Thread: Singleness, celibacy, relationships and harm Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024158

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
This is a thought spinning out of a Dead Horses thread where Matt Black has said
quote:
I am a heterosexual male, married, with no sex life whatsoever (and none for some time). I have heterosexual impulses, quite strong ones as it happens. I am tempted, sorely at times, by several of the mums at the school gate,and indeed other women, married and single/ divorced, one or two of whom have indicated that they might be 'up for something'.

Should I, following your logic, follow through on my impulses or suppress them?

(You see, things aren't always as rosy in the straight sexual garden as you might think...)

and some of the painful recent posts on the Dating thread in All Saints where Hazey*Jane posted this article and the Readers' stories of being single

How do we handle our sexualities to do no harm? When both people within a relationship have different libidos (and I know this varies with time and circumstances) is having an affair an appropriate response? What would be?

If we love our neighbour as ourselves and know ourselves to be damaged, is it fair to get into relationships?

How do we handle the frustrations of being single?

Can we be called to celibacy? or how do we deal with celibacy if we are not called to it without harming others?

(I am dealing with quite a bit of this, but would prefer to ask questions first and respond when others have)
 
Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 
Gah, what an uncomfortable subject.

I think at times we all experience things we don't want and wouldn't choose. I don't think having an affair is a sensible move, because the risk of trust breakdown is profound.

It is hard to know what to say that doesn't sound ridiculous, although do wonder if some of the tension could be lessened by getting busy doing some other activity. The alternative is that we find excuses to do the things we normally wouldn't countenance every time we experience a hard thing we wouldn't have chosen.

Hard though. I know that I don't make good choices in stressful situations.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
That's quite a good article, but it veer's close to a certain self pity which I can't imagine to be very good for one. But I was amused to read the dinner party questions. I'm always amused when I watch certain people being asked if they are married, and if they say 'no', the questioner looks at them with pity and sadness as if they've just announced they have terminal cancer or something.

The flip side is that in my line of work I see a lot of deeply unhappy marriages; people who have been so desperate not to be alone and to conform to the social norm that they are literally living in hell. I never quite understand it to be honest and I wonder what the long term prospects are for them and their mental health quite apart from anything else.
 
Posted by Elemental (# 17407) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

<snip>

How do we handle our sexualities to do no harm? When both people within a relationship have different libidos (and I know this varies with time and circumstances) is having an affair an appropriate response? What would be?

If we love our neighbour as ourselves and know ourselves to be damaged, is it fair to get into relationships?

How do we handle the frustrations of being single?

Can we be called to celibacy? or how do we deal with celibacy if we are not called to it without harming others?

(I am dealing with quite a bit of this, but would prefer to ask questions first and respond when others have) [/QB]

I think this is a really interesting and relevant post, arising from a slightly laboured and (in my case) anger-generating thread.

I personally am struggling with a lot of this. I am still in mourning for what I thought was the relationship that I would be in forever and I know that I am damaged. I am also not naturally called to celibacy.

I don't have a problem with sex outside a committed relationship per se although it lacks much that is precious within one.

So where do I go from here? Part of me desperately wants a relationship and the wise part of me knows anything embarked on ATM would be polluted by my current mental state.

The one thing that seems to me to be vital here, whether single and lonely, or pair-bonded and struggling, is honesty.

Honesty with oneself as to what exactly one seeks if single - is it sex, companionship, an antidote to loneliness?

Honesty with one's partner as to the impact of the struggles on the relationship. IMO, it is difficult to say that an affair (with all the associated dishonesty) is the answer, especially where a libido imbalance is the response to external circumstances, when say one partner is chronically unwell or overworked.

What if it is a physical issue? I suffered nerve damage after surgery that made it uncertain for well over a year whether I would ever be able to be sexually active again. My partner did not look elsewhere, although I would have been sympathetic to the urge to do so, if not necessarily to any action taken.

I spent considerable time pondering the future if it were to become permanent. Should I be "noble" and part from my partner permanently, knowing her libido to be too high for permanent abstinence? Was it better to lose her in stages, suggesting sexual encounters elsewhere to fill that need? Would that not merely lead to emotional distance and jealousy? I never found a "right" answer.

A simple "no sex outside a committed relationship" sanction seems an extremely simplistic view for many circumstances.

Even though do no harm is a huge part of my world view, I don't have an answer. Can we go with do minimal harm and still consider ourselves moral beings?
 
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on :
 
Interesting thread, I have never felt "frustrated" at still being single, and celibate. Although I would not want to take a "vow of celibacy", as I don't think I could keep it for the rest of my life - circumstances and events that happen in life can take you by surprise, and this thread resonates with me in the situation I now find myself in:

Whilst holidaying in Spain back in June this year,and staying at my mother's house over there, I met her neighbour a Russian lady. A few days later, some of her family including her son came to stay, There was a party in the village to celebrate St John's Night/Midsummer, and the neighbours were there, and I got chatting to the neighbour's son. It turned out that he was the same age as me, and lived in Spain. He told me that he was divorced. We "clicked" immediately and got on extremely well.

I had my friend staying with me at my mother's house, so I did not go on any dates with the Russian guy. Instead, after that, we kept in touch via Facebook and MSN chat, and we talked most evenings for 2 or 3 hours at a time.

Recently I went to Spain again, this time with family, but I went out there a few days before they did. I met up with the Russian guy again, and started a relationship with him (or was it a holiday romance??), he was quite reticent, but I put this down to shyness, as he is a very quiet, private sort of person. However, one evening he admitted to me that he was actually married to a Spanish woman, and had been so for 15 years. He told me that he and his wife did not get on, that she didn't love him and that they didn't even have a sex life any more. He said that he stayed married because he still loved his wife, and he hated the thought of splitting up and all the hurt that that would cause to her and her family. I was shocked that he had lied to me about being divorced when he wasn't, and I told him that it would not be possible for us to continue seeing each other, as committing adultery by having a relationship with a married man (even an unhappily married one) is totally against my religious and personal beliefs and principles, and besides, I (cynically) wasn't sure that I believed all he said about how bad his marriage was. He was upset with what I said, but agreed, and also said that he disliked being unfaithful to his wife too..

A few days later, his mother came back next door. I don't think she knew anything about my "relationship" with her son. However, she told me a lot about her family, including her son - and all he said about his marriage was true, and in fact, his mother told me many more shocking things - which I won't go into. She also said that she worried about her son's mental state at times. Suffice to say, he still loves his wife, has tried to make his marriage work, but his wife does not love him, and treats him with cruelty and indifference, but yet he feels that he would be betraying and hurting her by leaving her. But reading between the lines, I suspect that his wife, who apparently doesn't work, and is somewhat of a socialite, stays with him, as he is quite well off and solvent and has his own business.

I still talk to the Russian guy privately on Facebook, but just casually as friends, and not every day like we used to do, but we don't interact by posting on each other's walls, as some of his and his wife's friends are on his Facebook. We have not spoken about our brief affair or his domestic issues, as we are both uncomfortable about it and find it awkward. I did try to raise the subject, but he replied - quite sharply, that he didn't want to discuss it.

I still feel bad with myself for getting involved with a married man, albeit unknowingly - although my sister (who is not a Christian) thinks I am being "precious" and "silly" about it. She told me, "He's married, but what the hell, and you heard what he and then his mother said about his marriage. You should pursue him, as you don't want to miss a good opportunity of getting yourself a nice boyfriend like him. You only live once"

The trouble is I agree that I have missed a good opportunity, and that I have not met anyone like this guy for a long time, although I am not desperate to be in a relationship. Also, I do not subscribe to the "you-only-live-once" theory, as it seems to me that some people justify their self-indulgence and general selfishness irrespective of the harm they might cause to themselves and others by this way of thinking.

However, I am very uncomfortable at the thought of having any sort of relationship, including a deep platonic one with a married man. On the other hand, if he were to decide to end his marriage, I would not want to be the factor or cause that led him to do this, and all the hurt that that would cause.

[ 14. November 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Aggie ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
fwiw, I think you did the right thing, Aggie (not that you need or are asking for my approval). What happens next is unknown, and out of your hands, but whatever happens, I think you can live w/o regrets. If he ends his marriage, you will be free to enter a relationship untainted by the guilt of having caused the split. If he doesn't, well then, I think you can see what would have been if you'd moved forward-- a life of constant secrecy and "less than" and being a shameful secret. I hope you can find peace in your decision, however it turns out.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
There was a 15-minute talk a couple of weeks ago on Radio 4; the speaker was male, about 40 if I remember correctly, single, without a sex life or partner and happy that way. The talk was amusing but there was a serious message in it too, as it was a lament in a way about an atitude that seems to prevail that there must be something wrong with those who are not having an active sexual life, or doing their best to get one. I think I might have one or two useful things to say, but it needs quite a bit of thinking about....
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
Aggie, I so appreciate your honesty, and a lot of what you have shared resonates with me.

I wish I was as strong as you (being very genuine here, not trying to be patronising); recent experience has shown me not to be so much. I would like to go into it here, just don't have the space to do so now.

[ 15. November 2012, 00:23: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
I'm just going to answer the questions I feel I can.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

How do we handle the frustrations of being single?

Planning. I've got to cook dinner AND do laundry AND weed the garden AND take the garbage out AND pay the bills et cetera, so I make sure I plan enough time to do all that, and yet also get rest. If that means the dishes sit in the sink for a day or two, so what?

Oh, wait, are you referring to 'frustrations'? 'Cause those are easy to handle if'n you're handling yourself.

And if that's not clear enough, I *am* talking about masturbation.


quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Can we be called to celibacy? or how do we deal with celibacy if we are not called to it without harming others?

Yes you can be called to celibacy. You can also be called to celibacy for only a time. You can also be called to the single life and not celibacy.

And if you're called to singlehood and not celibacy, the best way to handle any relationships you get into is communicating very openly about your needs, wants, desires, and future plans.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I thought quite a while about whether I should post on this thread because while it's very relevant to me it's not something I've ever really talked about even with close friends.

The truth of it is that I have never, in my late twenties now, had a physically close relationship with anyone.

To say that brings about a huge sense of shame and failure for me as an individual which on one level I reject utterly but then part of me takes as true and worries about.

I am very happy single, what I am not happy with is what that singleness seems to imply about me and the assumptions society draws about me as a consequence. I am professionally successful and have a good network of friends, hobbies and interests but I feel like I have to use those things as '...yes but..' defenses of the fact I am not in a relationship.

Do I think I may be missing out on a part of life? Yes. Is my life empty because it's not in it? No.

I'm not sure why it is that it hasn't happened for me. It just hasn't.

The codependent couples thing really bugs me too. 'We like this...' 'We thought that...' Why can't you embrace your inner 'I'?

I do think about whether I should actually just chuck in the towel and say okay I am now celibate just as I did when I said I was teetotal so people would stop pressuring me to overdrink. But I really don't see why I should.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Whilst I appreciate the scope for more general discussion, in view of responses so far I'm just going to check out with Hosts whether the thread might be better suited for All Saints. This thread is on a parallel theme.

On another tack you might want to bear in mind Purgatory Guideline 4, which incorporates a good general principle re public discussion boards.

quote:
4. Personal stuff

If you find it necessary to share things of a personal nature then remember you have a large audience looking in. Personal statements should be respected by other posters

please be aware of the cost involved for the person making them.

Feel free to continue while we're having a chat on Host Board.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The way this thread has gone has been more personal than I expected and really crossed over with the singles thread on All Saints.

What I was hoping to explore was the assumptions that everyone is incomplete unless partnered and the importance placed on sexual fulfilment. Having said I'd post something more I'm posting some thoughts.

As someone who is single after relationships when I was younger, I know that I come with a lot of baggage that makes me unwilling to inflict myself on someone else. But the assumptions are that I am so desperate to be in a relationship that I will chase after other women's husbands, particularly within the church community, which is where I meet couples. That hasn't made church a good place. My experience is that unless you're of a certain age, a single woman is regarded with suspicion.

Additionally there is an assumption that I must want to date, not just go out in company rather than on my own.

I also think that the use of sex to sell anything and everything means that sex is given undue importance. Sometimes a cuddle would be nice.

The thought about inflicting damage was a vague thought around affairs, prostitution and getting into doomed relationships because of the perceived need to be partnered.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Oh, wait, are you referring to 'frustrations'? 'Cause those are easy to handle if'n you're handling yourself.

And if that's not clear enough, I *am* talking about masturbation.



Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
What Matt Black just said. 100%
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Yes. Sensations without feelings.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Back in the OP; I'm sure there is a call to celibacy. In fact I was talking to a nun at a funeral a couple of weeks ago about this very issue. (How strange is that?)

Well, it wasn't all that strange. She was the daughter of the deceased; my wife and I know her sister very well. She read the lesson at her father's funeral.

Afterwards, we got to talking about calls to be monks or nuns and how they came about. She brought up vows of poverty, chastity and obedience; basically said she did feel a very powerful call in that direction and saw the vows as intrinsic to the call. She had a good idea of what she was getting into. Lovely, gentle and kindly woman.

I suspect however that the call is relatively rare. Also, it is quite obvious that living with singleness and being called to celibacy are not the same thing. We've met an awful lot more people who have talked about that, have found married folks' lack of understanding of the state of singleness to be quite painful and insensitive. Particularly church people, and particularly about the sexual implications of singleness.

But I'm not really qualified to speak about a condition which hasn't applied to me since 1968. Other than to express sorrow for lack of understanding and empathy.

[ 15. November 2012, 14:22: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Oh, sorry, I should have said first.

The Hosts' discussion - the thread can stay in Purgatory.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Oh, wait, are you referring to 'frustrations'? 'Cause those are easy to handle if'n you're handling yourself.

And if that's not clear enough, I *am* talking about masturbation.



Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.
This is very important; it was the worst aspect of the years I spent before meeting Mrs KLB.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
OK long term single signing in.

I am now in my middle years, I have had enough relationships to know I a heterosexual but none have lasted longer than a year and there have not been many. My last one showed me that if the right person did come along I would probably be interested. We would have to be more than just sexually attracted but I also know that I may well need the attraction to let them past first base. So no real feeling of call to celibacy, no really strong attachment to that state, its the default option as far as I am concerned.

However no real frustration either, the members of the opposite sex I do fancy are few and far between (it is just none of the same sex). I do not often have an strong desire for intimacy and I do have strong interests that I will often follow rather than seeking intimacy. When I was at University there were far more interesting things than finding a partner, when I graduated learning to be an adult took some time and the last decade my thesis has come first, second and third and has taken up all the extra resources. Yes I do find learning about something I am interested more absorbing than sex. I am amongst the eternally curious and that drive is far more powerful than my sex drive.

So where do I stand, well relationships of all sorts are important and the old fashioned qualities of loyalty, integrity and caring seem central to them. I tend not to have an exclusive one but I know I need to tend and care for those that are near me.

I equally know I need space and people to listen to me, I am willing to listen to others in return. It however becomes harder to develope such friendships and relationship and they always need tending and caring and building (life has a habit of moving people into new situations).

In someways I would like a base or a commitment group built around mutual support and accountability, but I know I also like my freedom to please myself and indulge my intellectual curiosity. I suspect if I conformed and got a partner at the price of not following my curiousity I would be less fulfilled.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Oh, wait, are you referring to 'frustrations'? 'Cause those are easy to handle if'n you're handling yourself.

And if that's not clear enough, I *am* talking about masturbation.



Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.
This exactly.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
If two people in a committed relationship have very widely differing libidos, that is a problem within the relationship, imo. I'm not sure I believe that any one person has no libido at all and does not want any sex at all. Not without a medical reason or a reason that exists within the relationship. As far as "do no harm", I think there might already be harm within such a relationship. Both, or at the very least one, is already "being harmed" by being in a unfulfilling relationship. I think the answer is, as others have said or alluded to, is honesty. Honesty is hard as hell. But the honest truth is that within an unfulfilling relationship, humans look beyond that relationship for that fulfillment. It's almost inevitable.

Having an affair is never an appropriate response, however, an open relationship might be. But, for another thread.

If someone "knows themselves to be damaged" then the problem lies within that person's value of themselves as a human being. No one is too damaged to not ever be in a relationship.

I don't believe anyone is "called to be celibate", because being agnostic (sometimes bordering on atheist), means that I don't believe anyone is "calling" in the first place.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I'm unsure if there is such a thing as a "call to celibacy." When I say that, I don't mean that people can't be celibate, what I'm saying is that I don't think celibacy is ever an end in itself.

In the monastic context, one is called to live in a monastic community. In order to fully live out that monastic vocation, one makes certain vows (poverty, obedience, celibacy) as a means towards that end.

Or an artist, dedicated wholly to her artistic career, may decide to forego romantic relationships in order to concentrate on her artistic call.

I was told many, many years ago by someone that the mere act of abstaining from sexual activity, is by itself, no moral virtue to commended. But the act of abstention for the purpose of a higher end, such as living faithfully within a monastic community, may be in fact commended.

Likewise, one can argue that participation in sexual activity is by itself, not noteworthy. But, if it is motivated towards the end of greater love and affection towards one's partner, then indeed, it is good. The ethical question is in the purpose of the activity.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:

If we love our neighbour as ourselves and know ourselves to be damaged, is it fair to get into relationships?

I think there's a great deal of difference between seeking out/going into a relationship with the express aim of healing a "damage" within you, and going into a relationship as one "damaged" person relating to another.

I reckon we all have damages and places of need--if we waited to be perfect before relating to each other, we'd never be in any kind of relationship at all. I know I've been, myself, in a space where I am genuinely too knee-deep in damage to be able to relate in a healthy way to a partner--the old saw, I guess, about needing to get one's one oxygen mask on before trying to fiddle with the one next to you. And I have a friend who genuinely worries me with the view he has of relationships--that he desperately needs one, because without someone to take care of him, he can't cope.

That doesn't seem healthy. But I think it's an uncommon extreme. What seems healthy, to me, is a recognition that anyone entering a relationship will have their damages and their broken places--will bring fear and need and selfishness into the mix just as much as generosity and compassion and fulness of heart. It seems like when we understand those shadow parts of ourselves and of others, and we are able to connect despite and beyond them, it can be possible for relationships to be a part of what "heals" us--not the prize we get once we're (impossibly) fully healed.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Curiosity killed ...: If we love our neighbour as ourselves and know ourselves to be damaged, is it fair to get into relationships?
Of course it is. But I think the important thing is to be honest about it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Some Christians reckon that celibacy is (or may be) a spiritual gift. Never heard of anyone "earnestly desiring" it (1 Cor 14).

Doesn't the call to live in monastic communities involve a call to celibate living? Mind you, it's not a call I find it easy to relate to. The few folks I've talked to about this were all clear that they weren't born with zero libido. (If you have zero libido then you have no desire from which to abstain. And voluntary abstention for the sake of a wider purpose seems to be the point)

In the current febrile climate, there is a tendency to believe that human beings who aren't looking for some kind of outlet for their sexual desire must be very odd indeed. The idea that it might be a sincere voluntary choice, entered into for a high motive, is I think still accepted, but there seems to be a common view that such a life choice will lead to someone being bent out of shape pyschologically (if they aren't already). Such is the strength of instinctive sexual desire.

I think this was one of the "shocks to the system" of the TV series "The Monastery". The impression created was that the mentoring monks seemed in many cases to be significantly less "bent out of shape" than their voluntary visitors.

I may be a bit counter-cultural on this. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the there are very strong over-sexualising influences in much of Western culture. "I want it all, I want it all, I want it all, I want it now" characterises a certain social pressure resulting from advertising, celebrity culture, the awareness that sex sells.

Of course sexual desires are very strong for most of us, but if there is anything bending many people out of shape psychologically it may be that hyped-up cultural pressure to "succeed" sexually, otherwise you're some kind of failure. That's a constant pressure, and not just on single folk. The whole notion of measuring your sex-life against some kind of idealised norm is completely daft really. Yet it's "there". In your face.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I agree with what your comments about sexualisation Barnabas62 and that was one of the strands that occurred to me when I started this thread, the febrile pressure for sexual fulfilment which adds to the pressure on singles.

Isn't it a common phenomenon that some people keep falling in love with the same type of person? The woman who is attracted by the same violent man and wondering why she ends up beaten, the man who keeps falling for similar unfaithful women and finds himself cheated on again. Haven't we found that attraction / falling in love is a fallible way of finding a life partner? Could breaking cycles of abuse require people to realise that they are attracted to those who will help perpetuate those cycles and make a conscious choice to avoid that consequence? Isn't attraction partially based on models from childhood, the mechanism behind these cycles?

quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If two people in a committed relationship have very widely differing libidos, that is a problem within the relationship, imo. I'm not sure I believe that any one person has no libido at all and does not want any sex at all. Not without a medical reason or a reason that exists within the relationship. As far as "do no harm", I think there might already be harm within such a relationship. Both, or at the very least one, is already "being harmed" by being in a unfulfilling relationship. I think the answer is, as others have said or alluded to, is honesty. Honesty is hard as hell. But the honest truth is that within an unfulfilling relationship, humans look beyond that relationship for that fulfillment. It's almost inevitable.

I am going to challenge this. Pregnancy and childbirth plus bringing up a young child change libido, inevitably. I am not convinced that everyone wants the same amount of sex as everyone else. We wouldn't have the shocked comments about "5 times a night" if that was a universal experience, but it must be the experience of some people at some times. The person who enjoys sex to that extent may find themselves unequally yoked .

[ 16. November 2012, 07:31: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
When asked why I'm permanently single I just tell the (incredibly rude) questioner that it's because I have an obnoxious personality. In reality it's because for a mixture of reasons (of course) but chief among them coming to terms with the fact that being in a couple doesn't make life any easier or more difficult, just different.

But in church circles beig single over a certain age - particularly never having been in a long-term relationship - seems to mark you out as unspiritual more strongly than being a domestic tyrant/doormat.

Funnily enough, since adopting my daughters I have now moved beyond spiritual assessments and almost into sainthood for choosing to be a single mother without the pregnancy/birth aspect. Whereas single mothers who do the pregnancy/birth part move in the opposite direction. Of course, the no pregnancy/birth element says nothing about whether I'm having sex-outside-of-marriage, it's just that no-one can tell...
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I wasn't sure whether to post this on this thread or in All Saints but I think it probably belongs over here.

I think a lot of the judgment of singles comes from the just world fallacy. According to this people who are attractive and functional *deserve* to be in a relationship. Those who are in one congratulate themselves on being attractive and functional, because hey, they found someone so that proves it. They don't want to think that the reason that they found someone that they can form a relationship with has an element of luck to it. Right place, right time, bla bla. The flip side is that a person who "can't find anyone" might be doing something to deserve it. Because in a just world, if they were the right kind of person, they wouldn't be on their own.

My particular version of sucky is usually the "how is a girl like you still single" line. AFAICT I am in the upper percentile of attractive (FWIW, my information on this score mostly comes from heterosexual women, usually with the aforementioned "how are you still single" thing) and I like to think I am a fairly well balanced kind of person and not too unpleasant to be around. But y'know, lady luck hasn't been smiling on me so far.

Unfortunately the real world isn't as fair as many of us would like it to be. Some very kind, charming and attractive people don't end up meeting the right person to be in a couple with. Some fairly hateful ones manage to get married. It's unjust. The real world frequently is. [Frown]
 
Posted by drnick (# 16065) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If two people in a committed relationship have very widely differing libidos, that is a problem within the relationship, imo. I'm not sure I believe that any one person has no libido at all and does not want any sex at all.

I have to challenge this. Estimates are that around 1% of the population is asexual - this is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction. There are a growing number of people who identify as an asexual and a growing community. Essentially some people are simply not interested in or have a desire for sex, not because they are broken or damaged but simply because this is their orientation. It is, however, perfectly possible to desire and have a romantic relationship which is not sexual - the two things do not have to go together. However much it challenges aspects of western culture not everybody has a need for sex.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.

Yes, 100 times over. And I don't mean that I expect my old man to look at me with naked lust after 14 years of marriage. However I would like - love - to experience the joy of knowing for sure that at some point in the day I have resided in his consciousness; that at some point, however fleetingly, he thought of me *intimately*.

Isn't this what it means to vow "to have and to hold"? When people talk about breaking marriage vows, they are almost always talking about adultery. But adultery is only the consequence of failing to hold the other in our heart and mind, and - so that they can know they are held in heart and mind - in our arms.

This is all very difficult and sad. I'm RC, so for my own part, any intimate relationship I were to have while my husband is alive would be adulterous, whether it was an affair or to divorce and remarry. So there are no alternatives.

I have to keep trying to do the having and holding. And hope that it gets better.

When I get depressed, an element of it is always that I know *in theory* that I am held, intimately, in the mind and heart of God. Why can't that be enough for me for now? Perhaps I don't really have faith after all. In which case, why am I living the life I am? And so the unhelpful thoughts go round and round....
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
[Votive] The theory is fine and dandy, but we all need 'God-with-skin-on'. The pat answer to this is the Incarnation: Jesus is/was 'God-With-Skin-On'. The trouble is in the 'was': He hasn't had skin for nearly 2000 years which leaves us all a bit stuffed on that front [Frown]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I wasn't sure whether to post this on this thread or in All Saints but I think it probably belongs over here.

I think a lot of the judgment of singles comes from the just world fallacy. According to this people who are attractive and functional *deserve* to be in a relationship. Those who are in one congratulate themselves on being attractive and functional, because hey, they found someone so that proves it. They don't want to think that the reason that they found someone that they can form a relationship with has an element of luck to it. Right place, right time, bla bla. The flip side is that a person who "can't find anyone" might be doing something to deserve it. Because in a just world, if they were the right kind of person, they wouldn't be on their own.

My particular version of sucky is usually the "how is a girl like you still single" line. AFAICT I am in the upper percentile of attractive (FWIW, my information on this score mostly comes from heterosexual women, usually with the aforementioned "how are you still single" thing) and I like to think I am a fairly well balanced kind of person and not too unpleasant to be around. But y'know, lady luck hasn't been smiling on me so far.

Unfortunately the real world isn't as fair as many of us would like it to be. Some very kind, charming and attractive people don't end up meeting the right person to be in a couple with. Some fairly hateful ones manage to get married. It's unjust. The real world frequently is. [Frown]

I find that a fascinating post. I was a psychotherapist for 30 years, and there is probably a fallacy, or a group of fallacies, among therapists, that people get what they want.

It's obviously untrue, for example, people don't get cancer because they want to, although there may be some who do want to.

But in relation to relationships, certainly, many therapists argue that people get what they want. Thus, if you end up with a violent man, you wanted that, and so on.

Of course, the wanting is often reckoned to be unconscious, and therefore, acted out, and split off, or some such mechanism. Or if you like, denied.

I do remember quite a number of clients who would complain a lot about the world, about luck, about the lack of available talent, and so on, and eventually, admitted that they had been closed to an intimate relationship, for various reasons, e.g. fear, hostility, and so on. Of course, we don't know that we are closed, so it's a kind of double lock.

It doesn't mean that everybody is, but I think a lot are. Anyway, I am off for a long walk, so I will ponder how incorrect that is.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
I hope I'm not being unfair in thinking there's something really important missing from this discussion, which applies to people in any form of relationship, and that is: self control.

It probably doesn't help some people in this forum that it comes highly recommended in the writings of Saint Paul, but it figures pretty highly in the Sermon on the Mount as well.

My father summed it up pretty succinctly with the advice: Keep it in your trousers!

The fact that I am a lifelong celibate may discredit my views in the eyes of some, but I can tell you that in this area there has always been plenty of self to control, and I don't see my situation as any different from my father's when faced with the urge and the opportunity to play away from home.

Part of the art is the hugely outdated idea (also found in the Sermon on the Mount) of avoiding occasions of sin.

It also strikes me that self control is very helpful in other forms of everyday human relationship...

[Cool]
 
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

]Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.

This is very important; it was the worst aspect of the years I spent before meeting Mrs KLB.
Huh. Interesting. I've never had that issue. I don't think I even really understand the need you're describing. Which is probably entirely related to my own way of looking at the world and interacting with it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@AberVicar - what and where did that opening post say anything about not controlling ourselves. The word self-control wasn't explicitly used but it was asking how we controlled ourselves in this world, dealing with temptations, our own sexualities, the pressures we deal with from other people and the zeitgeist, by which I mean the atmosphere / media / general environment. I'm writing as someone who has been celibate over a decade, so am aware of what self-control involves.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in relation to relationships, certainly, many therapists argue that people get what they want. Thus, if you end up with a violent man, you wanted that, and so on.

Of course, the wanting is often reckoned to be unconscious, and therefore, acted out, and split off, or some such mechanism. Or if you like, denied.

I think it's much more complicated than that. I have been a single parent and know however much I knew, intellectually, that there was a right way to do certain things, under stress and pushed to the limit, the automatic default is the parenting I experienced. I need to have reserves to override that.

I think the same is true of relationships. However much you know, intellectually, that certain people are a very bad option, it's damn difficult to summon up physical attraction for the "right" person if it's not there and only too easy to be attracted to the wrong person. That sort of thing comes with the instinctual part of our brains that are so difficult to control.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Can we agree two statements:

There are people who experience sexual frustration within a committed relationship

There are people who are not sexually frustrated who are not in a committed relationship.

Then maybe we can start to look outside the standard assumptions and actually start to ask questions about how sexual frustration should be handled whether single or in a committed relationship. The issues may not be so different.

Jengie
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
Er... there isn't anything explicitly about self control in the OP, though it clearly doesn't exclude discussion of it, which doesn't seem to me to have happened - unless I've missed it.

JJ's third paragraph has the merit of clearly focusing the conversation on what is needed to deal with the issues.

There is, however, a danger in carrying out so much navel-gazing in pursuit of a solution that real life and action go by the board. Traditional remedies and wisdom do often have the merit of providing a practical solution that enables us to get on with everyday life.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@AberVicar - what and where did that opening post say anything about not controlling ourselves. The word self-control wasn't explicitly used but it was asking how we controlled ourselves in this world, dealing with temptations, our own sexualities, the pressures we deal with from other people and the zeitgeist, by which I mean the atmosphere / media / general environment. I'm writing as someone who has been celibate over a decade, so am aware of what self-control involves.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in relation to relationships, certainly, many therapists argue that people get what they want. Thus, if you end up with a violent man, you wanted that, and so on.

Of course, the wanting is often reckoned to be unconscious, and therefore, acted out, and split off, or some such mechanism. Or if you like, denied.

I think it's much more complicated than that. I have been a single parent and know however much I knew, intellectually, that there was a right way to do certain things, under stress and pushed to the limit, the automatic default is the parenting I experienced. I need to have reserves to override that.

I think the same is true of relationships. However much you know, intellectually, that certain people are a very bad option, it's damn difficult to summon up physical attraction for the "right" person if it's not there and only too easy to be attracted to the wrong person. That sort of thing comes with the instinctual part of our brains that are so difficult to control.

Excellent point. But people do eventually wean themselves off the bad option, especially if they get help (although I would say that).

I think it is very hard and painful, as we have to give up some precious possessions, for example, the need to be miserable, to be punished, and to seek revenge, or an intense fear of intimacy, and so on.

Therapists have been talking for a century about the deep human need to be unhappy, and it is staggering how ingenious we are at ensuring it, and yet, we can break that addiction.

I remember one client saying to me, don't take away my depression, it's my secret lover who comes in the night. Probably true for many people.

Jung made the interesting point that it's important to have some bad relationships, in order to sort this stuff out. Well, I had a few! The point is, you can't do it theoretically or intellectually - you have to get your hands dirty.

[ 16. November 2012, 14:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
There is, however, a danger in carrying out so much navel-gazing in pursuit of a solution that real life and action go by the board. Traditional remedies and wisdom do often have the merit of providing a practical solution that enables us to get on with everyday life.

In my view, you *are* being unfair. And dismissive. Different people find different aspects of living their faith to be challenging or easy.

To a certain extent, "Stop navel-gazing and get on and do it" could be said to anyone struggling with prayer, with alms-giving, with loving difficult members of their community. It's on a par with telling an over-weight person to stop navel-gazing about what lack in their life they are trying to fill with food and just eat less. Certainly, it enables the teller to feel good and the tellee to feel bad, but it doesn't really achieve anything else.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Therapists have been talking for a century about the deep human need to be unhappy, and it is staggering how ingenious we are at ensuring it, and yet, we can break that addiction.

Not sure how you are using "need" here, but it is problematic. Not saying your scenario does not exist, but I do not think it is typical. ISTM, it is more the fear of change coupled with habit. "I understand this is bad, but I know how to operate here. And change could be worse."
This can be a problem with long term singleness as we humans are very much creatures of habit.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Therapists have been talking for a century about the deep human need to be unhappy, and it is staggering how ingenious we are at ensuring it, and yet, we can break that addiction.

Not sure how you are using "need" here, but it is problematic. Not saying your scenario does not exist, but I do not think it is typical. ISTM, it is more the fear of change coupled with habit. "I understand this is bad, but I know how to operate here. And change could be worse."
This can be a problem with long term singleness as we humans are very much creatures of habit.

I agree with that, but I did cite 'an intense fear of intimacy', in the bit you didn't quote. I agree that fear of change is also powerful.

We are very conservative beings, and we tend to repeat stuff. So if your dad smashed you around the chops, you might choose someone to do that again, or you might choose someone to smash them around the chops, or you might just opt out.

There's an old saying in therapy, sometimes actually said to some clients, that you're not desperate enough. It's despair that produces change, not some intellectual decision. You have to get to the end of the line, usually, which is why I agree with Jung, that bad relationships are the engine of change. The big problem is, they're so addictive.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in relation to relationships, certainly,
many therapists argue that people get what they want. Thus, if you end up with a violent man, you wanted that, and so on.

Here's one woman for whom that is 100% untrue! It was lack of worldly knowledge which made me decide to marry a man who showed no violence beforehand, but began it within days afterwards. If I had been wiser, etc etc. However, having grown stronger and getting divorced after eight years, there was one thing I knew for sure; any new partner would have to be a man with whom I could discuss anything with confidence and on an equal basis. There was a man whose attentions and desirability confirmed that I was in fact a normal female, but I never found anyone to marry again, and have always been at ease with that.

There was a phone-in I happened to catch a few months ago about 'sex and the over-70s'! There was one feisty widow with whom it would have been very interesting to have had a cup of tea and a laugh!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think a lot of the judgment of singles comes from the just world fallacy. According to this people who are attractive and functional *deserve* to be in a relationship. Those who are in one congratulate themselves on being attractive and functional, because hey, they found someone so that proves it. They don't want to think that the reason that they found someone that they can form a relationship with has an element of luck to it.

That's certainly true.

quote:
My particular version of sucky is usually the "how is a girl like you still single" line.
Even I get that. Well except for the "girl" bit. I think its mostly people trying to be nice. They probably don't really mean it.

And then they come out with sentimental nonsense about how there is Someone Out There for you and you just have to wait till the right one comes along but it will inevitably happen. How do they know that? They don;t and can't of course. It still feels odd - especially when, as last week, two different people saying it were very attraxtive member of the opposite sex who is married to somone else.

And exactly the same fallacy is touted to us every day about success in other fields as well. Especially to do with money and jobs and property. The rich use the news media to try to convince the rest of us that they deserve their wealth and everyoine else is a lazy pile of shit. And too many people fall for it (if they didn't why would anyone not wealthy ever vote for a conservative party?)

Though being single would still be horrible even if everyone approved of it.

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yeah, but that only 'handles' the physical side of things (in fact I even think it only deals with just part of that); it doesn't in any way shape or form deal with my need to be cherished sexually, to be desired and found at least vaguely attractive in the eyes of another, in short to be 'fancied'.

This is very important; it was the worst aspect of the years I spent before meeting Mrs KLB.

Huh. Interesting. I've never had that issue. I don't think I even really understand the need you're describing. Which is probably entirely related to my own way of looking at the world and interacting with it.

Really? That seems so weird. For me its continuous. The kind of thoughts and feelings that Karl and Matt are talking about almost never completely go away. Like hunger or feeling cold. Except there is no food or warmth available. Well not none, but little. Even a smile from a stranger in the street can change my mood for the day. And its not quite the same as sexual desire - except that almost never completely goes away either, and almost never gets satisfied. Not that such things can be neatly separated from sexual desires of course, they are all bound up with each other. But those thoughts and feelings are a continuous background to my entire life and have been since puberty.


quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was a psychotherapist for 30 years, and there is probably a fallacy, or a group of fallacies, among therapists, that people get what they want.

It's obviously untrue, for example, people don't get cancer because they want to, although there may be some who do want to.

But in relation to relationships, certainly, many therapists argue that people get what they want. Thus, if you end up with a violent man, you wanted that, and so on.

I think that is just a Big Clue that many therapists talk bollocks. Not all, maybe not most, but certainly the ones whoi say things like that.

quote:

Of course, the wanting is often reckoned to be unconscious, and therefore, acted out, and split off, or some such mechanism. Or if you like, denied.

But that's really just a rhetorical stance to ignore any difference of opinion.Whatever the other person says isn't the real truth because it is unconscious or they are "in denial". That language allows the therapist to take charge of the relationship, and if the subject of the therapy goes along with it then the therapists world-view is imposed on them. Its a sort of social control, a mechanism for policing behaviour.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Therapists have been talking for a century about the deep human need to be unhappy...[/qb]

And that isn't just a Big Clue that some therapists talk nonsense its conclusive proof that some of them talk utter crap. There is no "deep human need" to be unhappy. Any more than there is a "need" to be in pain or hungry or lonely or cold or frightened.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I remember one client saying to me, don't take away my depression, it's my secret lover who comes in the night. Probably true for many people.

It probably is, but then they need help and they need curing. That kind of mental self-harming is no more a natural human need than an attack of malaria or a broken leg is a natural human need.

[ 16. November 2012, 15:57: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
SusanDoris

Fair enough. There are no universal rules about these things; there are just tendencies. I think it comes into play particularly with repeated things, thus, you get people who keep ending up in violent relationships (not just women). Then you might wonder about it, and hopefully, the person concerned would also start to wonder about it - why does it keep happening?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Ken

I agree that talk of the unconscious can be abused by therapists, in order to exert a sort of control. This probably happened in parts of psychoanalysis, for example, but I don't think it is inevitable. But one of the reasons for the revolt against analysis was that, to produce greater equality.

Well, we will have to disagree about the 'deep human need to be unhappy'. I think it is endemic, and is obviously linked with guilt, anger, fear, the wish for punishment, and so on.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
why does it keep happening?
Because they do not know how or what to change. A person can certainly be put in a mindset where they do not believe they deserve better, but I do not agree that it is innate.

[ 16. November 2012, 16:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
why does it keep happening?
Because they do not know how or what to change. A person can certainly be put in a mindset where they do not believe they deserve better, but I do not agree that it is innate.
Where have I said that it's innate? Fuck me, I'm getting fed up on this thread as I keep being misquoted or quote-mined. Fucking old Riley, I suppose therapy winds people up.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
In my view, you *are* being unfair. And dismissive.

You are obviously entitled to the view that I am unfair to the discussion (though you don't present any evidence), but dismissive? Because I offer an alternative viewpoint? Which in your view can actually be applied to other elements of life?

Hmmm.....

I stick to my point that navel-gazing in any shape or form can be an enemy to the real business of living. Sorry and all that!
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
For me a big thing is my hunger for touch - my family aren't the huggy type, and none of my friends that are live nearby (the friends I have made here are not close enough for me to get past my natural shyness and hug them yet). I don't even mean just sexual touch, although that is part of it - just a physical expression of emotional intimacy and I just feel starved of it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Jade Constable: For me a big thing is my hunger for touch - my family aren't the huggy type, and none of my friends that are live nearby (the friends I have made here are not close enough for me to get past my natural shyness and hug them yet). I don't even mean just sexual touch, although that is part of it - just a physical expression of emotional intimacy and I just feel starved of it.
Brazilians don't speak 2 minutes with eachother without some form of touch. I don't want to make fun of your situation, but maybe you're in the wrong country?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
For me a big thing is my hunger for touch - my family aren't the huggy type, and none of my friends that are live nearby (the friends I have made here are not close enough for me to get past my natural shyness and hug them yet). I don't even mean just sexual touch, although that is part of it - just a physical expression of emotional intimacy and I just feel starved of it.

Try booking in for a monthly massage. It may help.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
If I may butt in, I would disagree about massages. Properly done, it has about as much real touch as a nurse giving a patient a bed-bath. Zip, zip. Done. NEXT!

That is an interesting comment LeRoc, regarding cultural touching. My English family doesn't touch. Spatial distance is maintained. My French family is touch-city and maintain less distance.

In linguistically mixed areas, there is blending of two cultural norms. Sometimes, it is a real challenge to figure out who is which. I opt for the closeness and touching, usually. Body language will tell me soon enough whether I am right or wrong.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
PeteC: That is an interesting comment LeRoc, regarding cultural touching. My English family doesn't touch. Spatial distance is maintained. My French family is touch-city and maintain less distance.
I always have to remember to keep a little more distance when I visit friends and family in the Netherlands. Once after coming over from Brazil, I met up with some friends the next day. At the end of our meeting, I naturally tried to give everyone a big Brazilian hug. It was amusingly awkward.

But I guess I'm steering off-topic.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I agree with what your comments about sexualisation Barnabas62 and that was one of the strands that occurred to me when I started this thread, the febrile pressure for sexual fulfilment which adds to the pressure on singles.

Isn't it a common phenomenon that some people keep falling in love with the same type of person? The woman who is attracted by the same violent man and wondering why she ends up beaten, the man who keeps falling for similar unfaithful women and finds himself cheated on again. Haven't we found that attraction / falling in love is a fallible way of finding a life partner? Could breaking cycles of abuse require people to realise that they are attracted to those who will help perpetuate those cycles and make a conscious choice to avoid that consequence? Isn't attraction partially based on models from childhood, the mechanism behind these cycles?

quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If two people in a committed relationship have very widely differing libidos, that is a problem within the relationship, imo. I'm not sure I believe that any one person has no libido at all and does not want any sex at all. Not without a medical reason or a reason that exists within the relationship. As far as "do no harm", I think there might already be harm within such a relationship. Both, or at the very least one, is already "being harmed" by being in a unfulfilling relationship. I think the answer is, as others have said or alluded to, is honesty. Honesty is hard as hell. But the honest truth is that within an unfulfilling relationship, humans look beyond that relationship for that fulfillment. It's almost inevitable.

I am going to challenge this. Pregnancy and childbirth plus bringing up a young child change libido, inevitably. I am not convinced that everyone wants the same amount of sex as everyone else. We wouldn't have the shocked comments about "5 times a night" if that was a universal experience, but it must be the experience of some people at some times. The person who enjoys sex to that extent may find themselves unequally yoked .
Pregnancy and childbirth are medical reasons. I didn't say that everyone should want the same amount of sex. I said, "widely differing libidos". "Widely differing libidos" is somewhat difficult to define. I would say, that one person never wanting sex and one person wanting sex at some type of frequency is definitely "widely differing" and definitely a problem. Bringing up young children is most definitely a libido killer, but if it goes on too long (like years) or the frequency of sex is never, than I would still maintain that that is a problem within the relationship. Especially, if one partner feels completely unfulfilled for years. I also want to make clear that it's not a problem that can't be fixed.

If one partner wants sex five times a night and one partner wants sex, maybe twice a month, than that is a problem, but one that could probably easily be compromised, I would think. It would then be a matter of choosing this particular relationship with its particular strengths against another unknown relationship that could provide that amount of sex.

What I am beginning to believe is that long term monogamy is not really innate to human nature. I think it's a choice some people make in order to have a certain type of relationship that long term monogamy provides. (familiarity, a sense of "oneness", a somewhat secure partnership.) If a person feels unequally yoked sexually, then that person should consider how unequally yoked he (or she) feels and compare it to how important that relationship is to them.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by drnick:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
If two people in a committed relationship have very widely differing libidos, that is a problem within the relationship, imo. I'm not sure I believe that any one person has no libido at all and does not want any sex at all.

I have to challenge this. Estimates are that around 1% of the population is asexual - this is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction. There are a growing number of people who identify as an asexual and a growing community. Essentially some people are simply not interested in or have a desire for sex, not because they are broken or damaged but simply because this is their orientation. It is, however, perfectly possible to desire and have a romantic relationship which is not sexual - the two things do not have to go together. However much it challenges aspects of western culture not everybody has a need for sex.
Agreed. 1% sounds plausible.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I stick to my point that navel-gazing in any shape or form can be an enemy to the real business of living. Sorry and all that!

But there's only so much angst you can push behind the busyness of living. Too much you end up keeping busy to stop the problems seeping out between the cracks and being no good to anyone because your busyness is more about your (one's) needs of keeping on going and not about the tasks that are being completed. Or (general) you end up exploding with the seething unresolved issues.

Without recognising and internalising the issues, just papering over the cracks tends to not help in the long run.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Re the need for simple touch-- it isn't the same of course, but carrying around / walking the floor with a baby can do a lot to soothe that in the short term (speaking from experience here). The more you cuddle them, the happier they are. Maybe consider vokunteering to hold babies at a hospital or crisis center, or just helping out an overburdened parent? I imagine a cat or dog could help too. I'm speaking as the kid who looked forward to Sunday morning as the handshake at the door was the most touch I got all week.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
why does it keep happening?
Because they do not know how or what to change. A person can certainly be put in a mindset where they do not believe they deserve better, but I do not agree that it is innate.
Where have I said that it's innate? Fuck me, I'm getting fed up on this thread as I keep being misquoted or quote-mined. Fucking old Riley, I suppose therapy winds people up.
Oh, for pity's sake. You say "deep human need to be unhappy" and that it is endemic, I think it a fair cop for me to think you mean innate. Sorry if I got it wrong.
As for quote mining, that is the unfortunate side effect of using an iPad. Easier to grab a snippet than to effectively edit within this small window. I was not pulling a small quote out of context, but using said small quote to respond to what appeared to be your general context.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Pregnancy and childbirth are medical reasons... Bringing up young children is most definitely a libido killer, but if it goes on too long (like years) or the frequency of sex is never, than I would still maintain that that is a problem within the relationship.

It seems like there is general agreement about the effects of children on a couple's sex life, but seeing as I'm in the thick of it at the moment (and female), I might just unpack it a bit more - it is something I need to think through in order to be able to articulate effectively (also doing the couple counselling thing atm).

Re: pregnancy and childbirth being 'medical' reasons for killing libido - that seems fairly reductionistic. For sure, it is fairly hard on your body, and sex is ..umm.. not great in early breastfeeding days when you are swamped in milk-making hormones, but for me at least that is a problem which is in the past.

I think the main, although by no means only, problem I face is that I have two preschoolers who have no concept at all of personal space and like nothing better than to lean/lie/jump/bounce on me when happy, cling limpet-like to my neck or legs when unhappy, pull on my clothes or arms or whatever they can reach when they want something, and coat me liberally with whatever bodily fluid is most plentiful at the time. The problem is increased by orders of magnitude when there are two of them, because the mere fact of one being in your arms or on your lap is enough to make the other immediately stop what they're doing and come over to fight for the premium spot.

The upshot of all of this is that at the end of the day, when all's said and done, and both are finally bathed and sleeping, I want to sit quietly with a glass of wine and read a bit of something on the net, or listen to some music. By myself. And I do.not.want. to be touched. Which is of course, problematic in the context of an intimate relationship. But really, whereas once I may have gained comfort from being touched, it has, by virtue of my daily experience, turned into being about giving comfort. And I guess there is a need for me to give comfort to my husband as there is for my children. Everyone needs it. But it ain't the same is it?

Then, there is also the simple practical fact that (in my view) the sex decreases drastically because the opportunities for it decrease drastically. Particularly the opportunities for spontaneous sex, or anything with any kind of lead-up. Ho no. It's just 'well, it's now or never, really', based on favourable environmental conditions, not on anyone's state of readiness (or awake-ness). And I can't just turn it on and off. Sure, the mechanics of the act work okay, even under this scenario (hence the 'medical' argument doesn't apply), but the head is not engaged, and therefore the experience is entirely forgettable (from my end, anyway).

It is probably pointless my posting this, actually, because I have nothing whatever to offer in the way of solutions, and am just shouting into the wind. I have thought myself around and around in circles on this one, and I just really don't see any solution, other than waiting for my kids to grow up and hoping the menopause hasn't savaged me as badly as it did my mother by the time we get there.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
100% with you on all that.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If I may butt in, I would disagree about massages. Properly done, it has about as much real touch as a nurse giving a patient a bed-bath. Zip, zip. Done. NEXT!

Sounds like you have not experienced a proper massage.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If I may butt in, I would disagree about massages. Properly done, it has about as much real touch as a nurse giving a patient a bed-bath. Zip, zip. Done. NEXT!

Sounds like you have not experienced a proper massage.
There are massages and massages. It depends on what the purpose is, what kind of touch/stroke/pressure is applied. Ditto other elements such as scent, music, level of lighting etc.

Some massages are soft and sensual, some are quite painful (but in a therapeutic way).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
anoesis

What a good, honest post. Was just thinking it through in terms of our similar experiences (Mrs B and me). Babysitting circles helped a lot, as did grandparents doing the occasional overnighter. Sometimes you just need to get away.

It's a difficult time. Two pre-school age children can be very wearing. On a number of occasions I remember getting in from work to a frazzled Mrs B who pleaded "take them! I need a lie down! Now!" So I became the recipient of arms and legs and competitive jostling and body fluids etc. The evening meals came a little later, by which time I was normally sharing more than a little in her knackeredness. And hungry too!

On reflection, I think the not-wanting-to-be-touched thing comes from both the invasion of body space which small children do all the time and this sense that they just "take over".

At this distance, I think working through the difficulties ended up strengthening us as a couple. We learned some things about patience, and understanding (both of ourselves and one another), and frank communication, that we might not have learned otherwise. But nothing makes it easy. Unless you don't mind being hands-off and can afford a living nanny. We couldn't afford that, and didn't want it either. But there were times ..
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Did anybody else read that 'we made love every day for a year' article in one of the Sunday papers? It was very interesting, as they argued that it made them very close, and also showed them that they could actually make love even when exhausted, bad-tempered and so on.

It does sound a bit mechanical I suppose, but I am a great fan of not being spontaneous about sex, but actually setting aside a time and a place. But not every day, please! I'm too old for that. Maybe 6 out of 7.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... a living nanny...

What, as opposed to a dead one? [Devil]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
[Hot and Hormonal] live-in ...
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Pregnancy and childbirth are medical reasons... Bringing up young children is most definitely a libido killer, but if it goes on too long (like years) or the frequency of sex is never, than I would still maintain that that is a problem within the relationship.

It seems like there is general agreement about the effects of children on a couple's sex life, but seeing as I'm in the thick of it at the moment (and female), I might just unpack it a bit more - it is something I need to think through in order to be able to articulate effectively (also doing the couple counselling thing atm).

Re: pregnancy and childbirth being 'medical' reasons for killing libido - that seems fairly reductionistic. For sure, it is fairly hard on your body, and sex is ..umm.. not great in early breastfeeding days when you are swamped in milk-making hormones, but for me at least that is a problem which is in the past.

I think the main, although by no means only, problem I face is that I have two preschoolers who have no concept at all of personal space and like nothing better than to lean/lie/jump/bounce on me when happy, cling limpet-like to my neck or legs when unhappy, pull on my clothes or arms or whatever they can reach when they want something, and coat me liberally with whatever bodily fluid is most plentiful at the time. The problem is increased by orders of magnitude when there are two of them, because the mere fact of one being in your arms or on your lap is enough to make the other immediately stop what they're doing and come over to fight for the premium spot.

The upshot of all of this is that at the end of the day, when all's said and done, and both are finally bathed and sleeping, I want to sit quietly with a glass of wine and read a bit of something on the net, or listen to some music. By myself. And I do.not.want. to be touched. Which is of course, problematic in the context of an intimate relationship. But really, whereas once I may have gained comfort from being touched, it has, by virtue of my daily experience, turned into being about giving comfort. And I guess there is a need for me to give comfort to my husband as there is for my children. Everyone needs it. But it ain't the same is it?

Then, there is also the simple practical fact that (in my view) the sex decreases drastically because the opportunities for it decrease drastically. Particularly the opportunities for spontaneous sex, or anything with any kind of lead-up. Ho no. It's just 'well, it's now or never, really', based on favourable environmental conditions, not on anyone's state of readiness (or awake-ness). And I can't just turn it on and off. Sure, the mechanics of the act work okay, even under this scenario (hence the 'medical' argument doesn't apply), but the head is not engaged, and therefore the experience is entirely forgettable (from my end, anyway).

It is probably pointless my posting this, actually, because I have nothing whatever to offer in the way of solutions, and am just shouting into the wind. I have thought myself around and around in circles on this one, and I just really don't see any solution, other than waiting for my kids to grow up and hoping the menopause hasn't savaged me as badly as it did my mother by the time we get there.

I could have totally written this myself about 18 years ago. I vividly remember feeling exactly this especially after my second son was born, very clingy and my first was not yet two. And that is why I think I feel the way I do because I do feel that it created a problem between my husband and I. I rarely wanted sex at this time of my life (but rarely is so different than never, never is extreme, imo.). My husband and I did not talk openly about it, I did not feel understood. As a result we grew apart. We continued growing apart until we nearly separated twice in the past 4 years or so. I think we are now at a place where we freely choose to be with each other.

So, trying to clarify some points......a large difference in libido, is a problem, but problems are part of marriage and they need to be discussed. We didn't. If others do, great, you have done better than we did.

What I am saying is that never is a problem and for years is an even bigger problem. I am not talking about the years of bringing up baby and the dramatic decrease in libido. I guess I am talking about the op, where the spouse never wants sex and apparently never will.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted bu anoesis:
quote:
I just really don't see any solution, other than waiting for my kids to grow up
The teenage years are a whole new set of problems. Firstly, as they get older they stay up longer, so there's never really a time when they're asleep and you're awake. Plus, if you have a disorganised teen, no sooner is everyone in bed and just snuggling down when disorganised teen is back up, searching for the maths homework he's just remembered is due in the next day.

Then they get sex ed. Unlike in our day, when we just assumed our parents weren't having sex, now they get told in sex ed that sex is an important part of a committed long term relationship, and their parents ought to be having sex. So they come home and tell you you ought to be having sex. Which is a passion killer. And then they things like "We're just off to the church youth event. We'll be at least two hours. And we'll ring the front door bell and give you 5 mins when we get back. So you needn't worry about us catching you unexpectedly"
At which point the thought that your teens have actually set you up to have sex is so icky that you spend the next two hours doing something which will be demonstrably NOT SEX when they come back, like say, cleaning the oven and changing the grease filter.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
Well, I don't know; all I know is I'm much happier not being in a relationship than I ever was with it. And that's been over 25 years now. Dating cured me of any notions I had about romance; it just became a test of endurance to hang on in there, try to make this work against increasing odds. It was such a relief to give it up in the end and accept this was not for me.

After that the whole celibacy thing became linked with religion anyway (I come from a Catholic background) and there was a point in my life at which I realized that I was never going to be able to commit wholeheartedly to another human being, that I would never find happiness with another person, and that nobody was ever going to match up to God. I can't say the realization exactly made me overjoyed but you have to be honest with yourself.

Celibacy for me has since acquired a broader definition; it's not just a simple matter of not having sex. That's very easy when it means nothing or you don't want it. It's as much about chastity of the mind and emotional continence as the physical side. From a religious point of view, it means not letting anyone else eclipse your perception of God. Whether you love them or really dislike them. For me that's where the real difficulty with celibacy is. Especially when faith wavers, flickers and sometimes seems to go out altogether. The Calling God to Hell thread has a whinge from me on it about how I'd wasted the best years of my life for nothing, written during one of those periods.

But there we are: we are as we're made. Independence, freedom and privacy have always been high priorities for me, and although of course there are times when I wish I could have had a family, I know myself well enough to know I would likely have flagged in the role of wife and mother. So to answer the question in the OP, yes, I think some people are natural celibates, I think I am one.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Re the need for simple touch-- it isn't the same of course, but carrying around / walking the floor with a baby can do a lot to soothe that in the short term (speaking from experience here). The more you cuddle them, the happier they are. Maybe consider vokunteering to hold babies at a hospital or crisis center, or just helping out an overburdened parent? I imagine a cat or dog could help too. I'm speaking as the kid who looked forward to Sunday morning as the handshake at the door was the most touch I got all week.

Unfortunately I'm not a big fan of children, and don't have friends with kids nearby anyway. I would love a pet but can't at uni for obvious reasons (and am scared of dogs) but I look into volunteering with cat shelters, thanks. However it's touch that expresses love/friendship that I want, touch with someone I don't know (like a massage) feels awkward.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If I may butt in, I would disagree about massages. Properly done, it has about as much real touch as a nurse giving a patient a bed-bath. Zip, zip. Done. NEXT!

Perhaps my expectations are lower or I'm lucky to live in an area with a lot of good massage. I get a regular massage, from someone I get to know, and the touch has a helping quality even though it's an often painful deep tissue massage.

It's not as good as a relationship with physical contact but it does help with "skin hunger".

There's a wonderful documentary film "The wild parrots of Telegraph Hill" that talks about parrots that form pairs and groom each othprer. One parrot of a different species didn't have a mate and was marked by a neck collar of unruly feathers that he couldn't groom himself.
I think the need for touch in humans is a similar deep urge.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted bu anoesis:
quote:
I just really don't see any solution, other than waiting for my kids to grow up
The teenage years are a whole new set of problems. Firstly, as they get older they stay up longer, so there's never really a time when they're asleep and you're awake. Plus, if you have a disorganised teen, no sooner is everyone in bed and just snuggling down when disorganised teen is back up, searching for the maths homework he's just remembered is due in the next day.

Then they get sex ed. Unlike in our day, when we just assumed our parents weren't having sex, now they get told in sex ed that sex is an important part of a committed long term relationship, and their parents ought to be having sex. So they come home and tell you you ought to be having sex. Which is a passion killer. And then they things like "We're just off to the church youth event. We'll be at least two hours. And we'll ring the front door bell and give you 5 mins when we get back. So you needn't worry about us catching you unexpectedly"
At which point the thought that your teens have actually set you up to have sex is so icky that you spend the next two hours doing something which will be demonstrably NOT SEX when they come back, like say, cleaning the oven and changing the grease filter.

Thank you so much for this! Not because it gives me something to look forward to, mind, but because it made me laugh out loud before breakfast and helped the whole morning to be better because of that. Laughter really is the best medicine...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And I thank you both for making me feel very much better about being single. [Biased]
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted bu anoesis:
quote:
I just really don't see any solution, other than waiting for my kids to grow up
The teenage years are a whole new set of problems. Firstly, as they get older they stay up longer, so there's never really a time when they're asleep and you're awake. Plus, if you have a disorganised teen, no sooner is everyone in bed and just snuggling down when disorganised teen is back up, searching for the maths homework he's just remembered is due in the next day.

Then they get sex ed. Unlike in our day, when we just assumed our parents weren't having sex, now they get told in sex ed that sex is an important part of a committed long term relationship, and their parents ought to be having sex. So they come home and tell you you ought to be having sex. Which is a passion killer. And then they things like "We're just off to the church youth event. We'll be at least two hours. And we'll ring the front door bell and give you 5 mins when we get back. So you needn't worry about us catching you unexpectedly"
At which point the thought that your teens have actually set you up to have sex is so icky that you spend the next two hours doing something which will be demonstrably NOT SEX when they come back, like say, cleaning the oven and changing the grease filter.

Thank you so much for this! Not because it gives me something to look forward to, mind, but because it made me laugh out loud before breakfast and helped the whole morning to be better because of that. Laughter really is the best medicine...
Haha I agree, I loved this post too. Most definitely the teenage years have a whole new set of problems. However, personally, I wouldn't mind if my teenage (well, one is 20 now, no longer a teen!) boys would make such comments. I sometimes have texted them to see where they are just to see if we had time for sex before they came home. One time, I did not check and they walked in the house along with their entourage of friends and out we walked of the bedroom, my hair a mess, and it was very obvious what had been going on. The looks on the poor boys faces were.....actually kind of funny. And the funny thing was the friends were mortified but my boys seemed oblivious. haha denial denial denial.

But there was no discomfort the next time those boys came to visit. So, I learned to relax a little. I'm usually uncomfortable engaging in sex when they are home. Especially since my one sons' bedroom is extremely close to ours. But now I have relaxed a little. If we did not scar their friends for life and if my sons seemed oblivious or unbothered, then I can relax.

We are also in the process of "empty nesting" with my boys at school which hasn't actually increased the frequency of sex so much as the conditions. (such as place, noise, etc)
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
On wanting to be touched – I think this is a thing that it can be very hard to ask for, but if you do learn to ask, it’s really, really worth it.

There is a lady in my church who is my go-to source of Magic Hugs™. (Incidentally, the reason her hug is so magic is because it a Mum’s hug. By this I don’t just mean she is a woman who has reproduced – she is a mother to the heart, through and through, and not just to her own children.) This morning I went and asked her for a Magic Hug because I had a CRAP week and I needed a cuddle. She was happy to oblige and I felt (and feel) considerably better for it.

I grant that I am fortunate in the sense that I was able to identify a person who would always be happy to give me a hug if I ask for one, but I think part of the solution is also learning to *ask*.

(It’s worth considering if you might have a ministry as a Magic Hugger. [Big Grin] Especially if you are the parental type. It costs nothing, and as a single person, I am *so* grateful for this lady who understands that sometimes you just need to be in someone’s arms.)
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
In my view, you *are* being unfair. And dismissive.

You are obviously entitled to the view that I am unfair to the discussion (though you don't present any evidence), but dismissive? Because I offer an alternative viewpoint? Which in your view can actually be applied to other elements of life?

Hmmm.....

I stick to my point that navel-gazing in any shape or form can be an enemy to the real business of living. Sorry and all that!

If you didn't think there was a chance you were being unfair, why did you kick off your post with the comment "Hope I'm not being unfair" or something similar?

And is it navel-gazing to ask whether the spouse withholding/rejecting sex and physical intimacy should simply get on with providing both to their other half, through self-control?

Or is the spouse constantly facing the rejection the only one who ought to have self-control?

And you misunderstand my post if you think I agree that telling people to stop navel-gazing and get on with it can be usefully applied in any situation with a degree of complexity.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
To go back to your original post EM you do talk about your perceived rejection going round and round in your head. It is entirely possible that one solution could be to act rather than to think. You describe one way out as inaccessible to you as an RC and I respect this position. Nevertheless you could well find some other aspect of life to throw yourself into (other than sex/relationship) and this could be a solution.

I would not presume to advise you or offer guidance as an individual without knowing you personally, but in the context of a general discussion I am happy to repeat that people can get themselves so caught up in the web of their own consciousness (and misery) that it turns in on them and becomes self destructive. One tried and tested way of moving on from this sort of situation is to find other activities and other ways of relating to people. It is a form of self control and it can be a life saver.

I'll probably annoy you (or someone else) by further suggesting that an alternative approach to complex situations is not to worry at them but to get on with something else until the situation either sorts itself out or you are ready to deal with it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another solution is to seek professional help; I mean counselling or therapy. At least, it can be a place to have a good moan. I won't say any more, as I don't want to wind anyone else up.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
Too right...
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
To go back to your original post EM you do talk about your perceived rejection going round and round in your head. It is entirely possible that one solution could be to act rather than to think. You describe one way out as inaccessible to you as an RC and I respect this position. Nevertheless you could well find some other aspect of life to throw yourself into (other than sex/relationship) and this could be a solution.

What, like getting on with the business of caring for and loving her small and demanding children? Without anything much in the way of support or affection? Or maybe some orienteering or flyfishing as well?

Really, STFU.

My Mum dealt with exactly this kind of rejection by just getting on and being busy with a load of other stuff. For about twenty years. It made her a fairly embittered individual, under the shiny surface. And that in turn affected me and my siblings. Part of the problem with these things is they can only usefully be dealt with if both parties will acknowledge there's a problem. Until then, no amount of 'helpful advice' is really going to do anything.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
I'll probably annoy you (or someone else) by further suggesting that an alternative approach to complex situations is not to worry at them but to get on with something else until the situation either sorts itself out or you are ready to deal with it.

True up to a point, but difficult if you are ready to deal with it but the other half isn't, or doesn't think there's anything needs dealing with. Ofc this applies to other aspects of living with someone too.
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Part of the problem with these things is they can only usefully be dealt with if both parties will acknowledge there's a problem. Until then, no amount of 'helpful advice' is really going to do anything.

Which is why I said I was not in a position to offer advice...

To continue offering a contribution to the debate, however, I would agree with you that dealing with the problem requires the collaboration of both parties. The issue seems to be how to live with a situation where one party does not see or acknowledge a problem. It's an imperfect solution for imperfect people in an imperfect world.

BTW, I have no idea what STFU indicates and I can't be bothered to look it up but if it means anything like it looks you can keep it to yourself.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I would like to draw everyone's attention to commandments 3 through 5, hell is thata way =>

Ta muchly,

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

[ETA To get my numbers right !]

[ 19. November 2012, 20:59: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
I think, like the Tantrics, that sex with the right person can be an intensely mystical experience, hugely creative and even prayerful. Sadly a lot of Christian writers don't seem to acknowledge this and I'm sure many of us feel inhibited by guilt feelings, even in this day and age. The mention in the Anglican Marriage ceremony of something like "joy and tenderness of their physical union" is sweet but a bit coy. I enjoy the erotic aspects of some Marian devotions, Bernini's St. Teresa, and I love those Victorian women hymn writers; read the words to "In full and glad surrender"!
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Quinquireme: I think, like the Tantrics, that sex with the right person can be an intensely mystical experience, hugely creative and even prayerful.
Insert obligatory "That's why people invoke God's name during orgasm" joke here [Biased]
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Quinquireme: I think, like the Tantrics, that sex with the right person can be an intensely mystical experience, hugely creative and even prayerful.
Insert obligatory "That's why people invoke God's name during orgasm" joke here [Biased]
Deadly serious LeRoc!!!
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
Well it may be worth discussing in this thread whether the role of prostitutes (both sexes) might be justified in some cases. It's a modern luxury to think that the institution of marriage is one in which one should expect lifelong fidelity and sexual expression.
Just going to wait for bombardments of hailstorms, thunder, lightning etc. now...
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
[Smile] I doubt you'll get many thunderbolts.

I don't think buying sex solves many of the problems under discussion, though. It's the "to be thought of intimately" that EM described that counts. For eg, I'd like to cross by husband's mind while he's on the train home, and him to think "ooh, wife" and smile. I won't get that from a prostitute.

Hope that makes sense, am typing whilst breastfeeding, always risky!

[ 20. November 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
I think, like the Tantrics, that sex with the right person can be an intensely mystical experience, hugely creative and even prayerful. Sadly a lot of Christian writers don't seem to acknowledge this and I'm sure many of us feel inhibited by guilt feelings, even in this day and age. The mention in the Anglican Marriage ceremony of something like "joy and tenderness of their physical union" is sweet but a bit coy. I enjoy the erotic aspects of some Marian devotions, Bernini's St. Teresa, and I love those Victorian women hymn writers; read the words to "In full and glad surrender"!

I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...
 
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:


Hope that makes sense, am typing whilst breastfeeding, always risky!

Especially after early teething... [Devil]
 
Posted by Alisdair (# 15837) on :
 
Just a couple of general thoughts which, if anywhere near the mark, would contribute to why so many people do struggle, or find their struggle all the harder:

1. We presently live in a culture which is incredibly 'now' focussed. I think a lot of us really struggle to take a long (or longer) view of our relationships. Instead of genuinely being in it 'for better, for worse' (not just in marriage), for the long haul, we fall for the implicit idea that it should be good now/all the time; and when it's not good we just don't have the emotional maturity to deal with the self-pity, etc. so that relatively minor/short-term problems become quite reasonable justifications for bailing out, or a source of deep grievance;

2. Our current concept of 'family' is, for a much higher proportion of the population than perhaps any previous period, highly insular, so that two people find themselves carrying burdens of responsibility that in the past were often much more easily shared amongst the wider family, and neighbours. No wonder parents become exhausted; and even more so if they are labouring under the sad delusion that they can somehow 'have it all', and that choices in life do not have to involve sacrifice.

Not only do we have a lot of divorces these days, we also seem to have a lot of lonely people.

Perhaps, as a society, we really need to think again about how we conduct relationships, what are realistic expectations, and what really matters over the course of a lifetime---which in the end is over soon enough. It's a shame when avoidable mistakes are made too easily and by too many, simply because we aren't really caring for each other (and ourselves) in mature and wise kinds of ways.
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
I think, like the Tantrics, that sex with the right person can be an intensely mystical experience, hugely creative and even prayerful. Sadly a lot of Christian writers don't seem to acknowledge this and I'm sure many of us feel inhibited by guilt feelings, even in this day and age. The mention in the Anglican Marriage ceremony of something like "joy and tenderness of their physical union" is sweet but a bit coy. I enjoy the erotic aspects of some Marian devotions, Bernini's St. Teresa, and I love those Victorian women hymn writers; read the words to "In full and glad surrender"!

I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...
well, sorry that I contributed to the debate!
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:


Not only do we have a lot of divorces these days, we also seem to have a lot of lonely people.


And from my experience as a therapist, an awful lot of those lonely people are married.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
]I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...

I like it.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...

well, sorry that I contributed to the debate!
Well this is a debate thread, the singles support thread is in All Saints - so your contribution is most welcome on this thread.

(And of course anyone is welcome to open other support threads as needed in All Saints.)
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...

well, sorry that I contributed to the debate!
Well this is a debate thread, the singles support thread is in All Saints - so your contribution is most welcome on this thread.

(And of course anyone is welcome to open other support threads as needed in All Saints.)

Excuse me, I thought it was (if slightly tangential) a contribution to the debate, which happened to contain some personal information and nothing to do with "singles support", and which I hoped would elicit some interesting responses. Matt Black made a comment which did not contribute to the debate.
 
Posted by Quinquireme (# 17384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...

well, sorry that I contributed to the debate!
Well this is a debate thread, the singles support thread is in All Saints - so your contribution is most welcome on this thread.

(And of course anyone is welcome to open other support threads as needed in All Saints.)

Excuse me, I thought it was (if slightly tangential) a contribution to the debate, which happened to contain some personal information and nothing to do with "singles support", and which I hoped would elicit some interesting responses. Matt Black made a comment which did not contribute to the debate.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
It's a modern luxury to think that the institution of marriage is one in which one should expect lifelong fidelity and sexual expression.

Thinking that people ought to keep their promises is neither modern nor a luxury.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
What a beautiful and honest thread. I'd like to knight some of you for your honesty and integrity [Overused]

I am now in a very happy marriage, and have been for 14 years. No details of our sex life, sorry. Suffice it to say that there are moments when it's not perfect and moments when it is. Suffice it to say, too, that when I was young and heard saggy old baggy people say "it gets better as the years go on" I thought they were sad old bastards who must have missed out badly when they were young. Now I know they were right.

But I had been in an unhappy marriage, previously. It was my fault at least as much as my former wife's: no recriminations there. I can speak only of me: I had no skills with which to cry out for help, no means with which to say to her or anyone else "my God, a marriage bed can be the loneliest place on earth". I used to hear jokes about the pope wearing undies in the shower or about no sex after marriage and want to howl. I came from a conservative Christian realm, and we got married because that was the way you legitimize sex. We had sex, occasionally, then pregnancy, children, all the libido problems anoesis speaks of, followed by sex, pregnancy, children, all the libido problems anoesis speaks of. Communication shrivelled and died, and only loneliness was left.

Singleness, celibacy, relationships and harm? I think celibacy is sheer hard work, sheer unbelievably hard work, against all social and genetic odds. It dwells in the realm of grace, mega-grace, and to those who achieve it I stand in admiration. I couldn't. Singleness? After I left my first marriage behind I wanted to screw everything that offered the glimpse of inclination. I wanted to make up for 12 years of marital loneliness and sexlessness. It never happened: I met kuruman, and we waited, and grew, and learned, until the time was right. I was older, sadder and wiser than back in my evangelical yoof days when I met my first wife. Harm? How dare I speak of that ... I never stayed single, once I had met my first love, long enough to know, but please God, learn to communicate before learning to fuck. And relationships ... Oh god I remember well crying out in the hope that relationships would turn to sex, but thirteen years was a heavy penalty and high price to pay for ensuring that one did. A high price for both of us.

Basically I suspect masturbating is better than a bad marriage, and I wish society would value and affirm singleness more than it does. I have no advice, just the knowledge that there are some deserts out there, and deserts are a shit of a place to be.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Curiosity posted How do we handle the frustrations of being single?
1. Throw your own dinner parties, rather than wait for the awfulness of the contrived matchmaking of well-meaning friends.

2. Anne Summers.

3. Chocolate.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
Well it may be worth discussing in this thread whether the role of prostitutes (both sexes) might be justified in some cases.

Utterly irrelevant. for the reasons Matt Black gave earlier and lots of others agreed with.

I suspect, with no real knowledge, that men who buy the services of prostitutes when unmarried probably would when married as well. I'd guess it scratches a different set of itches. No more a substitute for personal relationships, family, marriage, someone to share a bed with, life partners, children and so on than chocolate or cigarettes or masturbation or massage would be.

quote:

It's a modern luxury to think that the institution of marriage is one in which one should expect lifelong fidelity and sexual expression.

No, it isn't.

[ 21. November 2012, 15:15: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Quinquireme:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm afraid your post does rather rub it in...

well, sorry that I contributed to the debate!
Well this is a debate thread, the singles support thread is in All Saints - so your contribution is most welcome on this thread.

(And of course anyone is welcome to open other support threads as needed in All Saints.)

Excuse me, I thought it was (if slightly tangential) a contribution to the debate, which happened to contain some personal information and nothing to do with "singles support", and which I hoped would elicit some interesting responses. Matt Black made a comment which did not contribute to the debate.
I was agreeing that it was !
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Curiosity posted:
How do we handle the frustrations of being single?

It depends what you mean by the frustrations of being single. What do you see as fitting that description? I'm assuming you have more than one thing in mind.

What comes to mind immediately for me: the financial element. No split bills, your sole responsibility to meet them in full on time.

There's holidays: special offers are almost always "for two", and there's the single room supplement. Often this can push it just beyond your reach.

There's being ill: you still have to do your own shopping. And there's talking things over: you have to make decisions unaided, pull yourself out of emotional slumps.

But better that than stuck in an unhappy relationship where it all simmers beneath the surface because neither of you want to upset the apple cart for whatever reason.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
When I read this thread , and other similar threads from the past , my heart goes out to two contributors . Maybe in a parallel, (ideal), universe they will one day meet.

A marriage lacking that special ingredient can be Hell . Divorcing to get out of such a marriage can be an equal Hell. My experience tells me it takes a form of courage to endure both.

If Eros isn't there it only leaves Agape . Agape has brought many a couple through dreadful predicaments in the past and, in the end, maybe it does grant a certain kind of peace.

[Votive]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

I'm a little confused. By single but having a sex life, do you mean casual sex/friends with benefits or another similar arrangement? Or do you mean sex outside of marriage but within a relationship? Because for me my lack of participation in the former is not because of my religious beliefs (I don't believe pre-marital sex to be sinful in itself, although obviously sometimes it happens for sinful reasons eg using the other person), I just don't want to have sex outside of a loving, committed relationship. I know plenty of non-religious people who feel the same way.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

I'm also not sure what you mean by this.

If you mean intimacy in its normal sense, ie romantic involvement, by definition you can't be single and have it. If by intimacy you mean sex, well, casual sex seems a pretty poor substitute.

As for such matters not being helped by religion - again, you need to explain what you mean. I'm sure there are plenty of religions that don't disapprove of sex because it might lead to dancing, for example.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

If Eros isn't there it only leaves Agape . Agape has brought many a couple through dreadful predicaments in the past and, in the end, maybe it does grant a certain kind of peace.

[Votive]

Not at all - it also leaves storge and philia.

There is this frightful notion - it seems particularly pronounced in Evangelical / American circles and probably developed as a response to the sexual revolution - that a marriage isn't complete unless the parties involved are rutting away like baboons. The theory seems to go (a) God invented sex for marriage (b) therefore sex in marriage is good therefore (c)(i) more sex necessarily evidences a better marriage and (c)(ii) less sex necessarily evidences a bad marriage.

I think this puts people in relationships under very unnecessary pressure in two main ways. First, couples may feel they ought as a matter of morals - even as a matter of religious observence - to be having more (and perhaps more adventurous) sex than they are. Second, individual spouses may feel that they are not complete unless they are having lots of adventurous sex.

It seems to me - and without intending any comment on the brave revelations others have made on this thread - that a marriage can be happy even where libidos are mismatched. Mismatched libidos in marriages are going to be inevitable from one time to another simply because of the trials and tribulations of life, for example, work pressures, child-bearing, various things that might affect one partner more than the other at a particular time. The extent to which this is a problem will depend on the relationship overall, and if couples bond well in other ways I don't see why such problems shouldn't be overcome. There's nothing necessary about sex.

I certainly hope so because I am happy to admit that I have the libido of overboiled cabbage and have had for quite a long time. This is partly because (being nearly 40) I no longer have the sex drive of a younger man and, I expect, partly because work, family, bringing up children etc take their toll on me. Like anoesis, sex simply isn't on my mind - in fact the prospect of it is rather like being offered baked beans on toast when I'm not hungry. In fact, there are times when I would be quite happy never having sex again.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

Can you explain what you mean by intimacy?

And celibacy isn't necessarily frustrating - depending on temperament, circumstances etc, it can be quite liberating.
 
Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

I assume that you cross posted with Ariel, and so didn't read the post above yours.

Like Ariel, I am a long term single. I do not find a lack of sex a particular frustration - it is all the other societal aspects of singleness that make life difficult at times. Having to do everything myself, not having a trusted other to winge to, having to cook for one person all the time, being ill and having to cope on my own. Then there are the reactions of others to my being on my own. Fortunately, my family and friends are accepting enough not to make that too uncomfortable, but work colleagues are not so tactful.

I would also suggest that you appear to be confusing sex with intimacy - the two are not the same thing. You could be bonking like rabbits, but not have a shread of intimacy. At times, I have had very intimate relationships (with elderly relatives for example, with whom I could discuss anything) which have not involved sex at all. My relationships/ celibacy have far more to do with my personality and personal history than they do with my religious beliefs.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

Can you explain what you mean by intimacy?

And celibacy isn't necessarily frustrating - depending on temperament, circumstances etc, it can be quite liberating.

If I had said that, I would mean that casual sex is ten-a-penny, but religious convictions (among other things in my case) mean that sex only feels right, or indeed approachable, in a context in which a long-term relationship is at least 'on the table'. This is tricky when in the wider world such relationships are increasingly out of fashion - or at least in the wider gay world.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Honestly, it seems to me that the frustration of being single, mainly seems to stem from the frustration of celibacy and a lack of intimacy. This celibacy and lack of intimacy, imo, comes from religious convictions. For me, this is one more area of life that is not helped by religion. Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

But saying this proves to me that you aren't really listening to what single people are saying on this thread.

Several of us have said explicitly that what we want is *not* (just) sex, even when it comes to physical touch. Take the example I gave earlier (Magic Hug Lady): when I ask her for a hug because I am feeling like crap, I want just that, a hug, no more, no less. Sex has exactly nothing to do with it (we are both heterosexual women). What I want is affection and comfort. I want someone to understand, to care about me and sympathise with me. As a single person, this is potentially more complicated for me than for someone in a couple. I count myself fortunate that I have a person who understands and meets that need. It's not the case for all single people, especially in cultures like the one I grew up in where people don't touch each other very much if they are not romantically involved.

Saying "religious single need to loosen up and find ways of getting sex" is completely missing what actual single people have been saying.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Because you can be single, have a sex life and have intimacy.

But then you wouldn't be single.

And there are loads and loads of people who have no sex life at all and no realistic chance of one. And many more who might have a chance but in practice lose out.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
]It depends what you mean by the frustrations of being single.
[...]
What comes to mind immediately for me: the financial element. [...]
There's holidays: special offers are almost always "for two", and there's the single room supplement.
[...]
There's being ill: you still have to do your own shopping.
[...]
And there's talking things over: you have to make decisions unaided
[...]

When I thought about it the first three of those four didn't occur to me at all. The fourth is hugely important though. Overwhelmingly so sometimes.

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:

I would also suggest that you appear to be confusing sex with intimacy - the two are not the same thing.

And they are both good. And neither entirely compensates for the lack of the other. And lots of people - I'd guess most, maybe even almost all - can't easily be happy, or even psychologically stable, without at least a certain amount of both. I guess the amounts vary.

Also the idea that "casual sex" is easy to come by isn't really true. Well, not for everyone. Its impossible for some and very rare for others. Also its not even really "casual" anyway, there is almost always going to be some long-term emotional impact - which might be good or bad of course. Sometimes a one-night stand can lift someone's mood for weeks or months. But the option isn't available for everybody. And wouldn't work for everybody. And yes there are real moral problems you can't just gloss over with "all you Christians are living in the dark ages".

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Saying "religious single need to loosen up and find ways of getting sex" is completely missing what actual single people have been saying.

Yep.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[Take the example I gave earlier (Magic Hug Lady): when I ask her for a hug because I am feeling like crap, I want just that, a hug, no more, no less. Sex has exactly nothing to do with it (we are both heterosexual women). What I want is affection and comfort. I want someone to understand, to care about me and sympathise with me.

I wish I could get prescription hugs on the NHS. Admittedly, that would make being a pharmacist even more of a vocation than it is now. But I'm sure many would rise to it.

Indeed, when, every month, my pharmacist hands over my drugs, and says "How *are* you, anyway?" I often feel like he's the only person who has both asked and wanted to hear an honest answer.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I was single and celibate until I was nearly 33. In that time from the age of 18 I was in a total of four relationships lasting 9 months, 2-3 years, 1 year, and 9 months leading up to getting married. So, effectively, thoroughly single for ten out of those fifteen years

Sometimes it was absolutely fine, but sometimes it was very difficult indeed. Sometimes that was about sex, and there were occasions when I might have slept with anyone who half-offered. Sometimes it was about a general lack of intimacy both emotional and tactile. I second the thing about hugs. But a difficult area for any to negotiate, and IMHO sometimes more difficult for men in, UK culture at least, than for women. But also the general thing of simple sharing of who you are with someone you intimately know and trust. Yes, and being desired and/or wanted both physically and emotionally.

Not having these things can be really painful at times and I would say the intimacy is higher up the scale than sex. For many people marriage or at least a committed relationship creates and environment within which these things can grow. For those who are single a great deal more efforts is required to establish probably a network of relationships which can provide some of these things.

But even then, there will still be the coming home after work to an empty house or flat. Too tired from work to make much effort - and nobody there to share with.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
And then there are those of us reading this thread in a rather confused fashion, having thought single and celibate meant not being in a relationship and not having sexual contact with another person.

At all.

Not, I am still single because I don't happen to be married.

Or, believed that I have been single for five years meant, I have not been in a relationship for five years, rather than I have had a series of relationships over the last five years but none of them involved a commitment to a long term partnership.

[ 22. November 2012, 17:31: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Well, in the OP I meant:

single as in not dating or in an intimate relationship and

celibate as in not having sex / not in a sexual relationship

Celibacy isn't a huge issue, but does anyone else choose what they read with a certain amount of care? I don't find the way sex scenes get shoehorned into most books helpful.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
First of all, I apologize if I seem to be painting with a broad brush. I don't mean to be. I know that there are people without religious convictions that don't feel comfortable with "casual sex" (which needs to be defined by each individual person) . I think everyone has their own personal boundaries in regards to whom they have sex with.) and that's great for them. I also understand that celibacy seems to give some people peace. That's great for them.

I also would never say that single religious people need to loosen up and get some because, well, that sounds very callous and that is not how I feel. It just makes me personally sad when I hear of people who cut themselves off from sex and/or intimacy because it doesn't exist within a a religiously ordained situation.

I think what saved my marriage was I became strong enough to say "I won't exist within this marriage without certain improvements." My leaving was imminent and provided the catalyst for us to change. I would not have been strong enough to do this had I not known that I could and would have a sex life
and find intimacy outside of marriage. As well as knowing I was capable of living independently in terms of all of the non sexual aspects of being single. However, I also chose to stay and work for the marriage, given the cooperation of my husband, because I do prefer the oneness that marriage provides. But I know I could have been happy outside of it too.

What I mean by being single and having a sex life is everything on the continuum between casual sex between people who barely know each other to a monogamous relationship that is long term but not married. Everyone has their own line in the sand in regards to their sex lives. When I was young and single (as in not married) I would describe my most comfortable approach to my sex life was engaging in "serial monogamy". Although I have no moral qualms with more casual sex.

Just by stating sex and intimacy I am saying that I know there is a difference. I believe you can have intimacy within a relationship that is not even monogamous. Intimacy isn't necessarily only present within a prescribed relationship. Just as intimacy doesn't even always exist within a marriage or a long term monogamous relationship. I think of sex, marriage intimacy and love as a giant venn diagram.

I don't know if I can define intimacy. I guess, it's a feeling of being able to be open to another person, to allow yourself to be vulnerable to another person. This can exist outside of a sexual relationship and within a non monogamous sexual relationship. Imo.

I don't know what to say about people who are single and think they have no chance at all to have an intimate and sexual relationship. I feel sad about that as well. But it is when people constrain themselves due to religious convictions that I personally find mistaken, I feel not so much sorry for that, but sorry that they have placed that burden upon themselves.

I realize I may sound more judgmental about the religious convictions people hold and I feel regret that I have come to feel that way because I have no desire to disrespect people's religious convictions. But it is how I am honestly beginning to feel.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Fool on the hill

Well, everyone has their burden to bear. Some people feel that their spiritual growth as Christians would be serious impeded by serial monogamy, or other forms of sexual engagement outside of marriage. If your spiritual development is important to you, you won't want to jeopardise it. Other Christians feel differently, of course.

Going back to the earlier discussions about intimacy in marriage, has anyone mentioned getting marriage/relationship guidance yet? Has it fallen out of fashion? There seems to be professional help available to people who need it. It's a shame that people often contemplate divorce or having an affair in preference to talking to someone who could help them. There are books available as well - a quick look at Amazon brought up lots of titles.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Fool on the hill

Well, everyone has their burden to bear. Some people feel that their spiritual growth as Christians would be serious impeded by serial monogamy, or other forms of sexual engagement outside of marriage. If your spiritual development is important to you, you won't want to jeopardise it. Other Christians feel differently, of course.

Going back to the earlier discussions about intimacy in marriage, has anyone mentioned getting marriage/relationship guidance yet? Has it fallen out of fashion? There seems to be professional help available to people who need it. It's a shame that people often contemplate divorce or having an affair in preference to talking to someone who could help them. There are books available as well - a quick look at Amazon brought up lots of titles.

Absolutely recommend counseling. If only for the privacy for airing grievances. I sometimes felt like we were simply renting a room in order to argue away from our children. The counselor also provided essential help. I don't think things would have worked the way that it has without the help of counseling. However, it was hard to find the right one and very hard for some people to pay for the counseling. Which is a shame. However, for counseling to work or for books to help, both parties need to be in complete agreement and cooperation. Sometimes that is not possible. Sometimes things have gotten too bad for that. Sometimes there is too much denial and/or mistrust of counseling too. My husband only readily agreed to really participate in counseling when it was clear he would lose me if he did not. Just my personal story. And yea, I'm not shy about airing details of my life! Call it the benefit of relative anonymity.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
But it is when people constrain themselves due to religious convictions that I personally find mistaken, I feel not so much sorry for that, but sorry that they have placed that burden upon themselves.

Why does it have to be seen as a burden? Do you think that love can only be expressed physically, or it's the best way of expressing it?

If you decide to commit yourself to God you generally do so because you want to and with joy. It would be much the same if you married: it's still a deliberate choice to commit to one, to be exclusive, to give your allegiance to no other.

Some celibates do struggle with the lack of the physical side. I can't speak for them. But it doesn't mean that all do, by any means.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
But it is when people constrain themselves due to religious convictions that I personally find mistaken, I feel not so much sorry for that, but sorry that they have placed that burden upon themselves.

Why does it have to be seen as a burden? Do you think that love can only be expressed physically, or it's the best way of expressing it?

If you decide to commit yourself to God you generally do so because you want to and with joy. It would be much the same if you married: it's still a deliberate choice to commit to one, to be exclusive, to give your allegiance to no other.

Some celibates do struggle with the lack of the physical side. I can't speak for them. But it doesn't mean that all do, by any means.

If it's not a burden, then great. I'm just saying if it is a burden and it is largely due to religious convictions then it is a self imposed burden. It is a choice.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
The principle you seem to be using here is that a decision made for religious reasons is a totally free and unforced decision which could be easily unmade at any time and is therefore undeserving of sympathy. That is not usually the way it is experienced by the person making the decision. I don't trust to internet anonymity, and therefore can't give you the most cogent examples i know of: but if i take up a particular cross because i firmly belive God has commanded it, where is the element of choice in that? It exists only in the most formal sense. Like a woman I know who chose to take in an orphaned and homeless Downs Syndrome child for whom she was the onlr remaining relative, and her husbanddamned this as "her free choice" and left her on the strength of it. What decent person would choose otherwise? If you firmly hold a certain set of beliefs, it becomes a case of "Here stand I, I can do no other." Which seems to me worthy of respect, and yes, sympathy if it leads to pain.
 
Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The principle you seem to be using here is that a decision made for religious reasons is a totally free and unforced decision which could be easily unmade at any time and is therefore undeserving of sympathy. That is not usually the way it is experienced by the person making the decision. I don't trust to internet anonymity, and therefore can't give you the most cogent examples i know of: but if i take up a particular cross because i firmly belive God has commanded it, where is the element of choice in that? It exists only in the most formal sense. Like a woman I know who chose to take in an orphaned and homeless Downs Syndrome child for whom she was the onlr remaining relative, and her husbanddamned this as "her free choice" and left her on the strength of it. What decent person would choose otherwise? If you firmly hold a certain set of beliefs, it becomes a case of "Here stand I, I can do no other." Which seems to me worthy of respect, and yes, sympathy if it leads to pain.

No, not quite. A decision made for religious reasons is a somewhat free and a somewhat unforced decision (as almost all decisions are) which could be unmade. All people are worthy of respect. All pain is deserving of sympathy. I would never say otherwise. I'm not sure why you are viewing this as disrespect or lacking sympathy. It just is what it is.

I find it interesting that I have always been told that I have a "choice" to follow God or not and now I am hearing that it isn't a choice. My beliefs fall somewhere in the middle. I think almost all choices are freely made, but with many many factors influencing your choices that are inescapable.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The principle you seem to be using here is that a decision made for religious reasons is a totally free and unforced decision which could be easily unmade at any time and is therefore undeserving of sympathy. That is not usually the way it is experienced by the person making the decision.

True. But it is a choice. And it is possible to unmake it.

Forsake thy cage,
Thy rope of sands,
Which pettie thoughts have made, and made to thee
Good cable, to enforce and draw,
And be thy law


Oddly I was just remembering an encounter years ago with a devotee of some faith which obligated her to peddle leaflets on a cold, dreich day while wearing cotton clothes and a continual smile. I said that was her choice and she was free to do otherwise, but it would not be mine. So we do critique others' faith-based decisions, particularly where those decisions appear to deliver unnecessary hardship or unhappiness.

If you find yourself in a situation you would not have chosen, and your beliefs enable you the better to deal with it, fine. But if the situation is there solely because of your beliefs - there I would be with those urging a reconsider.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
True. But it is a choice. And it is possible to unmake it.

Logically, what you say is perfectly true. Emotionally, it may be a whole different kettle of fish. I'm sure we've all experienced deciding not to think/feel something, and then finding that we seem somehow to be stuck with it; in some cases for far longer than expected. Maybe even years, a lifetime, depending on temperament and circumstances.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
You see, this I don't get. If it's religion--if it's something that you regard as reality, heck, the ROOT of reality--well, then, it isn't subject to your choices to remake it otherwise, is it? And if it (in your sincerely held view) demands certain things of you, you're constrained as surely as you're constrained to visit a dentist to get that tooth drilled or suffer long-term harm and pain. You have two options: comply (with painful cross involved in doing so) or do not comply (with yet more painful long term consequences, depending on the nature of the decision). If you opt for the lesser of the two pains, are you not still to some degree constrained, and therefore eligible for a smidgen of sympathy?

Saying, "Oh, you could have just carried on with the sore tooth" is true, but it is not particularly considerate of the person dreading the dentist's drill.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You see, this I don't get. If it's religion--if it's something that you regard as reality, heck, the ROOT of reality--well, then, it isn't subject to your choices to remake it otherwise, is it?

I agree you have to act in accord with what you feel to be the fundamental reality of your being. I just speak as someone who tried living out religion on those terms and found that, well, it wasn't. Or rather, the religion that worked for me was not one that has creeds or scriptures or churches: it is just the old, instinctual respect for the earth, and ourselves as part of nature.

Whatever works for you - just so long as it is not a false perception. And to me, manifest unhappiness has always been a reason to examine the basis of behaviour.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

I don't find the way sex scenes get shoehorned into most books helpful.

I remember a well-known film critic saying that about cinema films way back in the 80s .
'The obligatory bed-scene' ,as he called it, was just thrown into films from that era purely because it was the done thing.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't find the way sex scenes get shoehorned into most books helpful.

Depends on what you read, although I agree - those salacious, sizzling bodice-rippers from Jane Austen can be a bit much.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Jane Austen is fine. It was things perfectly good thrillers and murder mysteries, for example, some Dick Francis and Kathy Reichs, where it's not always brilliantly written and feels as if it's there because they are told they have to - so, yes, shoe-horned in.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0