From this post:
February 23, 2017 at 5:22 am
Trey, I’m certain that you mean the best, and I agree that sexual intimacy is very important in marriage.
But, I think that if I personally believed that my husband only wanted me primarily for the sex, and simply found me to be confusing, emotional, irrational, and so much trouble, I would wonder if I should have married this guy at all.
I don’t think sex can compensate for a broken relationship. Women are very relational. It is difficult for most women to experience true sexual intimacy if their emotional and relational needs are not being met as well.
It does seem to me that if sexual intimacy is lacking in a marriage, this may be a barometer that other things are also broken and not going well. I feel those root things need to be addressed. There has to be honesty coming from both sides.
Do you see what I’m saying? It’s deeper than just give him sex..
Lori Alexander says:
February 23, 2017 at 6:01 am
I am a woman. I raised two daughters. I have two sisters. I have been mentoring women for almost thirteen years. Most women are confusing, emotional and irrational at times since we are more ruled by our emotions and feelings than men are.
You wrote that women can’t experience intimacy if “their emotional and relational needs are not being met.” This is an impossible order for most men to meet, especially since these emotional and relational needs can change from day to day.
The best thing women can do is to be lead by the Word of God and a sound mind instead of their supposed needs for we reap what we sow. If we give our husbands warmth, love, caring, and learning to please them, they will most likely return it to us. We can’t expect our husbands to “fill us up” in all of our needs when they are not women and most have no clue how women think. (Most women can’t really figure it out either.)
Meeting a woman’s emotional needs is an impossible order for most men to meet because her needs are always changing? Wait a minute. I thought “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26).
If meeting women’s emotional needs are just too hard, there is an alternative–the government will make a great husband if all a woman needs in marriage is a paycheck. If all men need is a wet hole, there is a great alternative for that too–prostitutes. No, marriage is meant to be more than paychecks and sex. Satisfying emotional needs should be striven for by husband and wife. Dominant men are not daunted by the task of meeting emotional needs. In fact, they relish in the challenge and aren’t looking for the easy button at every turn. Mostly women just want a genuine listening ear and to be reassured they are desired, loved, and protected. The problem I know some will say with this is all these categories are highly subjective. A man may think he is listening, but she complains she doesn’t feeeeeeel listened to. A man’s needs (sex), it is a much more objective standard to meet. You either spread your legs or you didn’t. You either sucked with all the enthusiasm in the world or you didn’t.
“The best thing women can do is to be lead by the Word of God and a sound mind instead of their supposed needs for we reap what we sow.”
Are men to take the same advice? Be lead by the Word of God and a sound mind instead of their “supposed” sex needs? Again, this comes across as women don’t have needs because they can’t be objectively measured.
“If we give our husbands warmth, love, caring, and learning to please them, they will most likely return it to us.”
In other words, if women LEAD, if she does something first, the man will then respond.
“We can’t expect our husbands to “fill us up” in all of our needs when they are not women and most have no clue how women think. (Most women can’t really figure it out either.)”
I agree they can’t satisfy ALL our needs, but they can meet a good many so we feel we aren’t just married to a paycheck.
And since they can’t meet ALL of our needs, I highly suggest that traditionalists and the men who feel responding to a woman’s emotional needs are too impossible a task to bother with to encourage a return to “bosom buddies” (think Anne and Diana in Anne of Green Gables) or what now would probably be seen as a near bisexual relationship. Below is from the book “The Way we Never Were” by Stephanie Coontz:
“Victorian middle class families were not the centers of male female intimacy that twentieth century commentators generally imagine. They were built on passionate female bonds that frequently took precedence over relations within the nuclear family. While the husband-wife relationship was often conventional and reserved, people routinely endorsed intimacies among women that would be thought scandalous by many in today’s supposedly more broad minded society. In a typical diary, for example, a woman might accord her husband only a few lines but rhapsodize for pages over her love for a school friend. If the friend came to visit, the husband would be banished to the parlor while the two women spent the night “embracing,” “pinching” each other, and exchanging confidences.
Perfectly respectable Victorian women wrote to each other in terms such as these “I hope for you so much, and feel so eager for you… that the expectation once more to see your face again, makes me feel hot and feverish.” They recorded the “furnace blast” of their “passionate achievements” to each other, extolled each other’s “sweet soft lips” and “lily white hands”, and counted the hours until they could lie in bed “caressing” each other again. They carved their initials into trees, set flowers in front of one another’s portraits, danced together, kissed, held hands, and endured intense jealousies over rivals or small slights.
Today if a woman died and her son or husband found such diaries or letters in her effects, he would probably destroy them in rage or humiliation. In the nineteenth century, these sentiments were so respectable that surviving relatives often published them in elegies or donated the diaries and letters to libraries”
I haven’t seen much if anything written about how to rekindle these types of relationships with women, to take the pressure and burden of men as being their sole source for emotional connection. I imagine it will not be an easy endeavor though to really bring this about as women are too much in competition with each other to ever be this close again. We are told we are to find our “soul mate” to fulfill all our hearts desire and other women are the enemies getting in the way of finding that “soul mate”.
Personally, I would love it if we women could have sleepovers again and stay up all hours chatting (and I don’t mean this as a sexual love fest). But the reality is, we are too busy being moms, maintaining a house, and being that good wife fulfilling our men’s sex needs. It is so hard to have even an hour deep conversation with a woman without being interrupted in some way. We are too busy or isolated to genuinely connect with other women and it creates this vicious cycle, where often out of desperation we turn to our men to meet some emotional needs that women very well could meet, but are only told “your supposed needs are too fickle to keep up with”. Basically, go bother someone else, but there is no one else.