I read the letter to Cary and I would think it's pretty impossible to say what dynamic is going on in his home. We know none of the specifics except that the LW and his wife are not having a lot of sex and his perception is that she uses sex as a manipulative tool in their marriage. The men writing in are accusing this woman of being a harpy and a hag (!?) and marrying this man for money. When did he mention anything about their financial status at all. For all we know she is the bread winner in the family. All these men who believe that they are always the meal ticket in the house must be out to lunch. Step away from the keyboard...

One woman's opinion.

>>All these men who believe that they are always the meal ticket in the house must be out to lunch.>>

amen! As the Sugar Mama of my family, I resemble that remark!

;)

>>One, why are some of you assuming they have kids? >>

because he said she had been pregnant.

I don't think blaming all men or blaming all women really matters here, or any time, for that matter.

There does not seem to be much love or loving actions between the two. maybe it can be revived, one can learn to act more loving and remember to not take one's mate for granted. But it takes work and comittment on both sides; both have to want it.

"In a long-term marriage, consistently denying sex is a form of emotional abuse."

Not unless you assume that the wife owes him sex, which she does not. At no time EVER do women OWE men sex. Or vice versa. Sex is about desire and love. And if she's not feeling loving or desirous then it is crap to expect it out of her. I don't know where in the world anybody, man or woman, would get off assuming that the world owes them some nookie, but it most certainly does not.

<<Not unless you assume that the wife owes him sex, which she does not. At no time EVER do women OWE men sex. Or vice versa. Sex is about desire and love. And if she's not feeling loving or desirous then it is crap to expect it out of her. I don't know where in the world anybody, man or woman, would get off assuming that the world owes them some nookie, but it most certainly does not.>>

Men typically prefer communicating through physical touch (aka sex) whereas women prefer verbal communication.

so I think it is Ok for her to withold sex and for him to shut her out verbally and not speak to her at all.

fair is fair.

or do only men have to give in and compromise?

If a woman has no responsibility for her husband's sexual satisfaction does he have a responsibility to be faithful?

"Men typically prefer communicating through physical touch (aka sex) whereas women prefer verbal communication."

Horse shit. What you've just described is a fuck where nobody talks. If that's your idea of a relationship, no wonder no woman in her right mind will touch you.

The role of argument strikes me in this letter. The writer mentions standing his ground in an argument. I'm sure that feels like strength, but it is weak. It sounds like neither the husband nor the wife is capable of actually communicating. How could good, healthy sex happen when they're facing off and standing ground? No wonder.

>>If a woman has no responsibility for her husband's sexual satisfaction does he have a responsibility to be faithful?>>

Yes. He vowed to be faithful.

It is amazing how neanderthalish that question is at all.

>>If a woman has no responsibility for her husband's sexual satisfaction does he have a responsibility to be faithful?>>

we might ask the opposite: if a man is not sexually satisfying his wife does she have the right to stray?

Of course, this way the answer is clearly no. And it's always NO. Not getting enough is NOT justification for cheating.

Cosmicmojo-

But didn't she also vow to love?

Of course it's fair to turn the question around, but we all know that it's generally the man who is unsatisfied.

Also, there's no need for name calling. It's just a philosophical question I grappled with during the childbearing years. I never even came close to cheating and things got better as the children made fewer demands on my wife.

We vow to love our spouses in the wedding ceremony. That doesn't necessarily mean sex. Love and sex are different. And it certainly didn't mean to be available at the other's orders.

If a man struggles with staying faithful to his wife, particularly while his wife is carrying his child, that means he doesn't WANT to be faithful. He's a poor poor example of a man, of a human. And a woman who cheats is a poor example as well.

If you don't want to be faithful, why get married to start with? Or once it's a struggle, once you don't want to be faithful, why not end the marriage so that both people can be with people who respect and love them enough to be faithful and to want to be faithful.

"But didn't she also vow to love?"

Sex under duress or sex in exchange for favors is prostitution. I don't have a problem with that, but I wish we could call a spade a spade. Why is it "love" in the context of marriage but the "free market" when a bargain is struck on a street corner?

In other words, absolutely no assignment of blame or responsiblity for any problem that a women complains about with a man until everyone has had a complete opportunity to tell their story and ALL the relevant facts have been gathered. Of course it is necessary to know the limitiations that you are facing in making any judgment, but the application of that principle in this case appears totally partisan since it is unimaginable that it would be urged or exercised to anything like the same degree if the genders were switched.

who can find the thought in that post. Punctuation and clarity are your friends, dude. Well, they're strangers to you now, but they can be very useful allies.

none of the women here would think she had a right to get it elsewhere. I don't believe many would, but even if any woman says she would not have the right it's a bluff that will never be called because the biology of gender guarantees that no woman who genuinely seeks out sex on the side will go without.