch she’s ready to brew–and to everyone it seems like he is magic!

    Women, however, are not coffee pots, and so they can also choose to warm their own waters. And they often do; especially at the behest of those who are not supposed to get her coffee; advertisers, cads, movie stars, etc.

  245. sunshinemary Post author

    Well, your Bunn operates differently from the coffee maker I have, then. With my Mr. Coffee, the water is poured in and then directly turned into hot, delicious coffee in four minutes or maybe five.

    One does have to keep the water bill paid so that there is always water available to go into the coffee maker, though.

  246. Amanda

    Well, on a lighter note my husband is so accustomed to kino that he accidentally kino-ed up my assets in front of the whole family today, right as we gathered for prayer before dinner. Yeah. And everyone noticed, too. How this applies to the slow cooker analogy I have no idea. I love my Bunn though :)

  247. Cane Caldo

    @Amanda

    Well, on a lighter note my husband is so accustomed to kino that he accidentally kino-ed up my assets in front of the whole family today, right as we gathered for prayer before dinner.

    One sympathizes.

    More harrowing: Twice (that I recall) I have nearly swatted a female coworker’s butt. It was automatic, and I only realized what I was about to do just before impact. That would not have ended well.

    Butt, by grace, there go I…

    [ssm: I see what you did there in that last sentence. :)]

  248. Dalrock

    @Cane Caldo

    No, I don’t think it is false, and yes it usually does take “eight hours” for women to become aroused.

    This is the core of the problem with the slow cooker analogy. It isn’t just the poisoned recipe, but the idea that the only way to cook is on low is just plain untrue. Women can and very often do feel attraction instantaneously (as I believe SSM was trying to explain above). The smack on her ass works because it generates instant attraction. If it doesn’t, then it comes across as “creepy”. Think about the times you have met a woman for the first time, a woman who couldn’t have known you even existed before the meeting, and observed her expressing IOIs. From a pickup point of view, what you would need to do then is focus on not loosing that attraction while you overcome her barriers (comfort). If the slow cooker metaphor were apt, then the way to pick women up would be to find women who were indifferent to you and try to generate attraction over an 8 hour period (at which point you would finally see that IOI).

    If a man wants to test this with his wife, do one of these moves that seems to generate attraction hours later when there is no obstacle preventing immediate further action. Smack her on the ass, etc. and then casually walk away as if you are going on about your day. More accurately, try to go on about the rest of your day.

  249. Dalrock

    Just to clarify, “her” in the following sentence was in reference to a man’s own wife:

    The smack on her ass works because it generates instant attraction.

  250. Dalrock

    As another data point on the “slow cooker” fallacy of female arousal, note as SSM explains in the OP how quickly “duty sex” can turn into fully aroused sex, mid coitus.

  251. Zippy

    See, I knew we weren’t agreeing.

    Dalrock:

    An out of the blue ass-smack will definitely be “creepy” though if, as Sunshine suggests with a different analogy, the water supply isn’t kept full. The distinction between creepy and not is precisely whether you’ve kept the cooker warm: with whether or not she perceives you as consistently masculine. One reason Athol’s MAP sometimes fails is because she isn’t buying it, because the cooker has gone cold.

    A slut, because she doesn’t know the man she is giving it up to, can be fooled into _assuming_ that he is the kind of guy who keeps the water (as analogy for attractive masculine behaviour) full – thus Game. A wife can’t though, generally speaking, though I’m sure Not All Wives Are Like That. For most wives, if you don’t display regular masculine behaviour things won’t be warmed up and ready to go. She may go along anyway, just like a husband goes along with his overweight pajama bon-bon binger. But it isn’t attractive.

    Of course a paradox is that it is frankly effeminate to even be concerned about such things. Just talking about it at all is at least mildly “creepy”.

  252. Dalrock

    @Zippy

    A slut, because she doesn’t know the man she is giving it up to, can be fooled into _assuming_ that he is the kind of guy who keeps the water (as analogy for attractive masculine behaviour) full – thus Game. A wife can’t though, generally speaking, though I’m sure Not All Wives Are Like That. For most wives, if you don’t display regular masculine behaviour things won’t be warmed up and ready to go. She may go along anyway, just like a husband goes along with his overweight pajama bon-bon binger. But it isn’t attractive.

    You are confusing the man’s own dominance with her attraction for that dominance. The two are difficult to untangle, but there is a difference there. As we both agree, a woman can become instantly attracted to a man she perceives as being dominant. This is the proof of the lie of the slow cooker. She doesn’t need to experience his dominance, slow cook for 8 or more hours, and then feel attraction. The attraction is (or at least can be) instant. So the slow cooker metaphor is false, flat out. The part you are right about is a husband is playing the long game, if you will, and it is much easier to maintain a dominant/masculine frame than to re-convince her of your dominance once you have dropped that frame. So there is something to “stoking the fires” but the fire you are stoking is your frame or if you prefer credibility with her, not her attraction per se.

  253. Zippy

    Dalrock:
    This is the proof of the lie of the slow cooker.

    No it isn’t. It proves that it is true. Shifting focus to sluts – as opposed to a wife who by the nature of marriage comes to know her husband very well, and whose desire for him is most certainly mediated through his consistent masculine behaviour or its lack – just demonstrates the intrinsic lie of Game.

  254. sunshinemary Post author

    Dalrock:

    As another data point on the “slow cooker” fallacy of female arousal, note as SSM explains in the OP how quickly “duty sex” can turn into fully aroused sex, mid coitus.

    Zippy

    if you don’t display regular masculine behaviour things won’t be warmed up and ready to go.

    The only way in which I see the slow cooker idea as valid is when considering attraction and arousal separately. You can have attraction without arousal, but you can’t have arousal without attraction. Neither of those things requires eight hours to generate, but in a marriage setting you have to keep the attraction going all the time (as opposed to a PUA picking up a club slut, who only needs to generate and maintain it for a few hours) even when arousal is not imminent. So in that way I guess it is sort of like a slow cooker. If my husband gives me a playful slap on the ass on his way out the door in the morning, it keeps the attraction I feel for him going but it has nothing to do with arousal because we aren’t going to jump back into bed when he needs to leave for work. But if later in the evening after the children are in bed, he delivers the same slap to the rear, it generates instant attraction and arousal that does not take eight hours to come to fruition.

    Edit: To clarify: attraction can be generated instantaneously (or very quickly). It does not require eight hours to generate, so generating attraction is *not* like a slow cooker. However, in marriage, it needs to be maintained over long periods of time in addition to being generated in the first place, so in that way, it is like a slow cooker.

  255. Zippy

    Sunshine:
    However, in marriage, it needs to be maintained over long periods of time in addition to being generated in the first place, so in that way, it is like a slow cooker.

    And since marriage is the only moral context for romance and sex, it is the only place where attraction and arousal actually matter.

    So female attraction is like a slow cooker, whereas male attraction is virtually instantaneous. QED.

  256. Stingray

    SSM,

    That slow cooker checkpoint list you put up above – *shudder*. It’s awful and no wonder it’s all duty sex all of the time and no wonder many men are turned off by duty sex. There is no chance for attraction or arousal with that. Making a woman feel special absolutely does not equal attraction. Feeling good and being aroused or attracted are two very different things.

    Orbiters make a woman feel good and they are turning husbands into orbiters.

  257. Dalrock

    @Zippy

    This is the proof of the lie of the slow cooker.

    No it isn’t. It proves that it is true. Shifting focus to sluts – as opposed to a wife who by the nature of marriage comes to know her husband very well, and whose desire for him is most certainly mediated through his consistent masculine behaviour or its lack – just demonstrates the intrinsic lie of Game.

    But it isn’t just sluts who give off IOIs when they first meet a man they find attractive. The difference is in how the woman proceeds from there, not in which one is capable of feeling attraction for an unknown man.

    Using SSM’s separation of attraction and arousal, what you are arguing is that women who have an established relationship with a man they are already attracted to take longer to get aroused than a woman does with a man she has never met. You are going to great lengths to contort the slow cooker theory to fit the facts, and great lengths are required because the facts stubbornly won’t conform; the theory is bunk.

  258. Dalrock

    @Zippy

    There is a reason why you have to keep reframing to outside the context of marriage in order to declare it bunk.

    But I don’t. I’ve also pointed out how to test this within marriage, but you ignored that and focused on sluts. In my responses to you I’ve focused on the part you didn’t ignore, because there is nothing to respond to for the other.

    Note also the married women right here telling you it doesn’t work the way you are saying it works. But this doesn’t conform to your theory, so it is also ignored. A husband who knows how to get his wife aroused should be able to do so in short order; it doesn’t take 8 hours, or even 8 seconds. But as I and SSM have acknowledged, maintaining dominant frame over the long term is required or the husband would be starting out in a hole. So there is a long game aspect to this, which is what I think Cane was really referring to.

    I think the other area of confusion is the benefit of building anticipation, where you quickly generate arousal but don’t immediately quench it. This can be a very powerful thing, but it isn’t the same thing at all (in fact it is probably even more powerful when done by a wife to her husband). The arousal is immediate, and the anticipation builds from there. But even here, men are more likely to screw it all up trying to build too much anticipation. Your first advice is right; just do it.

  259. Zippy

    Dalrock:
    SSM confirmed my understanding, she didn’t refute it. And you are just substituting “long game” for “slow cooker”.

  260. deti

    @ Dalrock:

    Let me go back to something on this thread from last Friday.

    I said: “Again, the very specific point I’m making here is that duty sex isn’t going to create or generate attraction from W to H where it doesn’t exist. She still has a duty to do it. He still has a duty to let her do it. But it’s not going to create attraction.”

    To which you replied: “I disagree, and it is all in the frame. As Cail wrote:

    “:If she approaches sex with the same loving attitude she would use while surprising him with breakfast in bed, it’s gonna be fine. When we talk about enthusiasm, we’re not talking about porn-star acrobatics and moaning to wake the neighbors. A smile and an attitude that says, “How can I please you?” goes a long way.”

    Dalrock wrote:

    “The secret most women here would no doubt agree with is having this attitude is tingle creating. Being owned by a man is sexy. Having a duty to her husband is sexy. There are two ways she can get there. He can overcome her feminism with his game, or she can overcome her own feminism with her submission. The latter is the biblical answer for wives, but a loving husband (also biblical) should want to give his wife the feelings good Game will help her feel.”

    My position is that attraction from W to H can’t be created from nothing, and that duty sex between H and W won’t create it. (I believe duty sex can increase existing attraction or rekindle attraction where it was before. That’s very different, however, from your position, which is that duty sex can create attraction from W to H where it never existed before.)

    I would observe the following: If this is so, and duty sex creates attraction from whole cloth, then there is no reason at all for women to follow your advice to marry only men with whom they are head over heels in love. There is no reason for the attraction or attractive feelings a single woman feels and/or senses for an attractive man. If I accept your position, then any woman can marry any man, and she will eventually develop feelings of attraction for him by simply having duty sex with him enough times. But we know that cannot be true, because your position requires the man to have good frame. If she is having duty sex with a mewling simp, no frequency or repetition of “duty sex” is going to “create” attraction.

    The frame your paradigm requires is next to impossible with a woman who has no attraction for the man trying to use it on her. Stated another way, the man can have great, even impenetrable, frame, but if she feels nothing but hate and repulsion for him, it’s all for naught. And even if that frame can create attraction (which I’m still not convinced it will), that level of game is next to impossible for him to maintain over months and years. This will lead him into the next conundrum you’ve described, which is that a man’s game can’t be the basis of his marriage. If the only thing keeping her there is his game and frame, then he’s dancing to her tune and she isn’t attracted at all.

    That’s my disagreement with your position. It doesn’t work in the long run, it’s not consistent with things you’ve worked out and discussed at great length at your site, and it’s just not the way marriages tend to form and stay together.

  261. Matamoros

    Calliso: In a marriage one really needs to ideally compromise on these situations.

    W-R-O-N-G. The husband is head of the family, and the wife’s head as Christ is the head of the Church. Do you think Christ needs to compromise?

    This is an idiot argument. The husband has to train his wife in all aspects of what he wants. Then she must live up to it.

    To “compromise on these situations” means that the husband cedes leadership to the wife. It also means he is a wimp who is afraid to stand up for what he wants.

  262. Dalrock

    @Deti

    I would observe the following: If this is so, and duty sex creates attraction from whole cloth, then there is no reason at all for women to follow your advice to marry only men with whom they are head over heels in love. There is no reason for the attraction or attractive feelings a single woman feels and/or senses for an attractive man. If I accept your position, then any woman can marry any man, and she will eventually develop feelings of attraction for him by simply having duty sex with him enough times. But we know that cannot be true, because your position requires the man to have good frame. If she is having duty sex with a mewling simp, no frequency or repetition of “duty sex” is going to “create” attraction.

    I’m pressed for time but I’ll take a crack at this. As SSM has called out, there are two separate things in play here. The first is is the man in question on “the list” of men she would be open to sex with. Morally this list should be one and only one man (her husband), but we are talking more about biological drive. If a woman marries a man she didn’t have on that list, or moves the man she married off of that list, there is a serious problem. She isn’t just denying him sex, she is in a profound way denying that he is her husband, and thereby denying the very existence of the marriage. Men understand this intuitively, which is why a persistently denying wife is so disturbing to men; they know what this means even if they can’t articulate it. The other item is the woman’s arousal for the man at any given moment. Being on “the list” is an essential precondition to generate arousal, and being on the list is where the “long game” comes in (not with actually generating arousal). What I wrote above about changing the man’s status is that the frame of seeing him as her husband, as a man she is obligated to satisfy sexually, can help a woman change the man’s status regarding “the list”, as well as eventually leading to arousal. But I think we are in agreement that if he isn’t on the list this is a very serious problem, and a much more difficult challenge than if he is on the list but she isn’t aroused.

    What can muddy the waters is we are talking about biological drives, but how the woman thinks can to some degree influence these drives. Think about the woman who has sex with her beta orbiter because she fears losing his attention. At the moment this is what she wants to do. It isn’t crazy hot sex, and he didn’t suddenly become more dominant; yet she very much wants to do this in the moment. Her insecurity moves him from off the list to on the list, if only temporarily. Similarly, a woman who has placed herself above her husband in the hierarchy will have to change that to get into the mental frame Cail and I described above. Changing that frame should put him on the list, unless he is so far out of consideration in her mind that this simply can’t be done. As I mentioned upthread, if this is the case (he can’t be in consideration) then the vast majority of the time the woman herself has made choices which lead to this problem.

  263. Farm Boy

    In a marriage one really needs to ideally compromise on these situations.

    “How about I let you touch one breast, and you only go half way in”?

  264. Anonymous Reader

    I had a much longer posting in my head that was sure to annoy many people. However, Dalrock has just clarified much of the murk in this thread. At least twice in the thread someone (iamnobody00 and someone else) stated that not all “duty sex” is the same. Solipsism being what it is, no one has noticed.

    There’s definitely two categories. Analogy to cooking:

    Case one, the “duty cooking” that SSM is writing about:
    A woman is tired and not really interested in making dinner but goes ahead anyway with a simple meal based on spaghetti. She becomes mildly interested in the process of pleasing her man while creating the sauce, and winds up including a bit of Italian wine, some shallots, and other things he likes. They eat dinner in a pleasant mood, in the course of which he compliments her on the meal while acknowledging that she’s tired, and she gratefully accepts the compliment while assuring him that she does enjoy cooking but she can’t promise a full course meal every evening. He has no desire to go to a restaurant.

    Case two: “duty cooking” that some men on this thread may have experienced:
    She’s sick and tired of him always expecting her to cook dinner. Who does he think he is? She picks up a can of beans, some dried out hamburger meat and a loaf of day-old bread, then burns the hamburger meat in a frying pan, slaps it onto a slice of the dried out day-old bread, pours some cold beans on the side, and slamming the plate down on the table then proceeds to sit as far away as possible. She alternates between staring into space, and glowering at him, waiting for him to finish so she can wash the dishes. She may even mutter from time to time, “Aren’t you done, yet?”. He finds himself thinking of the burger joint downtown, where the waitress who is a bit younger than his wife calls the male customers “honey”, and genuinely is interested in whether they enjoy their meal or not. Or he decides that henceforth, he’ll just make a cold bologna sandwich alone in the kitchen and eat it over the sink, because it frankly is less stressful overall. Bonus: He starts viewing the Food Channel obsessively, thinking of all the meals that he used to have, or that he could have if the woman changed her attitude…

    Note that in both cases, the “duty to cook” has been performed. No women on this thread have any clue what it is like to be handed that burned hamburger and cold beans as in Case 2, but some men likely do, hence the disagreement over ‘duty sex’. And yes, Not All Women Cook Like That, I agree, but that’s not the issue.

    Case 1 is really not a problem. SSM’s comments all apply – there is still going to be emotional bonding, and so forth and so on. Attraction is still present.

    Case 2 is very much a problem. Because attraction is very minimal, or does not exist at all.

    Dalrock and Deti have quite clearly outlined the issue of attraction. In Case 1, the man is on Dalrock’s “list”, in Case 2 he’s clearly not on Dalrock’s “list”. Thus, as Deti pointed out, attraction matters – those men and women who have the unstated premise that attraction already exists a priori are automatically putting aside a whole other category or situation. Those people are also basically assuming that everyone else is just like them….Fortress Solipsism looms in the mist, with its unscalable walls.

    Now, to offend some other people:
    Consider sexual behavior in terms of prostitution. I do not claim any expertise. However, I read a wide variety of material, have friends in countries where prostitution is legal, and I know some peace officers. So I have a semi-informed opinion in this context.

    As noted earlier in the thread, a high end prostitute or “escort” for the delicately minded likely will want regular customers, and so she will do a good job, intended to please. She will be kind, seek to put a man at ease, find something about him to praise, and genuinely try (within whatever limits exist) to show him a good time. She genuinely cares that he have a pleasant experience, if for no other reason than repeat business, not to mention higher fees in the future for more extended trysts.

    Cops have told me what they find in the street often is a woman on drugs who needs to turn as many tricks as she can in the shortest possible time. Such a woman probably doesn’t expect repeat business – she may not want to work the same location more than a couple of nights, for example, or her pimp may move her around to avoid arrest. She isn’t going to engage in small talk, she has no interest in knowing much about her johns, she is about quick money. So she only needs her john to ejaculate, and the quicker the better. She may even tell him to hurry up, get done, and if that ticks him off, so what? She won’t be seeing him again, what she wants is enough money to buy a fix, a rock, or some meth.

    So purely from a self-interested point of view, a married woman engaging in duty sex would likely be better off if she seeks to emulate the higher class escort, rather than the street corner hooker. Because one gets return customers, while the other likely does not. To put it in Bible terms, one resembles the Shula girl of “Song of Solomon”, the other is clearly found in Proverbs in the context of “a filthy ditch”. Again, purely in terms of her self interest she should see that her man enjoys her company, and thus seek to be a pleasant companion rather than a barely adequate substitute for masturbation.

    (The same goes for men with lower drives than women, but really that’s a whole different world.)

    And now to offend another set of participants in this thread: I have known men whose Significant Others – their live-in girlfriends, their fiancee’s, their wives, etc. – cheated on them. In some of these cases, these women apparently were like verry sloooow crockpots that required not just hours, but days, or months, or even geologic time to heat up…and yet, they were magically able to imitate a Ferrari in going from “0 to 90″ in a matter of seconds while with some other man in the back of a van, in a guest bedroom at a party, bent over a desk after hours at the workplace, and so forth. If all women are crockpots, then these incidents of cheating – a couple found out by inadvertent eyewitnesses – should never have happened. Yet they did.

    Consider it Cooking Case #3, when Hubby is out of the house, the woman is a whirlwind of skill in cooking up a piping hot omelet with fine herbs and two kinds of cheese in a matter of three minutes for some other man, who leaves by the back door. I’m reminded of the late, great Albert Collins blues tune, Too Many Dirty Dishes (For Just Us Two) that includes the line:

    “Went to work in the mornin’, my breakfast was cornflakes,
    But now in the evening, here’s the bone from a T-Bone steak…”

    Hmm. What could this possibly imply, eh? At the very least, some people have an issue with sample error. The world is bigger than their little corner, perhaps? Oh, well, enough offense given that quarter for now…

    Problem solving mode: Dalrock’s pretty much covered it. A man who is getting that hamburger – “starfish corpse” sex – needs to confront the issue of attraction, before she decides they are all done. Perhaps they are all done, or perhaps attraction can be rekindled, if she’s willing to work on it, too.

    One thing i am certain of: In that situation, the man cannot solve that problem all by himself. Draw appropriate conclusions.

  265. deti

    @ Dalrock:

    “Being on “the list” is an essential precondition to generate arousal, and being on the list is where the “long game” comes in (not with actually generating arousal). What I wrote above about changing the man’s status is that the frame of seeing him as her husband, as a man she is obligated to satisfy sexually, can help a woman change the man’s status regarding “the list”, as well as eventually leading to arousal. But I think we are in agreement that if he isn’t on the list this is a very serious problem, and a much more difficult challenge than if he is on the list but she isn’t aroused.
    *******
    “Changing that frame should put him on the list, unless he is so far out of consideration in her mind that this simply can’t be done. As I mentioned upthread, if this is the case (he can’t be in consideration) then the vast majority of the time the woman herself has made choices which lead to this problem.”

    Thanks Dalrock; I think that pretty much explains it. We are in agreement that the key factor is that the man has to be “on the list” or he was once “on the list” or “could be on the list”.

  266. deti

    Anon Reader:

    Aaaannnd—that was the problem so many people are having with this issue. Most of the women on this thread implicitly assume he’s on “the list”; and that if she married him, he MUST be on “the list”.

    The simple fact that a woman is married to a man does not mean she is, or ever was, attracted to him; or that he is, or ever was, on “the list”.

    The simple fact that a woman was having sex with a man she married does not mean she is, or ever was, attracted to him.

    Therefore, attraction CANNOT be generated from whole cloth. Therefore, attraction CANNOT be created from nothing, where it did not exist before.

  267. deti

    Elspeth:

    “And I assert strongly Deti that most husbands are or have been “on the list’.”

    How do you know? Because YOU married a man who not only is “on the list”, but IS “the list” for you?

    Women marry for all sorts of reasons; only one of which is love and attraction.

  268. deti

    Men, on the other hand, marry for three, and only for these three, reasons: Sex, love, and having children of their own.

  269. Stingray

    Deti,

    Most women were having sex with their husbands long before they were married. While having sex with a man in the hopes he will marry you in definitely a thing, to continue to do so without him at least being on the “maybe” list is not something most women cannot do for any extended period of time. There is usually going to be at least some attraction there. Might some women pull off a zero attraction marriage? Sure, but at some point, he made at least her maybe list.

  270. Calliso

    “Calliso: In a marriage one really needs to ideally compromise on these situations.

    W-R-O-N-G. The husband is head of the family, and the wife’s head as Christ is the head of the Church. Do you think Christ needs to compromise?

    This is an idiot argument. The husband has to train his wife in all aspects of what he wants. Then she must live up to it.

    To “compromise on these situations” means that the husband cedes leadership to the wife. It also means he is a wimp who is afraid to stand up for what he wants”
    Umm no being willing to compromise even if it means you don’t get your way 100% is the sign of a good leader. Imo someone with an attitude like yours is not fit to be a leader and has some growing up to do.

  271. Calliso

    “In a marriage one really needs to ideally compromise on these situations.

    “How about I let you touch one breast, and you only go half way in”?”

    Well that is clearly not the kind of compromise I am talking about, but ok whatever. Made me laugh a little.

  272. deti

    Sting:

    Sorry. Don’t buy it. Not when I hear all sorts of stories about women putting on their best pornstar acts before marriage; then shutting off the spigot afterwards. Heard that story too many times for me not to believe the women there are putting on an act just long enough to get the ring and the date and their “Special Day”; then tossing him aside afterwards.

    I didn’t notice it until I posted my comment today; and something had been bothering me about it all weekend. Then after Dalrock responded, it hit me :

    Every woman on this thread simply ASSUMES that, well, there MUST be some attraction there or marriage wouldn’t have happened. Because the women on this thread simply cannot bring themselves to consider that non-outlier women might actually marry men they’re not attracted to, simply to get whatever it is they want or need at that time – be it Her Special Day, or validation, or affirmation, or a father for the children she wants, or a roommate for financial support.

  273. sunshinemary Post author

    A woman who wasn’t attracted to the man she married can train herself to be attracted to him if she wants to badly enough. She can change her attitude, be loving and submissive, and see herself as his property. If she is rebellious and unwilling, it won’t happen by magic, but it isn’t some impossible feat. It only seems like it because the type of woman who marries a man she isn’t attracted to often isn’t the type who is willing to humble her arrogant self.

  274. sunshinemary Post author

    Or he decides that henceforth, he’ll just make a cold bologna sandwich alone in the kitchen and eat it over the sink, because it frankly is less stressful overall. Bonus: He starts viewing the Food Channel obsessively, thinking of all the meals that he used to have, or that he could have if the woman changed her attitude…

    Ugh, was that really necessary? I’ve sort of lost my appetite now. Oh well, at least I was planning to skip dinner anyway. :)

  275. Stingray

    Because the women on this thread simply cannot bring themselves to consider that non-outlier women might actually marry men they’re not attracted to, simply to get whatever it is they want or need at that time

    I can’t speak for the other women here, but it’s not that I can’t consider it (unfortunately, I’ve seen it). It’s that I am struggling with what you all are saying is the prevalence of it. Women simply do not like having sex with men they aren’t at least somewhat attracted to. To be able to pull that off in the numbers that some here are saying is surprising to me.

    the type of woman who marries a man she isn’t attracted to often isn’t the type who is willing to humble her arrogant self.

    Yes. Very much, this. The chances of them relinquishing control, or even considering it are very slim.

  276. sunshinemary Post author

    “The simple fact that a woman was having sex with a man she married does not mean she is, or ever was, attracted to him.”

    I cannot wrap my mind around this. I just can’t believe this is truly something that happens other than once in a blue moon.

  277. Anonymous Reader

    Ugh, was that really necessary? I’ve sort of lost my appetite now. Oh well, at least I was planning to skip dinner anyway.

    The funny thing is, a (purely hypothetical) man who has just had a burned burger on stale bread with cold beans on the side rudely slammed onto the table in front of him might have exactly the same thought.

    “Was that really necessary? I’ve sort of lost my appetite…”

    Attraction matters, SSM. Maybe not in various Fortresses of Solipsism where attraction just “is”, like air to be breathed without any effort, but in the rest of the world, it clearly matters.

    And seriously, SSM, if you find that paragraph disturbing to read, imagine how much more disturbing it is to live like that, for months, or even years? Yet there are men that have, or that are, living exactly like that. Hence the popularity of Heartiste, RationalMale, Athol and other Game sites.

  278. infowarrior1

    @SSM
    ” She can change her attitude, be loving and submissive, and see herself as his property. If she is rebellious and unwilling, it won’t happen by magic, but it isn’t some impossible feat.”

    Do you have any authentic testimonies that you can reference to confirm that this is true? Otherwise its your word against his word. And that we shall remain at an impasse.

  279. Artisanal Toad

    @Dalrock
    But it isn’t just sluts who give off IOIs when they first meet a man they find attractive. The difference is in how the woman proceeds from there, not in which one is capable of feeling attraction for an unknown man.

    This is so true. Unhappily married wives do it with great frequency and many of them don’t realize they’re doing it.

    @AR
    and yet, they were magically able to imitate a Ferrari in going from “0 to 90″ in a matter of seconds while with some other man in the back of a van, in a guest bedroom at a party, bent over a desk after hours at the workplace, and so forth. If all women are crockpots, then these incidents of cheating – a couple found out by inadvertent eyewitnesses – should never have happened. Yet they did.

    I just wrote about this very subject. There may be some crockpotting going on if there’s a pre-existing relationship in which emotional intimacy/attraction was allowed to build. A better refutation of women as crock pots is the number of women who have been the victim of real, actual (with violence) rape who reported having an orgasm or at least becoming aroused by it. If women are crockpots there is no way that could possibly happen.

    If she’s a wife that’s married to a needy, clingy, beta-boy herb that’s been drinking the churchian kool-aid about servant leadership and mutual submission to wives and has been dutifully supplicating himself to her, she’s probably seething with contempt for him. That will have an impact on her self-control with the guy who is attractive enough to take her from “0 to 90″ in about 4.3 seconds. Especially if it’s someone she has a relationship with through work/church/neighborhood. And what if he decides to see where he can take it, either for the challenge or because he just really wants to get a taste of that?

    I’m of the opinion that when a wife makes the conscious, premeditated decision to accept the attention of another man, knowing where it will lead, she’s emotionally rejected her husband. When she gives her body to that other man, that’s merely the final and ultimate rejection of him. However, I don’t think it’s the same when she’s isolated, inebriated, escalated, aroused and after the predictable becomes reality… later she says “it just happened.” In the first case the marriage is already over. In the second case it might be salvageable but the wife isn’t solely to blame for the situation. Totally to blame for her actions, but not for the situation.

  280. deti

    @ SSM:

    “A woman who wasn’t attracted to the man she married can train herself to be attracted to him if she wants to badly enough. She can change her attitude, be loving and submissive, and see herself as his property. If she is rebellious and unwilling, it won’t happen by magic, but it isn’t some impossible feat. It only seems like it because the type of woman who marries a man she isn’t attracted to often isn’t the type who is willing to humble her arrogant self.”

    No, SSM, no. The man has to be on the list.

    What you’re talking about is something very, very different from what Dalrock was talking about.

    Testimonies or it didn’t happen.

  281. deti

    “it’s not that I can’t consider it (unfortunately, I’ve seen (women marry men they’re not attracted to simply to get what they want or need at the time)”

    Unfortunately, that’s more than I can say for SSM’s suggestion that a woman not attracted to a man can train herself to be attracted to him.

    I’m sorry, SSM. It is simply not possible for a woman to “train” herself into attraction to a man she feels no attraction for. I have never, ever seen a woman “train” herself into attraction. Never, Not once. Cannot happen outside divine intervention. Humanly impossible.

    [ssm: Given that you are clearly an extremely intelligent man, it surprises me that you can't seem to grasp this most basic fact about the female sexual response: it's ALL about submitting to a dominant man. You know, maybe I'll just turn this into a post or something. But suffice it to say for now: No. You are wrong. I'm sure of it.]

  282. Anonymous Reader

    Dalrock
    But it isn’t just sluts who give off IOIs when they first meet a man they find attractive. The difference is in how the woman proceeds from there, not in which one is capable of feeling attraction for an unknown man.

    A. Toad:
    This is so true.

    Yes. Too many men have seen this in the 1st person now for denial to have credibility. If nothing else, by learning Game a man learns what common IOI’s are, and he cannot help but notice when a woman sitting or standing directly in front of him is toying with her hair, making a great deal of eye contact with him (pupils dilated), smiling and laughing at his remarks, etc.

    Unhappily married wives do it with great frequency and many of them don’t realize they’re doing it.

    Certainly such women do this, whether they realize what they are doing or not I cannot say. But I’ve seen it multiple times, in different cultural settings.

    Regarding crockpotting: There may well be such going on. Or, as you note, a woman may be so frustrated with her AFC herb that she’s primed to go off on short notice – what’s that, a microwave crockpot? I dunno. But the notion that all women require some constant stream of male attention, while glaciers scour their way across the landscape and drop into the ocean, in order to become aroused at bedtime…nah. I’m gonna stick with my lying eyes on this one.

  283. deti

    She might be able to “train” herself into submission. She might be able to “train” herself into obedience, into wifely duties, even into acting as though she loves the man she married and who clearly repulses her. But attraction cannot be “learned” or “trained”.

    Attraction matters. It matters a lot. Because eventually all that “training” will give way and mean nothing when a man she finds attractive shows her attention. Even if she does not have an affair or return the man’s attention; she will take it out on her husband in ways subtle and not so subtle. It will manifest, and it will injure the marriage.

    Attraction matters.

  284. Anonymous Reader

    Stingray
    Most women were having sex with their husbands long before they were married. While having sex with a man in the hopes he will marry you in definitely a thing, to continue to do so without him at least being on the “maybe” list is not something most women cannot do for any extended period of time.

    I’m having difficulty parsing this. What would your idea of “any extended period of time” be, in this context? A month? A year? Or what?

  285. Stingray

    AR,

    I’m thinking a modern engagement, I guess. It’s usually at least a year, right? Or the time to fake it until he proposes. If a woman is not attracted to a man, having sex on a regular basis for the time to wait for the wedding and/or engagement would be very difficult. Though, with the number of men here saying they’ve seen it, maybe they are hamstering their attraction. I just don’t know, but I am struggling to see how more than just a few women can pull this off.

  286. FuzzieWuzzie

    Gentlemen,
    For a woman to marry a man that she never felt any attraction for would be an act of deception that an honest woman simply couldn’t conceive. Herein lies the resistance.
    One would think taht only a woman who has NO options would consider it.

    Anonymous Reader,
    I like the food analogy. It’s a great way to illustrate the point. Additionally, if things are not going well in the bedroom, it’s likely to carry over to the kitchen.

    As Farm Boy sats often: “Tingle Ueber Alles”.

  287. Hannah

    I agree with Deti about attraction, Dalrock’s comments cleared things up, and Anonymous Reader your whole comment is bang on!
    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/in-defense-of-duty-sex/#comment-36288

    @Anonymous Reader:
    “a high end prostitute or “escort” for the delicately minded likely will want regular customers, and so she will do a good job, intended to please. She will be kind, seek to put a man at ease, find something about him to praise, and genuinely try (within whatever limits exist) to show him a good time.”

    Very true. Something for wives to consider emulating to keep their man home and happy.

  288. Anonymous Reader

    Stingray, thanks for the clarification. I couldn’t tell if you were asserting that women aren’t capable of denying sex for very long (false) or something else. I believe I understand, now. I’m not Deti and don’t play him on TV, but I can offer a variation on what I believe he’s writing.

    Have you ever seen either a man or a woman become involved “on the rebound’? That is, someone who was involved in a long term relationship that broke up, who then in a matter of a few weeks shows up with a different lover? I’ve seen it, in friends as well as family. There’s some degree of attraction, but it isn’t the same as the previous relationship. It’s a “good enough” kind of thing, essentially.

    Well, suppose a man or woman marries on the rebound, into a “good enough” marriage. Attraction isn’t superhot, but it’s “good enough”. Then the usual stressors of life such as children arrive. One possible result, if those stressors make the man more beta, is “good enough” slides down to “barely good enough” and then becomes “Ugh. Is this really necessary?” on her side, his side, or both sides.

    So, yeah, there was attraction but of a lukewarm sort and it’s all but gone. Now what?
    There are various options. However, if the man and woman are typical Americans who have been deluded into false notions such as “she” is just like “he” except for plumbing, and that equality in marriage is a “must have”, and that “communication” is essential but only on her terms…yeah, there’s problems ahead. And those problems will be harder to deal with because the attraction wasn’t that strong to begin with. Game may help, but only if it sparks up the attraction in her.

    Somewhat tangentially, a woman on the rebound could easily become an Alpha widow a few years into her next relationship, because under stress her current man is just not going to match up to the previous one…the man with the golden patina in the mirror of memory (who doesn’t actually exist except in her mind).

  289. Artisanal Toad

    @deti
    I think you’re making the case that attraction is required for arousal. In other words the attraction is the context for the arousal and in the absence of attraction there will be no arousal. Is that your argument? That without attraction it will take a miracle to develop attraction, and thus a miracle to develop the arousal?

    I’m here to tell you that your “miracle” exists. I’m talking about a “get undressed and get over here right now or I will kill you” type of arousal response. I first heard about this back in about 2006 through friends in the industry. It sounded too good to be true. I called in a favor, got a couple of vials and purely in the interest of science convinced my wife to give it a try (we had zero problems in this area, BTW, I was just really curious as to whether it would work as advertised). Thankfully, I took the advice and gave myself a shot too. When it kicked in she literally would not let go of me for 2.5 hours of screaming, moaning, talking to God sex.

    The compound is called PT-141 (Bremelanotide) and it absolutely will generate serious sexual arousal in both males and females. Originally tested as an injectable, the original test data indicated no issues with respect to side effects. Upon switching to a more socially acceptable delivery system as a nasal spray (people hate needles), clinical trials showed some statistically significant increases in blood pressure. The FDA did not like that and the drug is in limbo right now with respect to the regulatory approval process but the compound is available online from many sources. There are discussion groups associated with it, as well as the precursor Melanotan II (the barbie drug).

    Point two. There are professional hypnotists who will produce custom self-hypnosis audios that use bin-beats and hypnotic induction to put the woman into a theta state and have subliminals that “reprogram” her mind to develop attraction to her husband. They work. The things that hypnosis can do are amazing and at some point in the research most people get very uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable. In some ways, it’s like Game. We observe that we have a cause and effect. We do not listen to the noise, we observe cause and effect. We hypothesize, we test, we gather data. At some point we summarize the data and theorize. There are subliminals available online that will cause a woman’s breasts to grow. How difficult is it for a woman to reprogram her mind to be attracted to her husband? If she wants to, it isn’t that difficult.

    Both of the two points I just made exist outside the frame of Christianity and moral behavior. Neither specific drug therapy nor hypnotic reprogramming are moral issues, per se.

  290. Stingray

    Attraction isn’t superhot, but it’s “good enough”.

    Oh sure. I’ve seen this quite a bit. Though, Deti is talking about women marry men with whom there is zero attraction and I have a hard time seeing women being able to fake sexual attraction in this situation for very long at all. At worst it’s like a man trying to fake attraction to a 500 pound woman. At best, it’s like trying to fake attraction to a woman who might not disgust you, but with whom does absolutely nothing sexual for you at all. It’s just hard for me to see this occurring more than very rarely.

  291. Cane Caldo

    Well, I didn’t real all the comments up until here, but with the exception of Zippy you guys blew right through the contextual boundaries of the conversation. It was in these wilds that you found disagreement.

    The context is this: Typical husbands and typical wives within a typical and monogamous marriage; who have reached that typical stage of familiarity and routine where the pursuit of typical sex sometimes becomes a dutiful act, and not solely a pleasurable one.

    WITHIN THIS CONTEXT: All women become slow cookers, Not only do they become crockpots and coffee makers, but by necessity they must be if we want to have enjoyable hot food and beverages on demand. Slow cookers don’t just prepare meals–they keep them hot and ready to go for long periods of time, and without scalding the contents, i.e, losing their ever-loving minds.

    At the same time as those liberties were being taken with the context, the metaphorical standard of “eight hours” ceased to be a hyperbole, and started being strictly interpreted to mean “Eight Hours GMT”, instead of “some investment of time”.

    Finally, I made the comment above that women aren’t actually coffee makers and slow cookers and that they are–shockingly–sentient, and can decide to warm their own contents. That, too, seems to have been disregarded.

    None of this means that the contents of women can’t be cooked in shorter order under higher heat and pressure. So can a super-attractive man get her to want to have sex a whole lot faster? Sure. What the hell does that have to do with how typical husbands and typical wives solve the problem of how to make the duty of sex enjoyable? Nothing.

    [ssm: OK, I get what you're saying the third paragraph.

    I did take the eight-hour thing as hyperbole, though.]

  292. sunshinemary Post author

    @ AR
    As Stingray noted, you’ve changed what we were talking about. If there was ever lukewarm attraction, it’s just a matter of rekindling it.

    What we are talking about is this:

    Deti alleges that there are large numbers of women marrying men to whom they feel NO sexual attraction whatsoever because they just want to get married to an available man,

    and

    that it is physically impossible to generate attraction in someone who does not feel any attraction for you.

    His first claim makes no sense in light of the second one; if this were the case, a lot more than 40% (or whatever the number is) of first marriages would fail, and fail quickly. A woman who is faking sexual attraction in order to get married isn’t going to be able to keep that up for long.

    Now, I have some very specific disagreements with his second claim (attraction cannot be generated), but I’ll leave that for now since I’m probably going to try to throw together a post on it.

  293. Zippy

    Cane:
    Well, I didn’t real all the comments up until here, but with the exception of Zippy you guys blew right through the contextual boundaries of the conversation. It was in these wilds that you found disagreement.

    Yep. The comment thread has become Exhibit A of the point I made earlier.

  294. Zippy

    It also may be notable that addressing the subject matter within the context set by the OP has now been characterized as “solipsism”. Apparently any discussion confined to a specific context – that is, a discussion which stays on topic – is inherently solipsistic.

  295. Artisanal Toad

    Y’all are scared…. I provide the links, I provide the data, and y’all don’t want to go there. What it comes down to is that a woman can be physically induced into being horny by a pharmaceutical product. It’s frightening. I get that. The problem is agency. Can she choose to do this? Think it through. There are some serious moral issues involved.

  296. Lee Lee Bug

    AT,
    Is there a product that will make a man with a low sex drive horny? I’m not talking about ED, but rather a low drive/need for sex. I’ve seen a lot of commercials for testosterone creams lately, but they have some very scary warnings (breast cancer, hair growing in odd places, effects on female children living in the household, etc.)

  297. Artisanal Toad

    @LLB

    First, I am a *former* toxicologist and my knowledge of physiology and pharmacology is probably superior to that of the average physician. However, that is not to say that I am a medical care provider in any way. What I say is not medical advice. OK? There are a number of products ranging from Testosterone replacement therapy cream to PT-141 that will drastically alter a man’s sexual desire. In your case, have him checked for his testosterone-estrogen balance level. His testosterone level is meaningless outside the balance between testosterone and estrogen. The balance is everything. If his level of T is ok with respect to his level of E, hand him a Cialis or Levitra tablet and see what happens. If that does nothing, advance to PT-141. You have options. On the brain-desire side of things, you could have some specific hypnotics created to help your husband develop desire for you. This stuff works. That’s a different direction. It all gets to the same spot.

    What you need is a physician that has a knowledge of the current marketplace and who is open-minded enough to read some foreign medical journals. Only about 25% of worldwide medical journals are translated into English for Medline. That’s a shame and it’s intentional.

    This is a difficult area. There are cultural, social, spiritual and physical issues that all come into play. It isn’t as easy as “take this pill” and everything will be OK.” It doesn’t work that way.

  298. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM
    I was not suggesting that you *needed* help. Not after some of the things you’ve said….. 8-O

    However, there are products that can help people who have problems. That’s all I’m saying. I provided my test report on one of them. I feel like I’ve gone above and beyond the call of duty on that. Personally, if I had a problem, I’d be looking at hypnotics. Find a professional hypnotist that will work with you and create some specific stuff aimed directly at your problem. If it required that the couple meet with said hypnotist and have a couple of sessions, big deal. You’d get a product tailored to your problems.

  299. Dalrock

    @Cane

    you guys blew right through the contextual boundaries of the conversation. It was in these wilds that you found disagreement.

    The context is this: Typical husbands and typical wives within a typical and monogamous marriage; who have reached that typical stage of familiarity and routine where the pursuit of typical sex sometimes becomes a dutiful act, and not solely a pleasurable one.

    WITHIN THIS CONTEXT: All women become slow cookers, Not only do they become crockpots and coffee makers, but by necessity they must be if we want to have enjoyable hot food and beverages on demand. Slow cookers don’t just prepare meals–they keep them hot and ready to go for long periods of time, and without scalding the contents, i.e, losing their ever-loving minds.

    I disagree. If I’m reading your argument correctly, you are arguing that low attraction just takes time to develop. I think this is the rationalization of the current culture. Low attraction is low attraction, but it doesn’t get better if left to stew. The whole problem with the crock pot advice is it tells husbands they need to patiently create attraction with their wives over time. The reality is if the smack on the ass worked as desired, she is probably as ready to go then as she is going to be. Waiting 8 hours only risks her changing her mind. If it didn’t generate attraction when it occurred, this attraction isn’t going to magically appear over the next 8 hours (or 4 hours, etc).

    Where I think we would agree is that setting a baseline expectation that she is his wife and it is right and normal for him to interact with her physically/sexually is generally a very good idea in a low attraction situation*, and if implemented with some other very basic Game can change her from low to moderate or perhaps even higher attraction. I think we would also agree that a husband focusing on putting kino in expecting sex out is the wrong way to look at it. A more alpha man can pull this off, but the man who needs help runs a very high risk of coming off as begging for sex. Making touching/groping/manhandling the order of the day avoids this frame of mind, but thinking in terms of slow cooker falls directly into it.

    *And either way just plain fun.

  300. redpillsetmefree

    Anna Nicole Smith & her billionaire husband.
    Hugh Hefner’s women.
    Courtney Stodden(16) and Doug Hutchison(51).

    That level of finances is not common, but that level of faking attraction is.

  301. Zippy

    Dalrock:

    If I’m reading [Cane's] argument correctly, …

    I doubt that you are, because your paraphrase doesn’t resemble my own understanding.

    The whole problem with the crock pot advice is it tells husbands they need to patiently create attraction with their wives over time.

    If you replace “create” with “sustain”, you’d be closer to my own understanding of the traditional wisdom. I realize that labeling it “long game” makes it more marketable to the current audience — but that was precisely the point I was making in my first comment that set off this branch of the discussion.

    The reason “game” put on as a PUA mask works on short-sighted sluts is because they buy into the fantasy that the masculine display they see right now is just how he is all the time – they want to buy into the fantasy, because that is the kind of man they want to sleep with. In a marriage though that isn’t sustainable. He actually has to be that kind of man, on an ongoing and regular basis – he has to keep the slow cooker simmering – or he will become as unattractive to her as she will to him if she puts on fifty pounds and never showers.

  302. Lee Lee Bug

    AT,

    Interesting. I didn’t know that men produced estrogen.

    I did learn recently that a “normal” testosterone level is somewhat meaningless b/c most labs don’t differentiate between what is normal for an 18 year old and what is normal for an 80 year old. It’s important to have it tested at a lab that will provide exact numbers and then consult with a physician who can interpret the results appropriately for the individual patient.

  303. Artisanal Toad

    @LLB

    Standard lab testing will yield only the results. No interpretation. In the US, we live in an estrogen-rich environment that effects men and women both. There are a lot of estrogen mimicking substances out there and these substances have a very real effect on men. It’s called “environmental estrogen” and it’s a very serious problem. A man might have a normal level of T but because his level of E was abnormally high, he’d have problems. That’s why I said his level of T is irrelevant in light of the T to E ratio.

    In your case, and from what you’ve said, I seriously tremble to offer advice. I’d first look at the level of T with respect to the T to E ratio, and after that consider hypnotics. Assuming the absence of traditional pathologies (which would include latent homosexual tendencies), I don’t know what to say. There is no way I could possibly offer you specific advice without personal knowledge and even then, I’m not specifically trained or qualified to do so. This can turn into one of those areas in which even those who are “experts” are left wringing their hands.

    I think that a large part of the problem might be with the idea that he might not think there is a problem. In other words, he’s asexual and doesn’t understand your desires. That would be an abnormality, but I’ll acknowledge that it’s a possibility. This is an area in which appropriate hypnotherapy might be the best solution. That’s way outside the norms of traditional medical advice, but I’m not normal. I like dealing with the stuff that works.

  304. sunshinemary Post author

    Can someone puh-lease help me out here? Deti and AR are convinced that somehow Dalrock has refuted my idea that a woman can become attracted to her husband, even if she previously was not, if she will change her attitude, become much more submissive. and see herself as having an obligation to obey him and sexually satisfy him. But when I read Dalrock’s comment, I don’t see where he refuted me; to me it looks more like he agrees with me. I am confused.

    Dalrock wrote:

    What I wrote above about changing the man’s status is that the frame of seeing him as her husband, as a man she is obligated to satisfy sexually, can help a woman change the man’s status regarding “the list”, as well as eventually leading to arousal. But I think we are in agreement that if he isn’t on the list this is a very serious problem, and a much more difficult challenge than if he is on the list but she isn’t aroused.

    Deti responded:
    Thanks Dalrock; I think that pretty much explains it. We are in agreement that the key factor is that the man has to be “on the list” or he was once “on the list” or “could be on the list”.

    AR wrote:

    Problem solving mode: Dalrock’s pretty much covered it. A man who is getting that hamburger – “starfish corpse” sex – needs to confront the issue of attraction, before she decides they are all done. Perhaps they are all done, or perhaps attraction can be rekindled, if she’s willing to work on it, too.

    Not to mention, AR, that I made that last point there (that he needs to work on attraction) right in my OP. I don’t care about having it attributed to me, but it’s a bit tough to be called solipsistic for something that I actually already wrote in the OP. Also, you write:

    Dalrock has just clarified much of the murk in this thread. At least twice in the thread someone (iamnobody00 and someone else) stated that not all “duty sex” is the same. Solipsism being what it is, no one has noticed.

    Did you read my OP? That was the entire premise, that there are two kinds of duty sex, both worth having.

  305. sunshinemary Post author

    @ AR
    In re-reading your last bunch of comments, I’m trying to clarifying what you actually think because you seem to be all over the place. As far as I can tell you, say that you disagree with me that attraction can be generated when it wasn’t there at the start of the relationship, but then you write:

    And seriously, SSM, if you find that paragraph disturbing to read, imagine how much more disturbing it is to live like that, for months, or even years? Yet there are men that have, or that are, living exactly like that. Hence the popularity of Heartiste, RationalMale, Athol and other Game sites.

    If you don’t believe attraction can be created, then why would Game sites, which are supposedly teaching men how to generate attraction, be popular with men who are living with starfish corpse sex (I lol’d at your term for that, though)? And you also write that a man would have to start with working on attraction issues in that situation, but if attraction cannot be generated, why would he do that?

    Also, solipsism means an extreme preoccupation with the self to the point where others are deemed not even to exist. I’m not self-preoccupied, I just don’t happen to agree with you. Not agreeing with you is not equal to solipsism. Furthermore, the fact that I am very attracted to my husband does not automatically make me solipsistic either. I can clearly see that many people are not attracted to their spouses. Where I don’t agree with you is whether or not that can be changed.

  306. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM
    I will go on record as saying that if a woman wants to be attracted to her husband, even though she has no attraction to him, it’s possible for her to develop attraction. There is a push-pull effect at work. He can pull her by doing the right things and she can push herself by pursuing the right attitude and behaviors.

    I’m thinking about the military model that requires enlisted men to salute officers. Everyone knows that a second Lieutenant is a walking accident waiting to happen, but senior sergeants are required to salute them and call them “sir.” That behavior tends to generate the respect and discipline necessary for the enlisted ranks to respect the officer corps. The same thing can happen in a marriage. If the wife is willing to do the things necessary to develop respect for her husband and be in obedience to him, those actions will result in attraction to him over time.

    As I’ve just discussed, there are things that can be done to adjust sexual desire, but on a day-to-day basis, certain basic behaviors must be adopted by the wife to bring her into submission to her husband. Submission is to someone who is dominant. Dominant is attractive, if it’s not abusive.

    [ssm: See, I'm so extremely pro-lifelong marriage that if I were in this situation of not being attracted to my husband, I would be highly motivated to fix the situation. I would do whatever it took - change my attitude, be more submissive, get hypnotized (lol), whatever - in order to fix the problem so that we wouldn't end up getting divorced. That's why I don't think AR and Deti should dismiss the possibility that attraction can be generated; to say that it can't just absolves the woman in question from having to do anything to fix the situation. Deti's advice seems something like, "If your wife isn't attracted to you, there's nothing to be done but to be miserable and wait to die." I don't accept that.]

  307. Artisanal Toad

    @SSM
    Well, that’s why the feminists hate you so much. You’re committed. You’d do whatever it took to get things right. They have a script that says “nuke the marriage!” at any of 27 different possibilities. Deti’s position is different, it’s an amoral point that says desire is deterministic and isn’t subject to outside forces. I disagree, but we’re back to the NAWALT argument in that respect. I think there are some women who flat out refuse to do the things they’d have to do to change their desire for any particular man, with the result that they’ll never have any desire for him. Other women could change their behavior and develop desire.

  308. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM, I don’t know if this will help but, it seems that you are committed to making your marriage work. It seems that a lot of the married women commenters here are too. In these times, that attitude is well above standard.
    Could it be that Deti and Anonymous Reader do not expect that level of commitment?
    That might explain their conclusions. There is a limit to what a man can do. The “wife” has to hold up her end.

    As an aside, this discussion is giving me feelings of trepidation. I am single.

  309. Sarah's Daughter

    SSM,
    I don’t necessarily accept the premise that a wife who isn’t attracted to her husband can’t ever develop that attraction. I don’t know of it happening without God. I don’t think there is an incentive without God (does anyone cease rebellion without seeking Truth?). *But* if a married woman who is not attracted to her husband has truth revealed to her, commits her life to obedience to God, repents of her rebellion, submits herself to her husband, abides in the Word, and prays for the change it would require in her, I can see how she would develop attraction for her husband.

    Because I know me and the shallowness that once existed within me, I look back on the most challenging times of our marriage and curse my stupid self for staying in my rebellion. I know (now) my husband is a natural Delta – because I’ve identified that, I know there are times when life circumstances come about that he’s not at the top of his game. Those are the times when my attraction to him wanes but because I’m cognizant of it, I step up the prayer and submission. A wife, who commits to life long marriage, can do this. And she should do this. And I can testify to the fact that the lulls (of attraction) become shorter and shorter spans of time. When he trusts me – he sees my submission, respect, adoration – during the times that he’s not at his peak, something happens within him that changes in response to it. Two months was our longest lull. It happened ten years ago. Today our lulls last at most two days. Then again, I’ve been a student of girl game for four years.

    Fuzzie – you with your trepidation. Okay, it’s understandable. But dude, seriously, get it right with God. That’s the only way there is hope.

  310. nightskyradio

    Amanda – my husband is so accustomed to kino that he accidentally kino-ed up my assets in front of the whole family today… How this applies to the slow cooker analogy I have no idea. He loves my Bunns though :)

    Fixed it for ya.

  311. deti

    SSM:

    Where you are getting hung up is the difference between

     Increasing attraction where there was some before or is a small amount;
    And

     Generating attraction, creating it out of nothing, where there was no attraction at all to begin with.
    In the first situation, all is not lost. All that’s required is a very small amount, a mustard seed if you will, of attraction. The man is “on the list” or could be on the list.

    In the second situation, the man is not on the list, never was on the list and will never, ever in a billion years be on the list. Attraction cannot be created. The best that can be hoped for is a marriage in which both carry out their obligations to God and to each other.

    [ssm: Wrong. It can be generated.]

    I don’t believe there are lots and lots of marriages like this. I believe there are more like this than you are willing to face up to.

    [ssm: That's really your word against mine. I believe there are low-attraction marriages, but I do not believe there are hardly any marriages that start out with zero attraction. I have yet to hear a first-person narrative from anyone who is in a voluntary (not arranged) marriage and who says that they started out their marriage not attracted to their spouse at all.]

    I believe you and Elspeth cannot see it because you are married to bull alphas to whom you are strongly sexually attracted, and you just cannot fathom a situation in which a woman would do this to herself or to a man.

    [ssm: I am strongly attracted to my husband. He is not a "bull alpha"; I don't even know what that means. He is a normal man. He doesn't act like a simpering bitch, of course, and he enjoys being a man and is not inclined to tolerate crap from me. But he is a normal man just like the vast majority of other men. It's important to acknowledge that because otherwise men here get the idea that I am attracted to my husband because he possesses some magic genetic trait called "alpha" that they can never have so they might as well not even try. I think that's B.S. and that they can attract a woman by being a normal man.]

    But I am here to tell you it happens, it does happen, it has happened, and it will continue to happen. And it happens for two primary reasons:

    1. She wants a husband because time is running out for babies/she needs validation/she wants affirmation/she needs financial support/’she just wants to get married/she needs a father for her thugspawn; and

    2. He needs the sex and is locking in a regular sex partner.

    It’s really just that simple.

  312. deti

    I also must disagree with Cane and Zippy that women are “slow cookers” sexually. I understand the point that there must be “low attraction” existing at most times or at all times so as to have sex on tap.

    But this isn’t consistent with what I’ve seen and experienced and read about, which is that when she’s turned on, really turned on, really attracted, that sexual response can be extremely rapid. I’ve seen women in low attraction who can’t ever seem to get turned on. But I’ve also seen women so turned on they can’t get the dick inside them fast enough. This is AR’s lumbering van in her marriage who, in the presence of a man she’s really attracted to, transforms into a Ferrari going from 0-60 in 4.3 seconds.

    Attraction matters.

    [ssm: Deti, who has argued that attraction doesn't matter? I certainly haven't. But I do agree with you that sexual arousal can be extremely rapid for a wife who is attracted to her husband. The slow-cooker attraction-maintaining flirtations are really yummy and fun, but...well, how can I say this nicely...um, when I'm ready to go, I'm ready to go right now. Not in eight hyperbolic hours. And I think most wives are like me that way.]

  313. Pingback: Is it possible to generate sexual attraction in a marriage where there has never been any? | Sunshine Mary

  314. Dalrock

    @FuzzieWuzzie

    As an aside, this discussion is giving me feelings of trepidation. I am single.

    I would be careful not to “double count” the risks of marriage as we discuss them. I assume you already understood the statistics and know the risks. What we are discussing doesn’t add to that, and ideally it can help you.

  315. Matamoros

    Caliso: Umm no being willing to compromise even if it means you don’t get your way 100% is the sign of a good leader. Imo someone with an attitude like yours is not fit to be a leader and has some growing up to do.

    Is there compromise in marriage? Of course. But, you cannot compromise on the essentials. There can only be one captain of a ship, the husband – both by nature and divine ordinance. Therefore the important things are bound in stone, the rest adjustable for mutual comfort.

    Can she screw around on you or do you have a “marriage”. That is an example of set in stone vs. compromisable. If you have a marriage then she is exclusively yours and she knows not to mess with other guys, even flirting. Same with sex.

    Now I assume we are talking about Christian marriage, not marriage 2.0 or whatever. The well known Catholic principle : << In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas : unity in essentials, liberty in matters of doubt, and in all things charity.

    In the essentials commanded of marriage, which includes sex, she must yield when asked. (Note that if she wants sex, he must also give it.) This is the "one flesh" that they are commanded to be, so the husband cannot yield in this, or the whole edifice of marriage begins to crumble.

    So by requiring duty sex, the husband is fulfilling the leadership position. She by yielding, gains pleasure and enjoyment from the act, as well as from his dominance (wimps and other betas don't have the will to require the marriage act) and her own submissiveness.

    If you do not require this in your marriage, it is bound to fail – usually sooner than later – as she will despise your wimpiness and lack of manly deeds. And she will use sex to control you in every aspect of your life.

    "I have a fever, and don't feel good," she says. The alpha/sigma replies, "Okay, I'll finish in a few minutes. We'll do it longer you feel better." You don't let her out of it, you modify it based upon circumstances.

    A woman in her soul wants a man who dominates her, who demonstrates this by his actions, and doesn't apologize for it.

  316. Matamoros

    SunshineMary: Can someone puh-lease help me out here? Deti and AR are convinced that somehow Dalrock has refuted my idea that a woman can become attracted to her husband, even if she previously was not, if she will change her attitude, become much more submissive. and see herself as having an obligation to obey him and sexually satisfy him.

    I believe you are absolutely correct. Over at Roissy’s he has recently posted evidence that by adopting alpha stances, etc. the man begins to act more masculine. Ergo, by acting more feminine she becomes so.

    I would also add that all relationships, especially marriage, are cyclical. There are times of intense love and passion, of so-so feelings, of even active dislike and hate. These are the seasons of a relationship. And as the seasons go from winter to spring, so the feelings of the man and woman will also change.

    There must, in marriage, be a realization that the commitment is not to the other person so much as to the marriage itself. That is why marriage is a sacrament. It is the marriage that commands keeping the relationship alive.

    So that even if the woman does not like her husband, if she has a Christian commitment to the marriage, all will be well over time.

    She will see something in him that she forgot, or he does something that thrills her without him even knowing it, or she sees how much more manly he is than the other women’s husbands. It can be anything. But it will begin the Spring cycle, which goes into the Summer of love and passion; which in turn will lead to the Fall of indifference, and the Winter of coldness.

    Through it all it is the husbands being the Rock of the marriage, that enables her changing emotions and feelings to find a safe harbor. She must have the commitment to the marriage, and see herself as a married woman.

    And, she herself can consciously do this by looking for and finding things about him that she likes, even during the dark days, and then by submitting herself to him willingly. It causes changes in brain chemistry, which in turn affects emotions and behavior.

  317. Elspeth

    @ Matamoros:

    Yes! Thank you sir. I was trying to decide the best part of your 11:18 comment to highlight, but the whole thing is superb.

    We hae said this to other couples, and they have balked, but it’s true. When no one is free in his or her own mind to leave, when the commitment is to the union, your ability to see the strengths, virtues, and lovely things in your mate becomes much, much greater.

  318. sunshinemary Post author

    @ Matamoros

    Great comment. Would you mind copying that over to the new thread? I’d like to move the conversation over there now, since this thread is getting long and convoluted.

  319. Anonymous Reader

    SSM
    Did you read my OP? That was the entire premise, that there are two kinds of duty sex, both worth having.

    Yes, I did. I also read all the comments prior to replying. I’m not going to make the time right now to re-read all the comments, so maybe I’m in error. It seemed and seems to me that having admitted that low/zero attraction situations may exist, you and the other participants then ignored that case to concentrate on the easier “some attraction exists but different sex drive” situation. In comment after comment, the unstated premise was “attraction exists, but she just can’t keep up with him”. So the case of zero or little attraction was stated, and then pretty much ignored until Dalrock posted, IMO. Those who claim to have addressed the OP but whose premise assumes attraction in all cases are just wrong – there’s two cases, and they are only writing about one.

    Now, you claimed in the OP that duty sex even when a woman has zero attraction is A Good Thing, based on a sense of duty to her husband and possible bonding effects. However, so far as I can tell, you have zero experience on either side of “low/no attraction duty sex”. The same seems to be true of the majority of women who comment, as well as several men. There also seems to be a deficiency of imagination; people who apparently cannot imagine themselves in a zero-attraction situation.

    So I posted my analogy to duty sex in order to demonstrate that not all duty sex is worth having. Indeed, in a situation where a woman has zero or near zero attraction to her husband, such duty sex may leave them both worse off: she feeling taken advantage of, taken for granted, sad, etc. while he feels rejected, sad, angry, treated with contempt, etc. Both yearning for some situation other than the current one. No improvement at all, in fact a worsening of the situation.

    In such a case, game may not work as well as expected. A woman with little to no attraction might just be prone to want to fight – since she is not attracted to this particular man, her unconscious mind wants him to go away. The cavewoman in the back of her head is throwing rocks at him, screeching and baring fangs. So fitness testing escalating to a nuclear level is quite possible, and this is going to look to him a whole lot like a betrayal of his trust. Athol had a good observation earlier this year in the posting “Wife Hunting 101″ in which he noted that for many men, “trust” has two modes. Either he trusts her, entirely, or he doesn’t. Remaining in the room with someone you can’t trust isn’t good for attraction, so amping up fitness tests isn’t going to help a relationship, because once again it may well look like betrayal in his eyes.

    In a low to no attraction situation, kino may well be counterproductive. The woman with little to no attraction towards her husband may avoid coming into contact with him in the course of moving about the house. The same may be true for the man. In such a situation, kino becomes an unwanted intrusion into personal space; “don’t touch me!” being one possible response, particularly from women, and simple avoidance of the “I’m going to my workshop for the rest of the evening” sort for men.

    A man who doesn’t feel attraction for a women is going to manifest that in a rather obvious fashion in bed. Do I have to spell this out?

    A woman who doesn’t feel attraction for a man will manifest this not quite so obviously, but the “just take her” suggestion might be counterproductive if she never lubricates and just lies there, gritting her teeth and muttering “are you done, yet?”.

    Why does this matter? Because the case where a woman has little to no attraction for her husband is likely to lead her to divorce, unless she has a very strong reason not to. Dalrock has extensively documented how wide and deep the pro-divorce push is in the US, so there’s no need to discuss where zero attraction can lead, surely? How many married women have little to no attraction for their husbands? I don’t know, but one proxy might be “married women who file for divorce”. As we all know, 60% to 65% of divorces are filed by women, and the divorce rate is about 40% for the US population, about 38% for evangelicals and about 30% for Roman Catholics.

    Do the math. Probability of divorce * probability of woman filing: P(D) * P(W) = 0.4 * 0.6 = 0.24 for the general population, = 0.20 for Roman Catholics. So assuming that “woman filed divorce” is an appropriate proxy for “woman with little to no attraction for her husband”, then at minimum 1 out of every 5 married women has little to no attraction towards her husband. So much for the “oh, that never happens”, “oh, that’s so rare we don’t have to address it” nonargument.

    Since not every woman in this situation divorces her husband, the actual number is higher. How much higher? I do not know. But it is not zero by any stretch of the imagination. Some couples obviously deal with this by becoming asexual – the “brother/sister” or “roomate” model. Frankly, if children are in the house, I can’t fault this given what we know about the extensive damage divorce does to children. But the fact remains that there are some substantial numbers of couples out there who have zero attraction – some divorce, some do not.

    In conclusion, I suggest that duty sex should be confined to situations where there is some degree of attraction between man and wife, because a woman who has little to no attraction for a man is likely to be angry with him, and therefore not up to doing a very good job. The reverse is likely true as well. It may well be better to either deal with the various issues underlying loss of attraction, or agree to be asexual, rather than engage in “duty sex” that leaves both people feeling worse than before.

    I hope this clarifies. I do not have time for further discussion right now.

  320. Cane Caldo

    Deti said:

    I also must disagree with Cane and Zippy that women are “slow cookers” sexually. I understand the point that there must be “low attraction” existing at most times or at all times so as to have sex on tap.

    But this isn’t consistent with what I’ve seen and experienced and read about, which is that when she’s turned on, really turned on, really attracted, that sexual response can be extremely rapid.

    &

    SSM said:

    The slow-cooker attraction-maintaining flirtations are really yummy and fun, but…well, how can I say this nicely…um, when I’m ready to go, I’m ready to go right now. Not in eight hyperbolic hours. And I think most wives are like me that way.

    Once again, I’d like to rein your heads back to the actual topic of enjoying sex when a spouse is not ready to go, i.e., not horny, i.e., it is duty sex. You know: Like in the title of the post.

    As far as Deti and AR’s concerns about vanning around for this guy, but racing for another: The concern of that topic is competition. That’s a whole different subject. Here, we were talking about couples who honor the mutual non-compete clause of marriage.

    @Dalrock

    If I’m reading your argument correctly, you are arguing that low attraction just takes time to develop.

    That’s not what I’m saying. More importantly, I think we must differentiate between the lack of attraction between two acquaintances/strangers, and the stymied attraction that is the result of the contempt bred by familiarity, boredom, etc.

    Low attraction is low attraction, but it doesn’t get better if left to stew.

    The whole problem with the crock pot advice is it tells husbands they need to patiently create attraction with their wives over time.

    Correct, and I did not suggest that a spouse wait until the time is perfect. It seems like you’re getting caught up in the imperfect analogy of the “slow cooker” metaphor. My advice would be better described as IMPATIENTLY attempt to create attraction, and to introduce fun to the sexual stew because managing fun is less fraught with worry than managing brute sexual attraction.

    The reality is if the smack on the ass worked as desired, she is probably as ready to go then as she is going to be.

    If the Betas actually realized this–or could get over themselves enough to actually do it–they wouldn’t be complaining about it on the Internet. Keep in mind that Game works on the man; not the woman. The whole reason I suggested these tactics is for non-Alphas who find themselves on the receiving end of duty sex, as a way to introduce some fun into a dutiful act, i.e., to cause en-joy-ment. The man who gets cold-fish sex is much more likely to be satisfied by moving to fun sex; to establish a positive sexual report with one another. It’s much easier to move from there to hot sex. Again–and this is really pertinent to the conversation–the wife is already doing her duty to put out.

    My advice was for those who are intimidated at the prospect of bringing the heat; for whatever reason. In other words: The slow cooker analogy is for the men; not the women. If a man was capable of just setting her alight he would not be inquiring on how to be a better cook. I encourage any husband who wishes to skip slow cooking to just throw that lamb on the spit and roast her good.

    Slow cooking is Beta cooking, and I think that’s perfectly fine; which is handy because every husband is going to have his Beta moments, and that’s not always a bad thing.

  321. Calliso

    “Is there compromise in marriage? Of course. But, you cannot compromise on the essentials. There can only be one captain of a ship, the husband – both by nature and divine ordinance. Therefore the important things are bound in stone, the rest adjustable for mutual comfort.

    Can she screw around on you or do you have a “marriage”. That is an example of set in stone vs. compromisable. If you have a marriage then she is exclusively yours and she knows not to mess with other guys, even flirting. Same with sex.

    Now I assume we are talking about Christian marriage, not marriage 2.0 or whatever. The well known Catholic principle : << In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas : unity in essentials, liberty in matters of doubt, and in all things charity.

    In the essentials commanded of marriage, which includes sex, she must yield when asked. (Note that if she wants sex, he must also give it.) This is the "one flesh" that they are commanded to be, so the husband cannot yield in this, or the whole edifice of marriage begins to crumble.

    So by requiring duty sex, the husband is fulfilling the leadership position. She by yielding, gains pleasure and enjoyment from the act, as well as from his dominance (wimps and other betas don't have the will to require the marriage act) and her own submissiveness.

    If you do not require this in your marriage, it is bound to fail – usually sooner than later – as she will despise your wimpiness and lack of manly deeds. And she will use sex to control you in every aspect of your life.

    "I have a fever, and don't feel good," she says. The alpha/sigma replies, "Okay, I'll finish in a few minutes. We'll do it longer you feel better." You don't let her out of it, you modify it based upon circumstances.

    A woman in her soul wants a man who dominates her, who demonstrates this by his actions, and doesn't apologize for it."

    Yes there are a few areas that there should be no compromise in. I should not be allowed to see other people neither should he. I still completely disagree that one can not compromise when it comes to sex. I mean do you really think it helps things if a man demands sex from his wife even if she is tired and in pain? Or a wife her husband? I mean really if your wife has a fever if you are a decent human being the mere thought of demanding or asking for sex from her should not even cross your mind. Sorry to be crude but you will be fine masturbating for a night or two. I mean with my husbands current knee problems I would feel like an complete POS if I even thought of demanding sex from him. And I have gone without sex for a lot longer then acouple nights. *more like three four years* But demanding sex despite how awful your partner may feel just leads to resentment and you might find yourself with NO sex life. My marriage is in no danger of failing btw.

    Personally I like some dominance but nothing like what you are describing. There is a difference between being a good leader/dominant and acting like a complete asshole. My husband is very masculine but he would never treat me like what you seem to be advocating.

  322. Calliso

    Bleh wish I could edit because I forgot something in my last comment. If your wife or husband is constantly having fevers and headaches whenever you ask for sex. Chances are it is a bunch of bs and that would be a good time to put your foot down and say enough is enough. Changes are going to happen. But what I am referring to in my other post is a situation where someone is actually feeling bad not just pretending to.

  323. Zippy

    Cane:

    Once again, I’d like to rein your heads back to the actual topic of enjoying sex when a spouse is not ready to go, i.e., not horny, i.e., it is duty sex. You know: Like in the title of the post.

    Good luck with that. There are far too many shiny objects around to keep the discussion on point.

  324. sunshinemary Post author

    I’d like to rein your heads back to the actual topic of enjoying sex when a spouse is not ready to go, i.e., not horny, i.e., it is duty sex. You know: Like in the title of the post.

    Yes, thanks for that. Detours and sidebars can actually be useful in their own way, of course (sometimes shiny objects in the weeds turn out to be silver dollars you know, though mostly they are pennies).

  325. sunshinemary Post author

    it’s so useful to discover that I’ve been wasting my time.

    Why do you say that? I thought your comments were interesting. And don’t forget the thousands of people who read this but said nothing.

  326. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/11/13 | Free Northerner

  327. Dalrock

    @Cane (responding to me)

    If I’m reading your argument correctly, you are arguing that low attraction just takes time to develop.

    That’s not what I’m saying…

    The whole problem with the crock pot advice is it tells husbands they need to patiently create attraction with their wives over time.

    Correct, and I did not suggest that a spouse wait until the time is perfect. It seems like you’re getting caught up in the imperfect analogy of the “slow cooker” metaphor. My advice would be better described as IMPATIENTLY attempt to create attraction, and to introduce fun to the sexual stew because managing fun is less fraught with worry than managing brute sexual attraction.

    I would say I was right in the beginning, that you and I are in fact in (general) agreement on this. From my first comment in response to Zippy on the topic:

    On the “Slow Cooker”, as we all acknowledge the “kino all the time” advice upthread has nothing to do with what is being advised with this term. Moreover, I think Cane and the others here would agree that you don’t do this because you want sex. You do this because it is fun and loving, and because it sets a positive frame. While it is true that it almost certainly will increase your wife’s attraction for you, if you are doing it to get sex paradoxically it very likely won’t work as intended.

    What threw me off was this exchange you then had with SSM:

    If you means it takes us eight hours to become aroused, as many Christian marriage sites seem to say, then no. That’s false.

    No, I don’t think it is false, and yes it usually does take “eight hours” for women to become aroused.

  328. Cane Caldo

    @SSM

    I said that because–while I understand others are reading–I was still trying to participate in a conversation rather than simply raise the cacophony.

    @Dalrock

    No, I don’t think it is false, and yes it usually does take “eight hours” for women to become aroused.

    I can see how you were thrown off. My comment was meant within the confines of marriage made tepid by time and familiarity, and where a husband feels his dignity is at risk because his wife has indicated that in her eyes it is.

  329. Dalrock

    Thanks Cane for the clarification. I suspected we were on the same page.

    As for being off topic, we are incredibly on topic given that we just broke the 350 comment mark.

  330. Zippy

    (tap tap… is the mike still on in here?)

    Sunshine:
    Detours and sidebars can actually be useful in their own way, of course …

    Sure. But it is fallacious to rip something totally out of context – e.g. the old “slow cooker” wisdom – and then criticize it in a context in which it was never intended to apply. It is long term marriage advice, not PUA advice — and in context, properly understood, it is and always has been good marriage advice. That’s why the feminist types have coopted and distorted it. Why would they coopt and distort intrinsically bad advice?

    Suppose your husband simply stopped acting masculine: he became lazy, supplicating, asked you for permission all the time, no kino, no “cocky funny”, etc — that he simply stopped engaging in “long game” entirely, as Dalrock would prefer to label it (vs. “slow cooker”).

    This would in fact make him less attractive to you. If he is less attractive to you because of less “long game”, your sex life will be adversely affected. He has to engage in “long game” – preferably naturally, as opposed to as some sort of fakery – in order to keep your fires stoked over the long haul of kids, mortgages, etc.

    This isn’t about some stopwatch measurement of purely physiological arousal, and I never understood the “slow cooker” analogy to be about that. I’ve always understood the analogy to be that, IN THE LONG TERM CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE, when you keep the fires stoked, which many or even most men generally used to do naturally just by acting like men, though occasionally some men needed the advice that women are slow cookers in order to “get it” — when you do that you are more attractive to your wife and have a better sex life.

    Some men don’t “get” this because we ourselves can, quite frankly, find the exact same woman repulsive one moment and freakishly attractive minutes later, just by her changing her appearance. And women do understand this about men — it is why they wear makeup, etc.

    But think about how long it would take for some man you know very well who is, in your mind right now, a freakishly unattractive herb – how long would it take that man, even if he makes immediate changes in his behaviour – to become attractive to you?

    A woman’s hindbrain has to be convinced that a man she thinks is a total herb is actually very attractive. It takes time, when he is someone that you know very well. That a PUA in a bar might be able to use Game to convince your (usually wishful thinking) hindbrain immediately is completely out of context and irrelevant.

  331. Pingback: Lighting the Fire | Donal Graeme

  332. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    This isn’t about some stopwatch measurement of purely physiological arousal, and I never understood the “slow cooker” analogy to be about that. I’ve always understood the analogy to be that, IN THE LONG TERM CONTEXT OF MARRIAGE, when you keep the fires stoked, which many or even most men generally used to do naturally just by acting like men, though occasionally some men needed the advice that women are slow cookers in order to “get it” — when you do that you are more attractive to your wife and have a better sex life.

    [...]

    A woman’s hindbrain has to be convinced that a man she thinks is a total herb is actually very attractive. It takes time, when he is someone that you know very well. That a PUA in a bar might be able to use Game to convince your (usually wishful thinking) hindbrain immediately is completely out of context and irrelevant.

    Well said.

  333. Zippy

    Cane:

    Thanks. I get the impression that plenty of folks think they want a return to traditional patriarchy, but at the same time would like to change the nature of things to suit themselves. But that’s just the thing: traditional patriarchy is better precisely because it doesn’t try to change the nature of things: it works with the nature of things.

    In the thread above you said to me:

    You called them arrogant, rebellious children for using different terms. If you say that isn’t umbrage: Ok, but it ain’t nonchalance, either.

    No, it isn’t nonchalance. It isn’t emotional at all. Insisting that traditional wisdom get re-branded so the neopreactionary kids can feel good about it, while spewing contempt all over traditional wisdom as it was, uh, traditionally framed, is the action of rebellious children who are incapable of patriarchy. If they don’t repent of their contempt for traditional wisdom and embrace dark sayings from of old and the great books for men they are just post-feminist moderns, with all that that implies.

  334. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    Insisting that traditional wisdom get re-branded so the neopreactionary kids can feel good about it, while spewing contempt all over traditional wisdom as it was, uh, traditionally framed, is the action of rebellious children who are incapable of patriarchy.

    The slow cooker was invented in 1971. What exactly do you think you are defending from the post-modern linguistic onslaught? You are caught up in defending (as traditional!) a symbol of the wisdom that is about five minutes old; while unemotionally deriding those who are actually pursuing the substance of the wisdom itself. If the new symbol are errant then we should suss that out, but that’s not the problem. We can know that the new symbol containing the ancient wisdom is not terribly errant because you correctly interpreted:

    “The “kino all the time” advice is just the old “slow cooker” wisdom[...]“

    which demonstrates that you got it! Wisdom contained, and then passed on. That’s the goal.

    The cause of your unemotionally condescending response was a lack of fealty to an expression that could not have originated more than 44 years ago. Now you’re doubling-down that those who will not properly use symbols of wisdom from 1971 are incapable (DOOM! I tell you!) of patriarchy unless they agree to refer to “frequent kino” as “slow cooker”. C’mon, man.

  335. donalgraeme

    Having re-read this conversation again, I really think that the use of the word “slow-cooker” is improper on many levels. While I wrack my mind trying to think of a better analogy, I would like to try and encapsulate some of the thoughts expressed so far:

    1) The manner in which a woman perceives a man as attractive changes over time; female attraction filers have a time component. Essentially, what works to generate immediate attraction/arousal in a female who is unaccustomed to you may not work with a female who has a long association with you.

    2) In order to keep up attraction in a long term relationship, a man must keep up both a dominant masculine frame, and to consistently sexualize his interactions with the woman, ie. there must be at least some level of sexual tension between them.

    3) The process in #2 must be kept up constantly, otherwise the man will have to start from scratch and rebuild up his wife’s attraction to him.

    4) Arousal and Attraction are not the same thing. A husband must be attractive to his wife, that is, to keep the coals of the fire constantly warm, in order to be able to arouse her.

    Did I miss any?

  336. sunshinemary Post author

    2) In order to keep up attraction in a long term relationship, a man must keep up both a dominant masculine frame, and to consistently sexualize his interactions with the woman, ie. there must be at least some level of sexual tension between them.

    This is particularly important. Women are prone to what I called “roommate mode” above, but that was actually a bad term because one usually doesn’t love one’s roommate; a better term might be “family mode.” A woman can love her husband but slip into “family mode” with him, and family mode, while loving, isn’t sexy. It isn’t that she sees him as one of the children, but rather that she sees him, herself, and the children as one cohesive unit and can live pretty contentedly like that if he doesn’t do something to keep the man-woman dynamic above the mother-father dynamic.

    A married woman’s sexuality tends to be more reactive than pro-active as the years go by, so the job of keeping that sexual vibe going tends to fall on the man, unless she has really thought about it and is purposefully trying to do that, too. Elspeth and I both noted that over the past several years, we’ve both become more active in being physically flirtatious with our husbands outside the bedroom in order to keep that mild sexual tension present.

  337. Cane Caldo

    @SSM and DG

    2) In order to keep up attraction in a long term relationship, a man must keep up both a dominant masculine frame, and to consistently sexualize his interactions with the woman, ie. there must be at least some level of sexual tension between them.

    Y’all shoot my wheels off.

    “Keeping up attraction” with a “masculine frame” and “sexualizing his interactions” to maintain “some level of sexual tension”…is simmering the relationship. It is “slow cooking”.

  338. sunshinemary Post author

    The term slow cooker turns me off. It conjures up simmering piles of greasy meatballs in my mind. I need a more appetizing visual, Mr. Caldo.

    Let’s calling it maintaining sexual tension instead.

  339. donalgraeme

    Rather than slow cooking, isn’t it more like steady cooking. Its not that you start from scratch every day and build up to sex that evening, but rather that you are stoking the flames of the conjugal fire every day, and day after day.

    The concept behind a slow cooker is that you unplug it when done and put it away. But sexual tension is something that should be consistently maintained, ie. you never pull the plug, but leave it on all the time, occasionally “stirring” as needed. And then when you are… hungry, you pull out a spoon and have you… some.

  340. Cane Caldo

    @SSM

    I need a more appetizing visual, Mr. Caldo.

    Yet out of kindness I will spare you.

    I myself did not use the term, but when Zippy brought it up (correctly) what was shouted down was not just the term, but the principle.

  341. Zippy

    Cane:
    You are caught up in defending (as traditional!) a symbol of the wisdom that is about five minutes old;

    No, I am pointing out that a movement of neoreactionary kids so contemptuous of their own actual fathers and grandfathers that legitimate concepts have to be re-branded from what their actual fathers and grandfathers said in order to be acceptable to the rebels, is incapable of patriarchy. The specific terminology may not be old — but the reason it has to be rebranded from a perfectly legitimate analogy, and contempt must be heaped upon that perfectly legitimate analogy, is because of contempt for actual fathers.

  342. Zippy

    I get the sense that lots of men really like the idea of patriarchy when it involves wives respecting and submitting to husbands – whatever their husbands’ personal failings. But when it involves these same men respecting and submitting to their own fathers – whatever their personal failings – I don’t sense the same enthusiasm. And I think this lack of enthusiasm is reflected in this particular dustup, and other recent ones.

  343. Zippy

    Ton demonstrates my point. Even if something their fathers have said is true, it must be buried in contempt as actually expressed and then re-expressed in some other way that allows the rebels to claim it as their own.

    Men who need this kind of coddling, the stoking of this kind of self-indulgent hatred of their own actual fathers, are incapable of patriarchy.

  344. Ton

    Whatever makes you feel better Zippy. I have no personal issues with my father or.grandfather, I.have followed in their footsteps the best I can but those generations sowed the seeds of the younger generations destruction.

    Instead of taking the issue head on you’d rather snip at my heels like a woman. Keep it up, keep driving young men to my camp.

  345. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    No, I am pointing out that a movement of neoreactionary kids so contemptuous of their own actual fathers and grandfathers that legitimate concepts have to be re-branded from what their actual fathers and grandfathers said in order to be acceptable to the rebels, is incapable of patriarchy.

    And around we go. If the fathers and grandfathers had actually been patriarchal in function as well as form then this wouldn’t be a big problem.

    To go back to your poisoned stew analogy, you have set yourself against the recent cooks who are identifying that the stew has been poisoned. Since it was the former cooks (fathers and grandfathers) who poisoned it, they are choosing not to use any of the spices labeled within the past 50 years out of a well-reasoned fear that those cooks swapped the labels on the oregano and the Drano. Because they did. Ask a 60-year-old man how to slow-cook a woman and nine times out of ten he’ll tell you to buy flowers, or leave a note on her pillow.

    Men who need this kind of coddling, the stoking of this kind of self-indulgent hatred of their own actual fathers, are incapable of patriarchy.

    Coddling is the most spiritually miserly way to interpret their comments given the stacks and stacks of fem-centric laws, pink relationship books, and perverse advice written by the last few crops of fathers and grandfathers–somewhere around half of whom could not keep a wife, themselves. Even if what you have said is just, it lacks grace.

    And let me point out that your intuitive analysis of contempt among neo-reactionary post-moderns is a remarkable admission for man who has (multiple times) expressed his stance against psychoanalysis over the Internet. I am tickled.

    Finally: Using Ton the Amazing Morphing Troll as an example is just out of bounds, sir.

  346. Zippy

    Cane:

    And let me point out that your intuitive analysis of contempt among neo-reactionary post-moderns is a remarkable admission for man who has (multiple times) expressed his stance against psychoanalysis over the Internet.

    I didn’t have to intuit it. It has been quite explicit, and only the best and most introspective of the bunch (e.g. donalgraeme) have had the dignity to recant — after I had the temerity to point it out in the first place. Otherwise it might have entirely escaped even his own careful self-awareness.

    Stipulating what people explicitly tell you about themselves isn’t remote psychoanalysis.

  347. Chris

    Zippy: no. Analysis is a theory around instinctual drives among human and a technique. In my admittedly biased view, some of the more recent descriptions such as Kohut on Borderline and the Object Relations Theorists have some truthiness, but Freud was speaking out of his orifice, speculating (and don’t get me started on Jung. Freud generally did not sleep with his patients. Jung however… )

    You do not need psychoanalysis for this. What you have is a generation gap: the children were disavowed if not abandoned by their parents, and revenge is being taken, as it often is, cold, now the children are grown.

    People forget that there is a selfish reason to raise your kids right. You will need them when you are old: they are far more comfort that the state will be with their death panels.

  348. theshadowedknight

    Please, Zippy, do tell, of these wonders of civilization passed down to us by our fathers and grandfathers. Is it perhaps the debt, or the ruined, emptied economy? Is it the shattered society, or the broken families? I fail to see all this wisdom passed on to either the aggressive, promiscuous women or the quivering, cringing men. If they had all of this great wisdom, where is it? if they did such great works, where are they? If you lot had such great men? Where. Were. They?

    Your opinions are laughable. Your conceit is pitiable. Your contempt is contemptible. You are Ozymandius in his desert, grains of sand the only relics of your time, saying to the Neoreactionaries, “Gaze upon me, you mighty, and despair.” No one is impressed. Your vain boasts are as empty as your impotent threats.

    You and yours created us, the monsters that you face, and now you have to face our demonstration of your failure. You brought this on your own heads.

    The Shadowed Knight

  349. Ton

    Personally I see the reactionary crowd as men who want to reach further back into their history and honor their forefathers in a manner that the boommers and so called greatest generation never did.

  350. Zippy

    Ton:
    Personally I see the reactionary crowd as men who want to reach further back into their history and honor their forefathers in a manner that the boommers and so called greatest generation never did.

    I think that is partly true, and commendable, and depends very much on the individual neoreactionary. That’s beside the specific point here though, which is that the NR kids have a strong tendency to heap contempt on the truth (e. g. the slow cooker analogy) just because it was expressed by their fathers and grandfathers. That is the antithesis of patriarchy.

    Those who have read me as making a broad brush defense of the Boomer and WWII generation have missed the point completely.

  351. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    I get the sense that lots of men really like the idea of patriarchy when it involves wives respecting and submitting to husbands – whatever their husbands’ personal failings. But when it involves these same men respecting and submitting to their own fathers – whatever their personal failings – I don’t sense the same enthusiasm.

    [...]

    only the best and most introspective of the bunch (e.g. donalgraeme) have had the dignity to recant — after I had the temerity to point it out in the first place.

    Sounds like umbrage after all; umbrage gilt with smuggery. No fraternity, though.

    Stipulating what people explicitly tell you about themselves isn’t remote psychoanalysis.

    I just wanted to see you write (to me) the very thing I wrote (to you) when you were on your kick against (what you’re calling) psychoanalysis.

  352. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    That’s beside the specific point here though, which is that the NR kids have a strong tendency to heap contempt on the truth (e. g. the slow cooker analogy)

    The slow cooker analogy isn’t the truth. It’s an analogy. It contains truth. The truth has been passed on; you just really like the 70s symbol better.

  353. Zippy

    Cane:

    Sounds like umbrage after all; umbrage gilt with smuggery. No fraternity, though.

    I am no respecter of falsehood, and am rarely accused of having too much empathy. What making it all about me has to do with the point isn’t obvious though.

    The slow cooker advice is true, properly
    understood. But to be marketable in manosphere comboxes one must not say that; because saying it does not carry with it a sufficient measure of contempt for one’s actual elders. This in turn says something about the capacity of those-at-whom-the-marketing-is-directed to practice real patriarchy. And not a single thing you have said casts any doubt upon that chain of reasoning.

  354. donalgraeme

    This in turn says something about the capacity of those-at-whom-the-marketing-is-directed to practice real patriarchy.

    I don’t disagree that many cannot practice real patriarchy here. But how could they? The have no experience with the real thing, receive horrific, misleading advice from their elders and haven’t been taught to seek out knowledge from Tradition or the great works of the past. You accuse them of being children Zippy, but what kind of accusation is that? Of course they are children, that is exactly what they were raised to be.

    Also, let the slow cooker thing go. Yes there is truth in keeping a constant sense of dominance and sexual tension. But as an analogy, “slow cooker’ never was great to begin with.

  355. Cane Caldo

    @Zippy

    What making it all about me has to do with the point isn’t obvious though.

    Because at the very point when you could have been bringing people around to some respect for their elders (via the slow cooker analogy) you popped off about rebellious children; I believe with the intent to making sure that such reconciliation would be as distasteful as possible. My beef is that here you threw verbal caltrops on the errant sons road home. In this instance: It was my tiny swath of path (about humor/kino/swatting/slow cooking) where you decided to be an asshole.

    This in turn says something about the capacity of those-at-whom-the-marketing-is-directed to practice real patriarchy.

    While you’re waiting around to be proved right about the coming failure of the post-modern neoreactionaries you can keep this to yourself when you see some small bit of success that might serve a husband and wife well. Don’t worry: There will still be plenty of time for you to say you told us so.

    And not a single thing you have said casts any doubt upon that chain of reasoning.

    I haven’t tried to because I don’t disagree.

  356. Zippy

    donalgraeme:

    Also, let the slow cooker thing go.

    The reason I don’t is because of its meta-importance, not because of its intrinsic importance: it is really just one pertinent truth among thousands of pertinent truths. What is important about it is that when it is asserted as true the assertion gets pelted with rocks and garbage – even though it is true. It is a 2 + 2 = 5 of the manosphere.

    Cane:

    I haven’t tried to because I don’t disagree.

    That’s settled then.

  357. Pingback: the Revision Division

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s