|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 5, 2010 14:54:42 GMT -5
I was led here by a link Vyckie left at Shakesville and as I read more about the books she read while in the QF/P movement, I realized I had seen many of these titles before... at a site called the Young Ladies' Christian Fellowship. For example, here's an entry on Created to be His Help Meet ( married.ylcf.org/2009/06/created-to-be-his-helpmeet.html), which the site's main author, Gretchen, seems to find, if anything, not conservative enough! These folks are scary (I wrote a blog post, largely inspired by them, here: spacedcowgirl.com/2008/11/24/fundamentalist-sex-21st-century-style/), but I have often gotten "sucked into" their site and come out of the stupor feeling ashamed of myself and my "rebelliousness," wondering if maybe they don't have a bit of a point... etc.--even though I am about as liberal as they come, not very religious, and have a very egalitarian marriage and a husband who would not want to be the "head of the household" (or for me to be "head of the household," for that matter... we tend to act as a team) regardless. For pete's sake, Gretchen also once posted not only that a woman should always cast the same vote as her husband in an election, but added the offhand comment "Whether or not you agree that women should have the right to vote..." (!!!!!) Her childhood "best friend," Natalie Nyquist, appears to have been kicked off the site and all references to her and her writings (which were prodigious) removed as if she had never existed, because she remarried after a divorce (which according to her she did not even want--she wrote that her husband forced her out of their home). And I actually doubt my own life after reading this kind of thing? All of this to say that I can easily see how someone would fall into the QF/P philosophy, or other coercive relationship models, very easily, especially if it were presented a little at a time. My sympathy is with any woman who has traveled that path. I am frankly fortunate that I met a man like my husband rather than one like Warren, or my own story could have been very different. More material on marriage and sex is at their "Just for Married Ladies" page ( married.ylcf.org). Though of course all of them were experts on marriage and motherhood before they ever entered into either. The whole concept of being "constantly available" to your husband regardless of your own wishes makes me feel slightly sick.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 22:27:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the link to Gretchen's site! I'll have to see if she approves of my comment enough to post it. In the wives only section, she wrote about how modern womanhood ill-prepares women for pregnancy because it makes women obsess about maintaining their figures and not gaining too much weight. And I commented (as mammal_mama, since the site would only let me post through my google account) that I didn't think it was modern womanhood that caused this problem. It seems like throughout history, women have worried about their men straying if they don't maintain their girlish faces and figures -- but the reality is that if a man strays, it's because of his own shortcomings, and the right man will find us beautiful no matter how much weight we gain or how many wrinkles we develop. I'm really curious about whether Gretchen will approve my comment.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 23:02:57 GMT -5
And now I just posted about the importance of practical communication in a couple's sexlife, under the Elizabeth Eliot quote she posted. Looks like I'm on a roll!
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 6, 2010 11:42:54 GMT -5
Good comments and I'm glad you posted them, though I'm sure they will fall on deaf ears or not be approved. It's always kind of disturbing to me to read that site (I try to stay away but I can't!), because they are for the most part really smart, literate women, but they seem to have been SO entrenched in the "submissive wife" concept (as I remember, Gretchen made a specific point of having "obey" put back in her vows) ever since they were young, and so are most of the young teenagers who read the main part of the site. It's like reinforcement for the brainwashing you get at home and at church. I found the part about obsession with looks amusing in that post... I seem to recall Gretchen has been fairly moderate at times about not encouraging people to go on crazy diets (though I get the feeling that is because she has always been thin herself and figures people just have to do whatever she does to get the same result), but, of course, the site still definitely makes it clear that it is your responsibility to always look good and "keep your figure" for your man. I love how they think the pressure to look good and always strive to be thinner is somehow the fault of "modern womanhood" or exist in a vacuum, and have nothing to do with the patriarchy.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 6, 2010 11:46:59 GMT -5
Sorry, bad subject-verb agreement there--should say "...exists in a vacuum, and has nothing to do with the patriarchy."
I also realize it sounds like I am a little cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs obsessed with this site, and I guess in a way I am. I stumbled across it by mistake several years back and have read many of the archives. It's like a train wreck I can't look away from. This is clearly not that good of an idea so I try to avoid it as much as I can.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 6, 2010 19:14:36 GMT -5
You are getting sucked in because the women who write those blogs and sites WANT you to get sucked in. I get sucked in too.
The idea that if we only do this and such and we will be beautiful in God's eyes and we will please Him is very seductive. Particularly if you had Daddy issues, like I did. My wonderful daddy was very depressed quite often and especially when I became a teen I could never please him or make him happy. Heck, I rarely SAW him happy.
Its so seductive for me to think that if I just wear dresses, keep my hair long, submit to my husband ( fat chance there and which one again?) homeschool my kids, pray on my face, keep the house clean, blah blah blah that I will " Make Daddy Happy".
I have to yell BUlLSHIT at myself quite often.
|
|
|
Post by runawaybride on Feb 6, 2010 19:32:35 GMT -5
took a quick glance at that site... combined with allowing myself to slow down a bit and feel the feelings that draw me to the whole uberconservative christian separatists, I'm struck again by the insidiousness of a cult that appeals to the needy little girls inside of us.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 7, 2010 6:40:17 GMT -5
Runawaybride, Yes. It appeals to the needy little girl inside some of us (probably not all women have a needy little girl inside) I ran into that site a few years ago, and wished my life had been like Gretchens, thinking that if it had been, I wouldn't have the struggles I had back then being a "godly wife" and embracing as many children as nature/God allowed/gave us. That site is necessary to the movement. It attracts the young unmarried women saying "look, we are young and pretty, and SOOOO HAPPY!" Do things our way, and you can be just like us! Did anyone else notice just how much talk about sex goes on on sites like YLCF? QF/P are obsessed with sex. Before marriage, it's all about who abides by stricter rules. After marriage, it's all about "not defrauding", being ever available, and staying sexy. Women need to keep drinking the Kool-aid to keep it up. If they weren't fed how amazingly fulfilling their life is, they would realize it is not. If they weren't told how blessed they are, they would realize that all that self-denial (the forced, unhealthy kind) is draining and slowly killing them inside. Many of these women live in denial of how helpless and overwhelmed they feel with the lifestyle they "freely" chose. This thread on Free Jinger freejinger.yuku.com/topic/1157 talks about Fundamentalist women and irrational anger. I think a lot of qf/ uber-submissive wives have unhealthy amounts of suppressed anger inside that they are letting out on their children or covered up in "niceness". I have very little time for such sites these days. It's all about "role play" spiced with loads and loads of criticism and condemnation.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 7, 2010 6:44:13 GMT -5
I followed a link to an article by Sam and Bethany Torode, authors of "Open Embrace", who recanted their position regarding contraception just 4-5 years after publishing a book about it.
How many young and naive people are out there writing about their extreme positions regarding topics they know little to nothing about? Why would anyone listen to them?
|
|
|
Post by Gracious on Feb 7, 2010 16:31:38 GMT -5
I have such ill will for that site. It is the site that sucked me into the whole fundamentalist legalistic rubbish. Grr!!
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 7, 2010 16:45:18 GMT -5
Spacedcowgirl -- Gretchen did actually publish both my comments. But there haven't been any follow-up comments, so I'm not sure how they were received. One thing that surprises me is how much she loves Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maude Montgomery, and how closely she identifies herself with the intelligent and outspoken Anne (she definitely looks like her!). It surprises me because this book seems to have every bit as much of a feminist flavor as Little Women and Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House books, and I've recently learned that ultra-conservative ladies usually find those books objectionable. Of course, I'm glad that Gretchen likes Anne so much. I love Anne, too! And I think her love for Anne shows that she truly is a free spirit. In a sense, it's my free-spiritedness that initally drew me into the more traditional role-playing. In today's culture, it just seems so "rad" to stay home and be a submissive wife. I'm still a stay-at-home-mom, and I'm still gun-ho for breastfeeding and Attachment Parenting. But both my husband and I have realized that we're healthier and happier relating to one another as equal partners. Did anyone else notice just how much talk about sex goes on on sites like YLCF? QF/P are obsessed with sex. Before marriage, it's all about who abides by stricter rules. After marriage, it's all about "not defrauding", being ever available, and staying sexy. I haven't read a whole lot of posts on sex there yet -- but from the little bit that I have read, it just seems awfully abstract. I mean, since the site is specifically for married ladies only, I'd figured that maybe she went more in-depth about tangible ways to improve our enjoyment of sex. And maybe she does, maybe I just haven't read enough yet. The reason I place more stress on the importance of the wife enjoying sex, is because I think that when the wife is having regular orgasms, she will want sex more often and will be more motivated to expend the energy. And since it's pretty much a "given" that whenever a man has sex, he has an orgasm without needing to put too much thought into it, it stands to reason that increasing the wife's enjoyment is the key to improving the sex for both of them. Therefore, all the focus on telling women how important sex is to their husbands, seems like overkill to me. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that men like having sex. The real challenge is encouraging women to get to know their own bodies, and encouraging them to communicate about what they like. I.e. if a certain touch is really feeling good, but the man just does it for 10 seconds and then moves on to intercourse and climaxes before the woman has had a chance to really get into it, it's experiences like this that make it less likely that a woman will really be eager for the next time. But it's not really fair to expect men to be mindreaders, since for them it seems like the act itself is sufficient for meeting all their needs. So, to me, being willing to talk about what we want is part of the willingness to give of ourselves that Gretchen seems to stress.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 7, 2010 23:23:54 GMT -5
runawaybride--it is helpful and also scary to know that these sites are just really compelling in general... helpful because it's not just me, scary because I can see how easy it would be to buy their worldview hook, line and sinker. susan, your comment is why I think it is so hard for me to just dismiss the site--Gretchen (and Natalie, back when they actually admitted she existed ) are very smart women. For one thing they have been running and "webmastering" the site since they were young teenagers. That in and of itself takes a great deal of initiative and smarts. Plus they are such voracious readers, and of plenty of classic literature (as well as crappy fundamentalist marriage manuals, of course). Their writing is intelligent and often lovely. These are clearly not people to be underestimated as stupid. madame, ITA that they are obsessed with sex. The part of that whole movement that deals in purity balls and courtship (the way that most YLCF followers would think of it) is just creepy in my opinion. Not least because it is your job to be modest and let your father handle your affairs so you don't unduly "tempt" men, who clearly can't help themselves (in their understanding). It's a pretty short straight line from there to "rape or abuse is your fault" in my opinion. I also agree there is a lot of oneupmanship about who can be the most pure and the most modest before marriage, followed by promoting guilt in married women who aren't seductive temptresses at all hours of the day and night (as well as, of course, being the perfect wife and mother and keeping the perfect home). susan again, continuing on the sex topic... Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I'm not sure a focus on the woman's orgasm would mitigate that much of the issue that I have with the sex part of the site... a lot of Christian marriage manuals do focus on that these days (even the old copy of "The Act of Marriage" by Tim LaHaye... grrr, HATE.... that we were given in premarital counseling made the woman's pleasure a priority). It's just that I doubt I could bring myself to have sex with many of the men who believe in the patriarchal model regardless of whether the "mechanics" were there. Basic respect and being seen as a partner would still be missing for me. And I think what bothers me most is that it is OK to not want to have sex occasionally or sometimes or even often, and they don't really think it is. Your body seems to be basically more your husband's than yours as far as they are concerned. Like I said, the whole vibe just makes me very anxious and upset. Also, as you noted, I really don't think they go much more in depth in the other posts, which is an additional potential problem... she writes a cute post about, say, Victoria's Secret nursing bras but never mentions anything about problems or issues in her sex life (either because there aren't any or because it would be inappropriate in her opinion... I do see a lot of this vagueness on other sites for "ladies" where marriage is supposedly discussed frankly), and the rest is "inspirational" quotations. It sort of makes you feel like there is something wrong with you if your sex life isn't perfect. Of course, I have read enough of this stuff to figure out that if they did offer any advice to that effect, it would probably be "lose weight" or "do your nails so you feel pretty!" or "pray harder so you can joyfully submit to your husband and if you can't, it is still your job to provide him with sex 3 times a week." The onus is never on the man here. OK, enough rambling... this is a big hot button (ha, no pun intended) issue for me. @thiswormwine, I am so sorry the site had that effect in your life. I can all too easily see how that would happen.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 7, 2010 23:36:09 GMT -5
... and yes, I believe Gretchen is a free spirit, as you put it. That is another thing that makes all of this very confusing. She is really pretty, fashionable and not in a "look at me, I'm modest!" way, wears Birkenstocks, helps run her husband's family's farm market and believes in the whole buying and eating local and organic thing, breastfeeds, and otherwise does a bunch of stuff that you would normally associate with godless (or mainstream Christian, which is just as bad to some people) liberal hippies like myself. ... of course then she is super-hateful about gay people, thinks BabyWise is the very last word on childrearing, and doubts whether women should even have the right to vote. I feel like she and I would have a lot in common and perhaps even be friends if our opinions on politics and gender weren't basically polar opposites. Seriously, though, it really points up how many intersections there are between communities that you would sort of think wouldn't have a lot in common... like some of the YLCF folks and homeschooling, natural family living types. It is a very complex issue and I think that is part of why it is hard to pick out what to take and what to leave from various marriage and parenting philosophies. (Full disclosure, I don't have kids, so as far as that part goes I am talking out of my rear a little bit here. ) And now I have officially thought about this way too much.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 8, 2010 9:08:39 GMT -5
I haven't visited YLCF in a long time. My 22 yo daughter loved that site when she was in her teens. At that time she was home, helping me with the house, cooking and sewing for her own pleasure and attending community college. She is domestic and creative and loves children, so she found it very appealing.
After 2.5 years away at University she has a different perspective. Although her standards are high and she has not had a boyfriend yet, she is social, egalitarian, and has found her own legs as far as having her own goals and dreams she will not compromise on.
The most telling stand that she has taken was when her father told her he wanted her to come back home and help take care of the children if he got custody. She said no. This is in contrast to the 24 and 16 yo girls who do whatever he says.
Interestingly, the other two girls were never interested in YLFC nor homemaking. She liked the site because she liked the girl and shared the same interests. But there is also a bit of an independent streak there on both accounts. (Despite the quiverfull doctrine)
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Feb 8, 2010 13:36:21 GMT -5
And I think what bothers me most is that it is OK to not want to have sex occasionally or sometimes or even often, and they don't really think it is. Your body seems to be basically more your husband's than yours as far as they are concerned. spacedcowgirl: Let me offer just one male's perspective. When ever I hear about something like this, I am amazed that men can get away with such a sham. I picture a group of young men getting together, and one of them saying, "Hey, I've got an idea. Let's invent a religion where woman have to have sex with men anytime we want it." And another guy say, "Yea, and let's tell them God will hate them if they don't." And just to one up them all, the Mormon-to-be guy adds, "Even better, how about we can sleep with lots of women all at the same time--and it makes God smile. Yea, that's the ticket!" I am sure I'm unfairly characterizing what goes on in the lives of these women, but that is the picture I always get.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 8, 2010 18:56:08 GMT -5
Spacedcowgirl -- I do see your point that even if the mechanics are working and the woman has an orgasm every time, if the husband is not otherwise treating the wife respectfully, I imagine the sex would still be pretty crappy.
I do agree that it's okay to sometimes not want to have sex. However, having 2 kids myself, I do know that sometimes we just need to have sex to take advantage of both of us being awake and semi-energetic at a time when both girls are asleep ...
If one person is wanting to, the other almost always tries to get in the mood -- because waiting for that "perfect" moment would probably see us having sex about once a month or so, which wouldn't really be satisfactory to either of us.
But in our case it's more that we both want to connect and meet one another's needs, not that we feel we have to or God will frown on us.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 8, 2010 21:33:09 GMT -5
susan--Right, I think that is why it is so tricky... in every relationship there is the type of compromise you describe and that is a good thing. Unfortunately it is something of a fine line between being generous/loving and being coerced, and bringing the whole patriarchal idea into it tends to tip it more toward that "coerced" side because, just by nature of the ideal of "submission," it is ultimately going to be the man who gets to say yea or nay. And honestly, if I didn't have a real choice in the matter, I would rather he just get it over with than try to get me to feel pleasure... but even that (the whole '50s "lie back and think of England") isn't enough anymore, as I was rambling about in that blog entry I linked upthread. If you're not basically doing everything you can to make him feel good about himself in the bedroom, you're failing. I noticed Gretchen quoted something about the whole "in giving him pleasure, I receive pleasure" at the site, which is fine as far as it goes, but of course that shouldn't be as far as it goes. I think in an egalitarian relationship it is more of a give and take and honest exchange like you described--you both decided that once-a-month sex would be unacceptable, so you found a way to make it work, which seems healthy. "Their" way seems more like "a good wife should always be available to her husband" and even pretend she is ecstatic about sex even if she is actually exhausted, resentful, and feels violated... and even then feel guilty because she can't "make herself" feel desire for her husband. It just seems like one of those areas where a submissive wife constantly strives to be perfect and is always going to fall short. I see a lot of men on fundamentalist web sites complaining about how their wives don't want to have sex very often and I'm thinking "considering how angry and controlling you seem and how you seem to feel that sex is your right to take whenever you want it, they should get a medal for touching you at all." AustinAvery: I suppose it probably wasn't an actual conscious conversation (my husband kids about men having secret meetings where you all invent things like pantyhose or thong underwear ) but I agree the process is probably much as you describe. Whoever has the power is going to get to decide how to silence any rebellious or pesky elements in the group, and in the early church men definitely had the power. So a lot of the "rules" in a patriarchal relationship seem to me to be really more social tradition than anything else, but you can make it sound biblically prescribed (bearing in mind that human men wrote the Bible too)... so there is a lot of tradition and justification and social pressure that contributes to women (and men) easily believing that this is how God wants things to be.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 9, 2010 15:05:08 GMT -5
And honestly, if I didn't have a real choice in the matter, I would rather he just get it over with than try to get me to feel pleasure... but even that (the whole '50s "lie back and think of England") isn't enough anymore, as I was rambling about in that blog entry I linked upthread I must admit that for about the first year or so after giving birth to each of my girls, I had little to no interest in having an orgasm. I was more than happy to just have a "quickie" and get some much-welcomed sleep. And my husband was very understanding about this. My low-libido was probably due to the breastfeeding hormones. I believe in child-led breastfeeding and also child-led weaning (my husband totally supports me in this), and the frequent breastfeeding effectively delayed my menstrual cycles for 21 months after my older daughter was born, and 30 months after my younger daughter was born. Our two girls are almost five years apart in age, so we had some time in between each girl during which my sex-drive picked back up, and now our youngest is about to turn five next month, so needless to say my libido's been back up for the past few years. I can only imagine that for mothers who have babies extremely close together, it may never pick back up. Because of the tiredness and also the breastfeeding hormones. Many must very naturally feel like they would rather just have a quickie and go to sleep. I mean, I enjoyed the connection during those low-libido times. I just wasn't all into it like I am now, and like I was for that interlude in between the two pregnancies.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 9, 2010 21:49:23 GMT -5
Again, though, you had a choice regarding the "quickies" and I think that is the crucial distinction between a healthy relationship with compromises vs. a patriarchal relationship where only one person wields the power. Take this too far and I think it is very legitimate to call it rape. I have seen people online say, in all seriousness, things like "when you get married, you are agreeing to provide sex 3 times a week" and that is the part that is truly icky to me. Certainly it's not fair to the partner with the higher libido if he or she never gets to have sex, but if one person truly can't bring themselves to be intimate (due to past abuse issues or for any other reason), IMO you try to work it out yourselves, seek therapy, decide to live with it, and/or get a divorce if you just can't make it work. Being allowed control over one's own body is very important and so I have to say that from my standpoint, as unfortunate as it is for the higher-libido partner, a relationship needs to err on the side of respecting the needs of the lower-libido partner. Sometimes it is not just an issue of that partner being apathetic, stubborn, low-energy, or withholding sex out of spite. Sex can become very traumatic if you feel railroaded into it on a regular basis.
You have elaborated on where you are coming from so I will elaborate a bit also. I say all this, at the risk of TMI, as someone who has had issues with sex in the past due to a specific trigger that made it very difficult for me to even touch my husband for quite a while, so although this is largely in the past due to therapy and just getting some time and distance from the issue, I can easily call up the feelings of revulsion and stomach-churning terror I felt for a while when I would even contemplate sex. He has been very understanding and patient about this even though I know it has been hard on him at times, but though I appreciate his kindness and know the situation was unfair to him, it's not like it was my "fault" either. Frankly I think his patience and understanding is pretty much the default of what any decent, kind person should and would have done. If it had become too much for him to endure (considering I did "my part," or whatever, by seeking therapy and actively working on getting better) I certainly would have expected and preferred that he seek a divorce--or even have an affair--and find someone more compatible with his sex drive, rather than feel entitled to force me into sex. Anyway...
So yeah, I think it is never OK to force someone, and since many of these women don't feel they have a choice about anything in their lives including sex (if you feel coerced to have more children due to QF beliefs then that probably also contributes to the feeling that your body is not your own), I think it skirts very close to that fine line.
I know there are very real issues with hormones (I've been there too... though due to birth control pills, which clearly wouldn't be an issue for QF couples), exhaustion, etc. but for me, I imagine the fact that I was never allowed to say no would be the factor that would really kill my libido. I'm lucky I don't have to test that theory...
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 10, 2010 2:58:59 GMT -5
Susan and Spacedcowgirl, You make some very good points. Susan, I had never attributed my lack of libido to breastfeeding hormones! When I think about it, I've been pregnant or breastfeeding for seven years. And when I look back, I can see that the times when I felt most like sex have been when I wasn't breastfeeding or in the early weeks of pregnancy. It's good to know there is a good explanation Spacedcowgirl, I agree that feeling like you must provide sex (don't get me started on that one....) is a libido killer. Absolutely. The freedom is gone, and with it any desire. Also, if you feel like your husband views you as his inferior or a bit like a child, it's also a killer. You can will yourself to give him sex, but you will end up despising him. Patriarchal/Complementarian teaching to women stresses too much the "duty of marriage" to a bunch of women they kept repressed until the day they married! HOw many of those women had to fight urges to get closer to their fiances/bethrothed, ever suppressing their desire to touch, snuggle up to or kiss them? All to marry, find that he is now "the boss", and all those feelings are starting to wane. In "soft complementarian" settings, men are taught not to push the issue. They rely on the women teachers to browbeat the wives into "voluntarily giving" sex. I'd say the YLCF are doing a good job at that. In harder Complementarian or patriarchal circles (like QF), men are even given the right to require more sex from the wife, and if she doesn't comply, to take her to the elders. I can't fathom a worse scenario for a woman having sexual issues! Her dreams of romance and being loved are dashed to pieces, yet she is expected to put out. It's sick sick sick sick! Men ought to be hearing more about living with their wives with understanding, including sexually. Treat them with honor, as the weaker vessel. Also sexually. Love them as Christ loved the church. Etc... There is soooo much wrong with Patriarchal teaching!
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 10, 2010 11:27:53 GMT -5
madame--yes, I agree 100% with all of that. Especially the part about how you are taught to be modest and chaste until marriage (and maybe also shamed about dressing "provocatively" or talking to other men after marriage) and then all of the sudden you are supposed to flip a switch and become an amorous temptress for your husband. On the one hand sex is bad, on the other it's your job to provide it enthusiastically. The deck is really stacked against these women being able to enjoy a fulfilling sex life, though I know many do find a way.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 10, 2010 11:39:03 GMT -5
Well OK, maybe not the weaker vessel part, but 99.9%!
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 10, 2010 14:45:19 GMT -5
Yes, Spacedcowgirl, I totally agree that for sex to be good, it has to be completely consensual. And my husband has never pressured me about it.
If I'd ever told him that I just wasn't in the mood for the time being, I feel sure that he'd back off and be patient with me. For me, I've never been coerced sexually in my life, and sex has never been unpleasant. My energy and libido definitely fluctuate, but I never have any bad feelings associated with sex.
It just ranges from being "nice" to being "fantastic" -- depending on my mood.
Which actually seems kind of unusual, considering that I've heard various women talk about how sex makes them feel dirty. I think this dirty feeling must stem from so many women and girls feeling violated in their sexual relationships.
I'm so sorry for what you've been though! (((hug))) And I'm glad your husband has made the healthy and loving choice to support you through this, just as I'm sure you're supportive of him in many ways.
Madame, I'm thinking that it's something about our modern/Western diet, that is causing many women to resume their fertility while still exclusively or frequently breastfeeding. Which means many women in QF/P, probably ARE going through years of having very low libido.
I think our bodies are designed, during our fertile years, to focus in on one goal or the other: pregnancy, or nurturing our current baby. But today, it seems like many women get their fertility back even before they get their libido back.
In my case, without using any birth control, I had my libido back for a couple of years before my body was fertile enough to sustain a pregnancy.
So I seem kind of similar to the Kung! women of Africa, who don't have any sexual taboos or use any contraception -- yet their babies are born about 4 years apart. This, even though I'm obese and pretty much eat the Standard American Diet.
And yet there are all these slender women, eating natural foods, who get pregnant right away. I don't get it.
It just seems like our evolution isn't keeping up with our technologies. I.e., we've evolved to really go hog-wild over sweet and fatty foods -- which was a positive adaptation when our species used to struggle to get enough calories.
But now, it doesn't seem like such a great adaptation, and some of us really need to think about what we put into our mouth, because our evolution is telling us to crave sugar and fat when we've clearly had enough.
And it seems like many women's fertility is similar. Our higher standard of living is causing many women's bodies to think they are now capable of sustaining BOTH a pregnancy AND a nursing baby.
But the end result is clearly unsustainable for many women.
|
|
|
Post by spacedcowgirl on Feb 11, 2010 9:54:26 GMT -5
Hi susan, I am sorry, I read back over my post and it sounded a little like I was putting your marriage on the continuum of coercive relationships. Suffice it to say I got wrapped up in my own stuff there and jumped from one topic to the next without separating them enough. And not that you need my "blessing," but I wanted to say (just to set the record straight of what I was trying to get at) that, obviously, your relationship sounds absolutely healthy and would seem to have absolutely nothing to do with some patriarchal relationships and the associated twisted reasoning and theology that leads some women to become sexual prisoners in their marriages. It is great that you and your DH have the closeness and teamwork to arrive at a solution that is good for both of you. That is what we should all be working toward in a healthy marriage. In fact it feels to me like sort of the opposite of that one-sidedness that characterizes unhealthy coercive relationships. I think you are right, many, many women have had bad sexual experiences that lead them to have problems with sex later. I myself have not been victimized (the issue I had was a little more complex and had to do with other stuff... which made it even more unfair to my DH... but anyway). If some women are victimized by their own husbands then I can only imagine it would be that much worse. Thank you also for your kind words of support. Interesting points about fertility, I will lurk and read you folks' words of wisdom for a bit
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 11, 2010 13:51:22 GMT -5
No worries, Spacedcowgirl! I didn't think you were putting down my marriage in any way.
And I agree with you that the one-sidedness of QF/P relationships is what makes them so bad, and so violating toward some women's sexuality.
I think maybe the one-sidedness stems from the idea that women were made for men -- but men weren't made for women.
Just as I was reading on the thread on today's blog post by Journey: one poster noted that when women's needs aren't getting met, complementarians and patriarchy-proponents feel the women just need to find all their joy in the Lord.
But there's not the same expectation that a discontented husband, when his needs aren't getting met, find his joy in the Lord.
I realize that part of this attitude may stem from the fact that most of these writings are directed toward women, since women tend to be the ones most interested in reading/learning about how to make their marriages better.
If it were directed toward men, it might say the opposite. But there doesn't seem to be as much of this writing getting directed toward men.
|
|