@GiffLasta Reading this is like being told "hey there was an update to the ten commandments—stealing is okay now, totally fine, great way to increase your wealth" and... realizing that it's possibly true? Very disorienting
English
coldbird
95 posts
Every Christian teacher I heard growing up went out of his way to insist that my sex drive was healthy and normal—that “lust” was the problem. And then he proceeded to define “lust” in practice as…having a sex drive.
A 13-year-old boy staring at a girl in a bathing suit for a few seconds was "committing adultery with her in his heart.” St. Paul says to “flee sexual immorality” which was taken to imply that we are powerless to “fight” these desires and need to remove ourselves from the situation (like Joseph ran out of the house when Potiphar’s wife grabbed him).
This whole approach is juvenile, and undermines the very power that would lead to chastity—the single-minded devotion of a man who refuses to spill out his virility for nothing. A young man’s sex drive is linked to his calling to glory. That passionate fire needs to be harnessed to better himself physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. The more practice a man has directing his drive, the more reliable he will be in the face of temptation.
Rather than avoiding their virility as if it’s a vice, we must teach young men to build masculine virtue.
When they see how their fire is to be used, the actual harm done by the covetous idolatry of porn becomes obvious. And they are not running away from the spontaneous erections and the tingles of sexual arousal that happen in life. They know what to do with them. And, like Joseph in the actual scripture passage, they can endure porn’s devilish come-ons “day after day,” only wrenching free and running out of the house when she’s physically dragging him toward the bed.
English
@Philosophi_Cat When I whack my thumb with a hammer, my thumb hurts. It is a part of me. *I* have been hurt, not just my thumb, as if it were a separate entity from the person feeling the pain. Is this a bad example? Or is it incorrect? Can my thumb hurt without *me* hurting, and I just observe?
English
My central point is about the vertical relationship between the person and his own emotions. Can he stand above it, witness it, govern it, and give it form?
But you're trying to translate this into a horizontal social framework. The things you are saying-- that people need support, that men are deprived of empathy, that community should help with emotional burdens, etc-- might all be true in their own domain, but they don't touch what I am describing.
You are treating emotional regulation as if it is produced by something external providing containment. But I'm talking about the emergence of an inner sovereign faculty. I'm talking about the capacity to perceive one's own emotions without becoming identified with them. These are not at all the same thing.
What you're talking about, in terms of a child first borrowing external regulation from mother, community, teachers, traditions, etc is all real. But that borrowed container is supposed to help awaken the inner container. Adulthood cannot remain in a place that is dependent on being emotionally held by others. "Support" then becomes an implicit demand for others to metabolise what he has not learned to bear... with seemingly no consideration for the fact that those around him are likely also struggling with metabolising their own emotions.
And that's the distinction your framing avoids. (Not just you, but almost everyone in the comments of the OP too, which is why I thought a QT would be better to address it.)
Yes, you are right that men are often emotionally neglected and shamed or they are trained only in emotional repression. It's true that most people never have seen a healthy model of how to feel without being swept away by feeling. And yes, a good community could absolutely help with that.
But deprivation does not abolish individual responsibility for one's own feelings. Deprivation may explain why a man lacks interior form, but it does not make that lack of form attractive or relationally sustainable, nor does it make another person morally obligated to become the container for his ungoverned emotion.
I'm not saying one should never ask for or receive support. I am saying don't confuse support with inner sovereignty. Others can witness his emotion, receive the truth of it, guide him through it... but they cannot ever become a man's solar centre for him. And this is the point so many people seem to be missing.
Everyone wants to argue from the level of psychological injury or social repair, and ignore the level of spiritual poise that I am actually referring to.
It’s as if when I say “stand above emotion”, others are hearing “accept being abandoned alone with your emotions.” That’s not it at all. I’m talking about the birth of a witnessing faculty that can experience the emotion moving but not be moved by it, not be reactive, not let it dictate your behaviours or change who you are.
Saying that men are dysregulated because no one has been willing to endure their dysregulation long enough to help them heal is an attempt to shift the moral burden back onto others. It is an abdication of personal responsibility, and a demand that others submit to emotional flooding, regardless of their willingness, desire, or capacity to do so. This is an understandable behaviour in those who were emotionally deprived, but it’s not maturity.
For those who lack the capacity to witness their own emotions without being possessed by it, they will tend to interpret every call to self-mastery as a form of abandonment, because the only two options they know are suppression or external soothing. And my whole point was that there is a third thing.
Big Thinker@BigthinkerBig
I agree with you, but its also not entirely black or white. Ideally speaking, ones community helps to bear the load of negative emotions as we start out in life, and then we are taught over time how to be more independent, while still having some level of emotional support as we continue in life. However, there is a famine of emotional support provided to men, where many men are not supported, and not taught to bear the weight of their emotions on their own, instead, they are taught to "toughen up" So thus, for a lot of men, they have a lot of catching up to do, and this can be perceived as being juvenile or emotionally weak, but they still would be greatly helped by the charity of someone who can help make up for what they were deprived in childhood. preferably this burden can be shared not just by a girlfriend, but also by friends, or a therapist, or a spiritual teacher, or the writings of sages through out the ages. I think as well, that while young modern women are often provided emotional support, they are also not taught how to independently emotionally regulate, as well, social media promotes narcissism and emotional reactivity, and largely targets women as they are 80% of the purchasers, this has creates a society wide "maturity crisis" with both genders. Sometimes men are quite often volatile, but also other times, men will be most often emotionally quiet, and will risk emotionally sharing once, and will meet a very strong negative over reaction from a woman who is her self suffering from emotional maturity, causing her to not be able to handle the emotional discomfort, and "shooting the messenger", but this doesn't only happen with women, as men who them selves are taught to repress emotions, can also punish the man for sharing. Human beings are ultimately interdependent social creatures. you have legitimate criticisms of people becoming overly co dependent, but there is also a dark side to people being required to overly independent. psychologically speaking, the extent that a person can accomplish entirely on their own is a fraction of what a person can accomplish with some level of independence but also a community to support them, and one side of that equation often gets buried in this discussion. Its tragically very often a case that men are punished for having weakness and we do live in a society that seems to overlook a lot of toxic femininity and falsely frames masculinity as "to toil and suffer without reward and without complaint"
English
I can be happy without my wife, but I can be even happier with her.
And together, we get to build a family and have children.
I think a lot of people today cannot be happy on their own, not even minimally happy.
So when they get married, they bring those sources of unhappiness with them into the marriage.
A marriage between two unhappy people will be an unhappy marriage.
You need to be able to regulate your own emotions before you marry so that, once you are married, you can begin to co-regulate together.
English
@GiffLasta @wil_da_beast630 Does a wife have any duties to her husband, or only to her children? Does the word "duty" ruin everything a wife does, or just sex?
English
@wil_da_beast630 Fundamentally it’s about transactional rather than desired sex.
Sex as currency for something else.
English
What, exactly, do people on twitter mean by "duty sex?"
Given the level of hysteria here, this CAN'T just mean "sometimes hooking up my partner when I start off 'meh,'" or "feeling expected to do normal sexual stuff (oral, etc)" - both of which apply to 80+% of both sexes.
Are we talking about sort of regular, routinized bad sex with someone you genuinely are not attracted to, which gets dreaded?
English
@GiffLasta @hollowearthterf After she's married tho? To a guy who loves her and wants the best for her?
English
@hollowearthterf I don’t really get the vilification of hypergamy. Oh no, women go after the best man they can get—the monsters!
English
Men claim they hate hypergamy but if a woman dates or marries a beta (something they insist women should do) they endlessly make fun of her for it!
English
@NoahRevoy I'm asking whether it's out of line for her to have an (organic, unpressured) desire to make you feel better when you're having a bad day? You'd seriously see that impulse in her as bad thing? You'd countersignal the princess nursing the knight's wounds?
English
Well, I suppose there are things my wife could do that would be insulting, but I set clear enough boundaries that she knows what is and is not acceptable.
We simply have that conversation as two mature people, and it does not come up again.
Maybe it comes up later in a different form, but the underlying issue gets resolved and does not continue to resurface.
It is completely normal to have confrontation and conflict in a marriage.
You just need a good way to resolve it when it happens.
We have been married for more than twenty years, so at this point we have resolved almost all of our conflicts.
There is very little left to resolve.
English
She's right. Let me explain.
I am a very emotional man.
In other words, I have very strong, deep, powerful emotions.
Love, joy, anger, excitement, concern, frustration, curiosity, gratitude.
I also have a very high level of emotional regulation. Because of that, my emotions do not become a liability to myself, my wife, or my children.
I do not make my feelings her (or their) burden.
As a result, I can express them quite intensely without the people around me feeling like it is going to become a problem that they have to handle.
In fact, especially from women, the response I get is that they appreciate that I am emotionally transparent (honest).
When I am angry about something, I make it known.
When I am frustrated with someone's behavior, I will say so.
When I am grateful for something or someone I show it.
If I am happy, sad, or if I love and care for someone, I am quick to express that as well.
I think the problem for many men is not that they have too many or too strong emotions. It is that there is very little transparency about what they are feeling, it builds up, they are too passive in addressing them, until they finally explode.
It is nothing, nothing, nothing, only suppression, emotional constipation, and then suddenly BAM! emotional vomiting and diarrhea.
It is terrible. It is a mess. It stinks. Everyone hates it.
They think they are being stoic, but they are just emotionally dysregulated.
A much healthier approach is to express your emotions honestly, consistently, transparently, and under control.
But that takes practice.
You have to practice the inner observer, the ability to look within yourself and recognize what you are feeling.
You have to practice expressing emotions at the appropriate time and in appropriate ways.
If you do that consistently, starting small, your ability to navigate emotions properly will develop.
Like any other skill, emotional regulation improves with practice.
PhilosophiCat@Philosophi_Cat
It’s true that many women say they want a man who’s “in touch with his emotions,” yet get the "ick" when he expresses them. This can be bewildering for men, but the issue lies in how emotion is expressed, not in the fact of feeling it. Yes, women tend value a man who has emotional fluency and depth, someone who can articulate his inner world and empathise with hers. But they recoil when a man loses his composure, collapses emotionally and turns to her for emotional containment. The moment she has to soothe or stabilise him, when she must step into the role of his therapist or mother, the polarity between them collapses. She no longer feels his strength; she feels his need. And that is where the "ick" arises from. So this is the key distinction: Emotional depth does not mean emotional dumping. A man can speak openly about his struggles while remaining self-possessed and anchored in his own centre. He might say, “I’ve had a rough week and I'm working through some frustration, but I'll be fine,” rather than dissolving into self-pity or seeking reassurance. He shares what’s real without burdening her with it. His emotions are contained by his own form. That’s what women respond to: emotional transparency grounded in composure. It signals a robust and stable inner centre. It shows he can hold complexity without being consumed by it. By contrast, many men, fearing that any show of feeling will make them appear weak, over-correct by suppressing or hiding their emotions entirely. They present a stoic façade that keeps her at arm’s length. While this may preserve his ego, it starves intimacy. She feels locked out of his interior world, perhaps admiring and respecting him, but ultimately feeling exiled from his soul. This lack of emotional connection is far more painful for the woman, who (unlike the man) is not a self-sustaining principle. As the embodiment of the lunar principle, she requires reflection to feel whole, to know herself through the mirror of his awareness. When that mirror is blank, she loses the sense of being felt, and something in her begins to close. Both collapse and repression arise from the same root: disconnection from the solar centre. In the first, emotion floods the structure; in the second, the structure dams the flow. The true alternative (and what women are innately seeking in man when they say they want him to be "in touch" with his emotions) is one in which those feelings are governed by conscious form. The man is able to remain inwardly still while emotion moves through him; he neither denies it nor is swept away by it. That stillness is what allows him to hold space for the woman’s depths without being drowned by them. This is neither stoicism nor vulnerability, but a secret third thing: an inner sovereignty where emotion has been mastered by spirit rather than suppressed by force of will.
English
@NoahRevoy Good thoughts. Agree with you. But taken to a logical conclusion, it might lead to this:
Wife: "You seem sad/stressed so I [did kind/comforting gesture]."
Husband: "That's an insult to my masculinity and a detriment to our relationship polarity. I'm fine, I'm always fine."
English
That is not what I said. That is projection.
There are burdens my wife has to carry. They are hers to carry, and only she could carry them.
For example, I do not breastfeed our children. I do not give birth to our children.
Likewise, there are burdens that belong to me that she cannot carry for me.
My emotions are far too strong, too intense, and far too powerful for my wife to contain them on my behalf. It would overwhelm her. It would crush her.
Now, I can contain my wife's emotions because she is a woman. She does not have the same intensity of emotions as I do. She has a great variety of emotions, but not the same intensity.
So it would be wrong for me to expect her to fulfill my role as the foundation in the relationship.
We are not a team of equals with equal responsibilities, equal skills, and equal obligations who take on equal burdens.
This is a hierarchy, and I am higher in that hierarchy than she is. That gives me certain responsibilities and certain authority.
My job is to exercise that authority and fulfill those responsibilities for the benefit of the family, for myself, for her, and for the children, not to dump my weight on them.
On the other hand, whenever I need her, she is there for whatever I ask because what I ask of her is only what she is capable of giving.
You have to understand that the purpose of a relationship is not your satisfaction.
The purpose of a relationship is the production of children, the care of those children, and raising them into adulthood.
Our satisfaction is a happy byproduct of that process.
A childish focus on who does what, who gave more, and trying to get back exactly what we contributed leaves nothing left for the children.
I take care of my wife so that she can take care of my children.
That is the way it should be.
English
🚨 BREAKING: @JDVance voiced disagreement with abortion abolition, insisting that “the realities of modern politics” render such a position impractical until the anti-abortion movement wins “the persuasion battle.”
The remarks came as @ConservMillen pressed him on the Trump administration presiding over rising abortion numbers in the United States, as well as their refusal to overturn certain Biden administration abortion policies.
🎥 @TheBlaze
English
@MonicaMAlmaguer Under what conditions should a man not love his wife?
English
Absolutely not. Sounds ideal but it sets a man up to completely destroy the polarity in the relationship.
M.A. Franklin@FoundationDads
A man should love his wife. Unconditionally.
English
@kiloritodi @Pat_Stedman I was thinking the same thing, only it's more like "if I CHOSE to be a worm"
English
There is a specific context within an already established, passionate sexual relationship where a statement like this might be considered highly erotic for the woman
Outside of that context it is basically suicide
Diane Yap@RealDianeYap
The most romantic thing a man can express to a woman is that even if she never has sex with him again, he wants to be with her forever. Because his love for her as a person transcends any animal urge. This is even more romantic if he has a high sex drive.
English
@RealDianeYap "Would you still love me even if I CHOSE to be a worm?"
English
@FreddyLA7 Jeans are too short. They need to stack a little around the boot.
English
@DustyDeevers @MrsGoresDiary I wrote you in for president in 2024. (Red state, Trump was going to win anyway, wanted to send a message to the local R's.) Praying for you for whatever is next
English
This was hard news to take in. @DustyDeevers and his family have sacrificed much to serve our state, and have done so wholeheartedly and faithfully. Thank you, Dusty, for your unwavering boldness and your belief in God and His Word that fuels it. It has been a thing to behold! Onward and upward!
Jesse Hughes ✝️🇺🇸@JesseHughesNC
Truly one of the more heartbreaking results of tonight. Thank you @DustyDeevers for being a true example of a Christian statesman at the state level. Regardless of tonight’s results, I have no doubt Dusty will continue to be a voice of truth in the public square!
English
@GiffLasta @RealDianeYap You're not hungry, you actually just needed to smash your thumb with a hammer. This is proven by the fact that when you smashed your thumb with a hammer, you didn't feel hungry anymore.
English
@RealDianeYap There’s far more to our sex drive (and even to sex) than just the mechanics of getting a woman pregnant.
The way for a man to channel his sex drive toward a win-win actually involves turning it UP, not down. I explain that process here.
Giff Lasta@GiffLasta
Sexual Drive as Fuel for Mission Stop repressing your desires and go after your muse What do you do with sexual desire when you don’t have a sexual outlet? If you're like many unmarried Christin men, your sex drive feels like a curse. Marriage is far in the future, so you keep your eyes off the ladies, resist porn and masturbation, and avoid tempting situations. But suppressing your sex drive is no way to live. You’re constantly fighting your own primal wiring, while undermining your own virility. There’s a better way. Imagine a young man growing up in a hunter/gatherer tribe. He’s fourteen years old and puberty has arrived. He’s growing taller, his voice is cracking, and he gets erections. He’s sexually attracted to the young ladies in the camp, but none of them notice him. And so his sex drive feels like a frustrating irritation. He’s moody and antsy. How can he find sexual release with no woman in his life? Then one day the men invite him on the hunt. He’s intimidated. He doesn’t want to look bad in front of the men. But all of that pent up sexual energy propels him forward. He overcomes his fears and takes down his first kill. Walking back into the camp, our hero has his head held high with the kill slung over his shoulders. He’s not feeling sexual frustration at all. He’s proud. And it’s at this point that one of the young ladies asks a friend, “Who is that young man? I’ve never noticed him before.” Our hero just experienced “sexual transmutation.” It sounds like an esoteric concept, but it’s a totally natural thing for any guy to do: using sexual energy for non-sexual things. The young man channeled his sexual frustration into hunting. Succeeding here satiated his drive, while raising his status in his tribe. Think of it sexually. He exerted his strength and fertilized reality with his will. This brought forth fruit (food for the tribe) and raised his status. Sexual energy built up his frame. (Actually this non-sexual pursuit was the clearest path to sexual abundance. The young ladies’ lack of interest in him has been outflanked. Now there are new opportunities for courtship that didn’t exist before.) Train yourself to see and feel sexual arousal as “fuel for mission.” For me with my wife, that mission may be sexual, but most of the time it’s not. In a given week, I spend more waking hours NOT having sex than having sex. My sexual desire far exceeds my sexual opportunities. But that’s OK, because there are other conquests in life that require my passion and strength. The other option is to see your drive as “sexual needs” that she must meet. But that makes you frustrated if she’s not available, or resentful if she’s unwilling. Male sexual neediness kills attraction in a woman, because it is a loss of frame. Instead of inviting her to relax in your frame, your own satisfaction is contingent on her giving you what you crave. You’re approaching her more like an infant to a mother than a man with a woman. This is a terrible trap, and can lead to a sexless marriage. If you’re single, you’re probably not worried about a future sexless marriage. But you may be training your body to see sexual energy as something that needs to be soothed, rather than a drive to direct. That’s the true harm of porn and masturbation. It’s normal and understandable for a boy going through puberty to masturbate. He’s investigating a new power and seeing how his hardware works. But the older he gets, the more damaging this habit becomes. He’s associating sexual arousal with a need to be satisfied. Sexuality is the magic feel good button for life’s troubles. Porn turns this childish habit into something diabolical. It gives a man the experience of endless sexual novelty, as if he were King Solomon with his harem. Not only can he imagine that his needs are being soothed; now he’s hit the genetic jackpot. He’s won the game of life. Why channel his sexual energy into status pursuits? He’s the king of the world. The devil said to Christ in the wilderness, “bow down and worship me, and I will give you all the kingdoms of the world.” But the masturbatory man is given no kingdoms. His status in life is not improving. It’s a lie from the lips of his demonic bride. Over and against this cries the voice of lady wisdom, your true muse. Your sexual drive is meant to fuel you forward to put yourself out there in life, and shoot your shot. Men compete fiercely if they know their true love is watching and cheering them on. That’s the real meaning of a man’s “feminine side.” It’s not that you are feminine, but that your calling inspires you like a good woman does. A man captivated by his mission will make love to life. So what do you do with sexual fantasies and compulsions that have a firm hold on your heart? Break the spell of idolatry. Idols offer something finite as if it were infinite. They promise the world and give you nothing in the end. The illusion is that sexual fulfillment is found in having your “needs met” in these fantasies. But that’s not what your drive is for. You break the spell by not suppressing your fantasies, but diving deeper into them. Christ saved us not by shunning Death and Hell, but by descending into it. You must ask, “What am I longing for in this fantasy? What am I trying to feel? What’s the core desire?” For example, say you have this idealized sexual experience, and it makes you feel free. The version of you in this fantasy is unapologetic about his desires. He goes for it, and holds nothing back. He doesn’t have to pretend to be anything other than who he is. “Freedom” is the core desire. So ask yourself? How can you live with “freedom” in the non-sexual parts of your life? At work you give your all, not afraid of your colleagues’ opinions. At home you take on exciting projects, not avoiding them. In prayer you pour your heart out to God, not inhibited in any way. As you flesh out this picture of a life worth making love to, you see an image of your muse. And the glorious secret is that this is the life that will naturally lead to sexual experiences that have that same feeling of uninhibited freedom. He who seeks to save his life will lose it, but he who loses his life in pursuit of the kingdom will save it. Don’t repress your sexual drive. Instead, sexualize all of life. Bring a sexual charge to everything you do, and the physical love with a woman will fit right in. This post will be expanded into chapter 5 of my book for young Christian on intersexual dynamics.
English
The purpose of sex is reproduction. Obsession with sex beyond its purpose is a pathology.
This is easily recognized in the case of eating: food obsession and binge eating make you obese. We have peptides to reduce this urge. Can't we do the same with sex drive?
English
@Evabrownies420 @GiffLasta Is "absence of attraction" what we're calling active hostility now? There's plenty of people I'm not attracted to that I would never treat with hostility.
English
English
@coldbird_31314 @GiffLasta @TheEcho13 having sex when you don't want to can be coercive, though? I don't think men realize that coercion is more than threats.
English
She's getting a lot of hate for this, but @TheEcho13 is fundamentally right.
"Withholding" in 1 Cor 7 refers to an intentional choice to no longer be sexual in a marriage---in ancient Corinth probably done by living apart like monastics. That nonsense needs to be countered directly and morally: your bodies belong to each other in marriage.
But if your wife genuinely has no desire for you, despite consenting to be in a sexual relationship with you, you have a problem to solve.
You CAN pressure her into guilt ridden duty sex. But most guys reaching for this underappreciate just what a non-solution it is, for her AND for you.
The passionate, free, heart-thumping, creative, animalistic, "I'm desperate to PROVE how into you I am," sex that YOU are longing for lies in the opposite direction of her "lying back and thinking of England."
This can be hard for a guy to understand, because if he isn't in the mood (because he's fully engaged in something else), but his wife is really horny, it doesn't take much to context switch and he can be all there. The sex can be great. But if her body isn't at least on the path to arousal, women are just a different animal.
Sex is different for women. Sex is a deeply vulnerable full-body "yes,"---her saying on a primal level:
"I want to have YOUR baby, I want to go through the pain and danger of childbirth and take on all the risk and work around it, because bringing YOUR seed into the world is worth it all. Take me, take all I have, I am yours."
When her body isn't actually saying this to you, and you try to short circuit its voice through rational negotiation, her body-agenda hears you saying, "I am not worthy of your genuine desire, so I need to trick you so that I get you anyway."
Rationally, she doesn't think this about you. She's confused and frustrated. But more and more, her sex drive concludes that her own husband isn't the right man.
Transactional sex is bad news. It's a shortcut that leads to ruin. Cultivating genuine desire can seem a harder road. But it's what both you and her ultimately want.
Echo 🔆@TheEcho13
“Withholding sex” is one of the most revealing phrases men use, because it assumes sex was already his and she’s refusing to release it. Watch what usually comes before it. He did the dishes. He paid a bill. He quoted religion. He acted sad. He found a dozen ways to frame her body as the reward for his effort. But the question is simple. Did she want him in that moment? If the answer is no, she wasn’t withholding. She didn’t have desire to give. She was angry, hurt, exhausted, disconnected, repulsed, unseen. And women have been so trained to believe refusal is cruelty that they’ll force themselves through sex they don’t want just to avoid being called abusive. That is the sickness underneath the whole argument. Men call it “withholding” because “she doesn’t want me” requires self-reflection. “Withholding” lets him stay entitled.
English
@ManOfStxxx Some people think they're saying "I won't enjoy it, that's why I don't want to do it" when actually they're saying "I don't want to do it, therefore I won't enjoy it". The first can be overcome by making it a good experience; the second, probably not.
English
She’s kind of joking but she caught something real that flew over everybody’s head.
Go read those comments from the married guys. Half of them are saying stuff like “it only takes five minutes” and “just get it over with” like that’s a defense. You just told everyone that sex with you is something she endures & you’re confused why she avoids it?
Now, are there women who use sex as a weapon regardless of how good it is? Yeah. We already talked about that. Some women could be with the best guy on earth and still treat sex like a bargaining chip.
That’s real and it’s not his fault butthe guys in those comments aren’t those guys. Those guys aren’t saying “I do everything right and she still won’t touch me.” They’re saying “it’s only five minutes, what’s the big deal.” That’s a man who never once asked himself if she’s actually enjoying it.
Two different problems. If she’s weaponizing it, that’s a her problem and you should leave. If your own defense is “it’ll be quick,” that’s a you problem and you need to get better. Most guys online are mixing these two up because it’s easier than figuring out which one they actually are.
Cartoons Hate Her!@CartoonsHateHer
I agree that some women on here are acting like sex with their husband is an unpleasant chore, but there are a ton of men essentially saying, "Yes, sex with me is a chore, but at least it'll be over quickly!"
English
English
@FrenlyOfficer This is a reasonable take. What's your advice for getting through this situation well, with consideration for both people?
English
It’s perfectly normal to be disappointed because you desire sex with your spouse and they do not reciprocate.
It’s also perfectly normal for the spouse who doesn’t reciprocate to feel bad about the lack of reciprocation.
English
>And women have been so trained to believe refusal is cruelty
This is ignorance of the nature of women. Women are the more empathetic and agreeable sex. Lots of women feel bad about libido mismatch because they are sad that the lack of physical intimacy is painful for their husbands.
So much of this discourse is so strange and dehumanizing to both sides.
Echo 🔆@TheEcho13
“Withholding sex” is one of the most revealing phrases men use, because it assumes sex was already his and she’s refusing to release it. Watch what usually comes before it. He did the dishes. He paid a bill. He quoted religion. He acted sad. He found a dozen ways to frame her body as the reward for his effort. But the question is simple. Did she want him in that moment? If the answer is no, she wasn’t withholding. She didn’t have desire to give. She was angry, hurt, exhausted, disconnected, repulsed, unseen. And women have been so trained to believe refusal is cruelty that they’ll force themselves through sex they don’t want just to avoid being called abusive. That is the sickness underneath the whole argument. Men call it “withholding” because “she doesn’t want me” requires self-reflection. “Withholding” lets him stay entitled.
English