Expectations of your partner

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Expectations of your partner
54
Thu, 05-20-2004 - 6:40pm

OK, my last question about duration of intercourse seems to have caused quite a bit of confusion on my meaning.

CL-Yasmin1967

May I have the serenity to accept what I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2004
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 11:43am
Pushing for sex, or pushing for conversation, it is all the same. It is all concidered pushing. And that proves the point that is coming across. We all have to push from time to time, and we all have to give in from time to time. It only comes into question when it goes to far!! And we all know when it goes to far, cause generally fights occure. An arguement insues! There are times in life that we have to push our partners, but we also have to expect that our partners will push us!!! How else do we get better, or learn for that matter?? It is all pushing, in one form or another. Push sexually, push emotionally, or subtle pushing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 11:56am
Lack of resentment comes from understanding and acceptance. John knows that Jane wants it and enjoys it, and because Jane trusts that John loves her, and that he WOULD DO anything to make her happy, then she can't be angry at him for not doing it if his aversion is real. The facts are simple: As long as Jane made her needs clear, then it's now up to John to decide, of his own free will, if he'll ever come around. He may, he may try again, he may never try again. Again, this is if he has a true aversion, not just choosing not to do it out of selfishness or laziness.

In your other post you said that you would do it even if you had an aversion, and then you said in the next sentence that you wouldn't if it were something you "so adverse to." I don't really see the difference. Perhaps the problem here is in the degree of aversion. I don't see a diference between "aversion" and "so adverse to." The dictionary states:

A fixed, intense dislike; repugnance: formed an aversion to crowds.

The cause or object of such a feeling.

The avoidance of a thing, situation, or behavior because it has been associated with an unpleasant or painful stimulus.

Obsolete. The act of turning away or averting.

____________________________________________________

My point in all of this, is if you feel that your SO is just holding out, or being selfish, then by all means that's different than if they really have an aversion. If it's a borderline aversion, most likely they'll choose to do it to please their partner. If you have a slight aversion and you do the act anyhow, then your partner most likely won't catch on, but if you had a true aversion, and you were trying to perform an act that you found repulsive, it would probably show. You said in your statement that after discussion, if you still found yourself to be "so adverse to" something, that it would be dropped. For some people ordinary things for many such as cunnilingus or swallowing is something that they are "so adverse to" but because it's not to others, they're ridiculed into submission.

I don't see the difference Jeep in those two statements you made other than degree and perceptions of the actual individuals involved.


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 12:11pm
Well...there's push, and then there's PUSH! If you want, we can use the woman who came here to complain that this guy she was having sex with held her head so that he could finish on her face after she specifically told him she didn't want that to happen. There's push, and then there's push. Or the woman who came on here to talk about how her SO pushed her to dress-up every session. Resentments were apparent.



iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 12:32pm
One more thing: Pushing someone who has an aversion and pushing someone who is selfish and lazy are two totally different species. To push a selfish or lazy person to do something that they don't want to do, will probably backfire into resentments on their parts because obviously they're doing something against their "will." If you're with someone who is selfish and doesn't care about you or your needs, then sex is the least of your problems.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-08-2004
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 1:38pm
O.K. Let me clarify then Free. Thank you for pointing out my errors. LOL

To push to me means to suggest, and continue to suggest. Bring it up from time to time, talk about it, ask questions, and discuss.

To PUSH means assault. Whether verbally, or physically. To badger, to make off handed remarks and to tease.

Adversion is a hatred, dislike, or something intolerable.

To be adverse to something means you don't like it, or have no interest in trying it.

So, I got my statement mixed up. Your right.

If I have an aversion to something, I will not do it, unless it is something my SO really, really needs to have. If I am adverse to something and my SO wants it, I will do it, without question, or concern. Just because I may not like to perform orrally on my SO, or get any gratification from it, does not mean, I will not do it. I am adverse to it. But I will still do it. I don't get turned on very often to orally pleasing my SO, but once she starts to respond and has an orgasm from it, Oh yeah, I am definately turned on. So by following my arousal, she is able to tell that I don't like orally pleasing her. (HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION) But, she allows me to continue, because she knows that once she is pleased, I will be aroused, and ready to continue on. There are lots of things that are not done for the physical enjoyment of the act. But for the other person. Those are things I consider to be adverse to.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 6:17pm
"I wouldn't push them to have sex, but I would push to find out why they don't want sex."

Coercing or even correcting the situation isn't the same as him freely doing it, so if you believe in not receiving what he isn't really really wanting to freely give in the first place, then why even ask??? Remember my example stated that he said he wasn't in the mood, so if you DON'T WANT what he doesn't want to give, then my dear, YOU DON'T WANT IT...lol...so why try changing the situation through learning why he doesn't want to?

!!!THIS!!! WAS MY CORE POINT ALL ALONG:

All humans naturally want this or that and also naturally want fantasies fulfilled. If its not freely given, ********! So, you "don't want what is not freely given"......I say YES YOU DO JUST LIKE THE REST OF US! You don't want it forced, Free, so you'd rather ask why not so you can find out whats wrong and then hopefully change the situation to , just like the rest of us pushers do, right? LOL!!

What could possibly be better for married sex than to have needs be fulfilled by loving spouses who love pleasing each other selflessly? (I say this within Biblical, monogamous and nonharmful boundaries of course)

Choice is far too broad to simply say "choose what you want" and then pat ourselves on the back each time for saying it. Some of us choose to express our love through loving and very exciting -sacrifice-, others may either have too much pride to perform certain acts or too much selfishness to do what others of us would freely choose to selflessly do. Nothing wrong with it, but I'm just pointing out that there are different types of people when it comes to choice in this situation.

Either John's excited to discover something that drives Jane wild and he can't wait to selflessly please her that way, or he simply isn't. There's nothing wrong with him choosing to be selfish about it, but there's ALSO wrong with him choosing to please her out of loving sacrifice either!...BUT...which type of guy do you HONESTLY BELIEVE Jane would rather live with for the rest of her life?! Please remember that I say this in regards to whenever John "chooses" to please her and not in regards to him enslaving himself all the time. There WILL be times when John will ravish her HIS way or wants HIS needs met, but when he chooses to please HER, then thats what I'm discussing here. Sacrifice is done out of LOVE, not out of being forced or being asked why not or being pressured, for love itself is selfless, not selfish.


Edited 5/24/2004 6:27 pm ET ET by para1995

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 6:34pm
Well...the sacrifice in the name of love could go either way. One could also sacrifice their need so that the other doesn't have to perform things they don't freely give.

In your example, you mentioned that the DH stopped wanting sex more often than he used to. That's a major change in what they "normally" did, and, yes, I would probably stand back and allow the sequence of events to unfold naturally, undisturbed to see just what is going on. However, once I made that deduction, I would want to know why, or what's going on. NOT CHANGE THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. Not tell him that he has to change or else. To PUSH someone is to force them. I would not force or coerce a man to have sex with me if that's not what he wanted, but I would certainly want to know what's going on, and if it's something I did or could correct. If it has anything at all to do with me, and lastly, if this is his choice, and will it continue in this manner. I would not, however, just prance in there, and make demands, about compromise, simply because that kind of sex is not for me.

Yeah, love is selfless, but I don't want a pity party, I want the real thing. Selflessness, can go either way. Some men go a lifetime without ever having their wives swallow, and they grin and bear it! ;-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 8:55pm
If you'd like to label certain forms of selflessness as pity party, then thats up to you, but I referred to "sacrifice as a result of love"--which is VERY different.

I'm not interested in berating someone's CHOICE , so pity party is NOT an accurate description IMHO of someone being FREELY selfless at times to lovingly please the other during those times. THAT is love, NOT pity party!

OF COURSE the sacrifice to not want another to do something is also nice...

...but Free...

...isn't obvious that I'm talking about the giver's choice here? Why try to digress from what I'm getting at? The receiver can sacrifice for the giver...yes yes yes yes yes...but that happens all the time ANYWAY...thats why I never mention it. If I'm going to be the giver for my wife's benefit, then I choose to be the one to sacrifice. For me to do that is OUT OF LOVE and NOT A PITY PARTY. If you receiving your deepest fantasy from someone is a pity party for you, the good for you, but SOME of us receive out of LOVE. Sorry I can't get you to see it that way, but I'm sure there are others who clearly get it.

 

C  H  A  R  A  C  T  E  R

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-09-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 9:11pm
No, I didn't mean it condescendingly, so wipe that out, please. I see no problem for those who WANT to do an act selflessly, I'd do it myself, but if someone has a true aversion or a reason not do to something, I would prefer they not do it. What's so hard about that? If it's truly the givers choice, then it's given freely. I'm talking about those who DON'T want to give for some apparent reason. I wouldn't want to push/force them to have sex with me against THEIR WILL because it's not given freely.


Edited 5/24/2004 9:12 pm ET ET by free_to_choose
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Mon, 05-24-2004 - 10:55pm

My, this thread has taken some interesting turns.


I've got some thoughts and they touch on two current threads here.

CL-Yasmin1967

May I have the serenity to accept what I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I