Newlywed sex advice? - Page 2

Hey Dave, just so you know, according to your religion masochism is a sin.

It's official; Scriptwriter is about the most unChristian and humorless person in this thread.

If the original poster is authentic, he's repeatedly traumatizing his wife rather than sympathizing and seeking therapy for the both of them. His first instinct when he found out his wife had major emotional/trust issues as well as honesty problems (and that he had either been misled or enabling of such behavior) should have been to seek therapy to try to resolve the HUGE problems in their relationship.

As it stands, the man is posting on a movie message board (which does NOT appear on Google if you search for 'marriage/sex advice/mens forums') about, essentially, how much he resents his wife and forces her to have sex. So, either he's an incredibly mean ass who deserves negative societal pressure, or he's a jackass who thinks his posting is funny. Either way, poking fun at him is the suitable response.

And, even if you believe in people being possessed, that is not the wife's problem, you idiot. She was raped. That is very traumatic and requires a lot of therapy for most women to handle.

Belethedheliel, that kind of clear and concise argument is playing right into his hands. You cannot combat ridiculous b/s logic with sound reasoning, it makes sense! Do not be fooled into an honest debate!

In order to fight stupidity, we need to summon stupidity.

How many corpses do you think it will take to call out fabfunk?

a fabfunk/scriptwriter battle royale would be beyond words of mere mortals.

I'd bring popcorn.

I'd bring a tarp.

I'd bring the firehose.

If you're serious about this PM me.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. It's not fun, but you both can get past it.

Well, I don't know what society you live in, but mine endorses vigilntism. (That's when you smack your balls against some dude's forehead right?)

Mr 'Confused'. You essentially asked for advice on how to make a rape victim put out more (your wife, no less!) Did you expect sympathy for anyone other than your poor spouse?

By the way, people would take your written word more seriously if your spelling was better.

Not only that, but he included such statements as:

This place gives great advice.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=885503

That thread is absolutely fucking funny. I think what he did would be at the top of my 'Keep to Myself/Not Post on Message Board' list. Man of Men indeed.

Somebody make a thread dedicated to it where people will see it. I would, but I'm threaded out this week.

What the hell?!? I'm afraid to see what comes next in this thread.

Whatever happened to all the pictures of hot naked chicks? That used to be what the sex forum was all about. Now it's just a bunch of damn freaks.

Passionately.

Firstly, this thread is mind-blowing (and the lack of sympathy here for a rape victim is staggering), but Bel, a ring for someone who is saving herself for marriage (I would initially think) WOULD change their practice of not-screwing to screwing. That's without adding any kind of abuse/relationship problems into the equation. The woman in question obviously had some past history that effected things (understandably).

Somewhat related: I find that women who save themselves for marriage (for religious reasons) tend to come from a lifetime of being told that sex is evil, have learned to live without it (even shutting themselves off from discussing it), and are less comfortable (subconsciously) with the notion that sex is actually good, healthy, and enjoyable even after the ring is there.

Realistically, prudes (or more PC: people with more Biblical oriented sexual-related principles) don't turn into nymphos overnight (depsite that funny Onion article).

The rape thing is obviously a different animal, should be treated with sensitivity and support, and changes the whole game. If it was important enough to wait till marriage for sex, it's just as (ie: more) important to work on getting through this trauma, not "just for your sex-life", but ESPECIALLY for her outlook on sex, trust, the opposite gender, and overall mental/physical health.

That's probably true, but there are exceptions to every rule.

Thank God my wife is one.

He said "it had been a while for her" which I took to mean she was a born-again virgin, not a "prude" as it were.

However let's not twist what I said.

I said that the person would either be INTERESTED or not; I did not comment on actual activity. I know a LOT of women (and men) who are of the "save yourself for marriage" camp. Used to be one myself. While some of them have all kinds of issues regarding sex, that doesn't change whether they are hetero (or not) and whether they have a much of a sex drive (or not) or whether they are attracted to their partner (or not). The feelings are either there, or they are not. The difference is whether you choose to act on them or, in some cases, choose to abstain from certain activities for whatever reason.

All of my more fundamentalist, religious friends run the usual spectrum of sexual appetite and issues. The ones who have a healthy sex drive and reasonable normal attitude have a difficult time abstaining. The ones who are struggling with various inner demons regarding their sexuality (feeling it is very dirty, wrong, those who have homosexual tendencies that they are trying to fight, etc.) are generally unlikely to date and if they date they don't engage in sexual activity which doesn't match their innate preferences much (that is, for example, the homosexual ones have homosexual sexual activity, not straight activity, even though they are religious and becaue of their particular religious/family upbringing they think homosexuality is wrong).

In summary, regardless of religious beliefs, most people that I know reflect their orientation and drive accurately in their relationships. (High drive = trouble being abstinent; low drive = don't engage in much sexual activity;; hetero = in hetero relationships and active in those; homo= even if have occasional hetero dating relationships, most activity is homo)

People's tendencies are what they are. Sure, they can exercise restraint, but it's like the person who is angry but isn't yelling or hitting things - doesn't mean you can't look at their face and see they're angry. It's usually obvious to their partner if they are, or are not, interested, even if they don't go "all the way." Most folks I knew in college used to do a lot of group-dating because not being alone with someone and being in a peer group that all believes in abstinence helps keep you from acting on your impulses.

Also, as I said before: People are either the kind of person who cheats or they're the kind of person who is faithful, regardless of the status of the exclusive relationship (that is, committed dating, engaged, married). If they cheated while engaged, they rarely stop after marriage. If they would never cheat before marriage, they usually don't become a cheater afterwards.

These are fundamental character traits of a person's personality, and are not usually changed by a ceremony, or lack thereof.

My point was, although I have every sympathy for a rape victim, a person who would create an elaborate lie about their sexuality to their intended life partner has serious issues about trust, intimacy and honesty. Yes, the rape may have contributed to the issues, but the woman needs a lot of help to heal so that she can have an honest and open relationship with her partner. Getting married without telling your anxious-to-have-sex husband that you've been raped and may never want to have sex again is not healthy. I would imagine that there were signs (e.g. that she was uncomfortable with other sexual activity, etc) which he should have noticed and addressed, and there are likely other trust, intimacy and honesty issues in their relationship, which don't reflect well on him.

Sure, he may have just thought she had religious-based sex issues. Even so, if he is expecting her to turn into a willing and eager partner overnight when she has shown herself to be uncomfortable with sex -- regardless of the reason -- that's messed up, too.


ETA:
That is my point. If they are, for whatever reason, a hyposexual or asexual person (through natural personality or a life long mental training), they will likely remain that way, marriage or no. If they are a normally sexual person (or hypersexual/nympho) person, they will also likely remain that way. Certainly, the act of marriage may change whether a religious person would think sex was acceptable in the eyes of their religion, and they may be more likely to engage in the act, but it does not change their fundamental drive, or their vast guilt complex, or whatever other issues (or lack thereof) they have.

I agree with all of that. Thanks for the clarification and time it took to respond.

Ha! This is fucking hilarious. Did anyone start a thread, because this really needs to be seen by more people.

*Edit: I just posted it in the "Getting Personal" thread in the Chewers Forum. Too funny.

My wife and I waited until we were married to have sex because that is her religious conviction. This has actually opened my eyes to something not negative from the Catholic church. She was never told it was bad to have sex, just that it was important that it be with the person you married. She wasn't told it was evil or dirty she just didn't think it should be done until marriage. The only problem now that she has experienced it, is she gets a little crazy.

"Catholic High School Girls in Trouble" really should be made into a feature....