Bigmoish wrote:


Thank you.

I also believe that even on the occasion (kein yirbu) when a woman dresses up specifically for their husband, it's not so that we should "take" from them, it's in order to share a special experience with them, which for them is primarily emotional manifested in the physical.
If we use that opportunity for our own purposes, of "taking" pleasure, we are abusing that gift.
Some posters here have noted that when their wives became aware of their extra-curricular activities, part of their response was that they felt they had been raped by their husbands. That's a strong response, but maybe this explains that feeling a little.

Maybe women are not even able to separate the physical from the emotional the way we do. What do you think?

Moish,

Why is make up looking Good for themselves? The answer is because me itch over good looking woman. So when they attend an only lady affair they want other ladies to know that men itch over them. I don't mean that as blunt as I am writing it. But thats what it boils down to.

I don't think its just men by the way. A lady (I know my wife does) wnats a man to icth for her. (Hopefully just her husband) While yes us men are pervs its the way hashem made us and to a certian degree he wants the world to run that way. Its aprt of his deisghn plan so we have kids and mate. Hashem wants us to be "pervs" to a certain degree.

waydown wrote:

As I mentioned, I was just stating my own opinion. But apparently, it sounds like yours is the only acceptable one.
Do you have any support to this insight into female psychology?

Eislassos,

I can only talk for myself. In my case I lust because I have an itch. Once that itch gets strong I dream about porn. It doesn't start form porn.

Re "whereas a marital relationship is supposed to be about sharing - the opposite of taking."

Who says that? With all due respect you take that as a given. Maybe martial reltaionship is about giving and taking at once. Who says its the opposite of taking? I think you can fully give while also taking providing you realize that the other party comes before your needs.

Moish,

Hey I never said I am the only correct opnion. What I am trying to say is there is no proof either way. i don't think you have proof nor do I have proof. Its all heresay. Thats why both approaches should be OK. If you feel that the only proper way is no sexual desire jut pure love for ones wife then I commend you. There is nothing at all wrong with that. In fact thats how a true tzadik would approach it. Go thru shulcahn aruch in even hazer about what you should think about and how to approach intimacy. You will see that the shpitz is what you are suggesting. All I am saying is for the simple masses, I don't think its wrong to also look at it from my approach. That is knock out the obssesion and direct your desires and itches towards ones wife. And in fact the more I say to myself why am I obssessed with those other ladies when I have a beautifull wife to itch for, the better my sholom bayis gets.

waydown wrote:


I don't think Moish meant no sexual desire, I'm pretty sure he meant no lust (i.e. taking). You're not recognizing the in-between place where healthy sexual desire is used to share love. Again, please do not take offense, I'm not so used to finding that in-between myself.

I wasn't even addressing lust vs. love, though you make some very good points. I was just talking about the the natural pull that women have that makes them need to look good.

I hear.

I think you have a good argument about women dressing up for a shiur or other ladies-only event.
I don't buy the answer that women want other women to know that men itch over them - that sounds like projecting our male viewpoint onto them.

waydown wrote:


You are 100% right, I took that as a given. I will have to stop and research it.

Could there be a difference between taking vs. receiving?

eslaasos wrote:


Bingo!

Giving and taking are not complementary.

Giving <--> Receiving

Taking <--> being taken from

the first pair is an other-directed relationship. the second is self-centered mutual exploitation.

Gevura,

You state that as a fact.

Again why is that a big no? Why can't I take as I give. Who says????

Now if I am completely sensitive to the other persons needs am I taking or recieving? (That is I still have an intention that as I give I'd like to relive my itch. But I know that I must be mevatal myself to the other party. Respecting someoneelse comes before my own needs and wants. But I still know deep inside me that I acn fully respect the other side yet statsify my desires.) A that point am I still taking or recieving? I have no clue. But this is my basic argument. The other side comes first. But if my desires are being fulfilled in the process it helps. And it soathes me to think that I will fulfill my desire later today anyhow so why obsesses over it now. (yes I only fulfill it by putting my wife first but at the end of the day I will enjoy it.)

Re lust verse desire. I agree if lust means an obsession of the mind than no. One can't lust over his wife. But one can take that lust down a few notches to a simple desire .

Of course you can have pleasure from receiving. And you can even look forward to the opportunity to receive, along with giving. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but when you use the word "take" it implies an attitude of self-centered-ness.

I'm sorry if I come across as argumentative, I'm working on clarifying it for myself too. But i think that the words we use shape our attitude.

Very well said Gevura so my main argument is the following. And I can ony talk for myself.

When I get a lust attack I say ech I will receive something far better tonite. So why lust now? I know my icth will be relieved later via reciveving so it help me not to act out now.

I have to admit, I stopped reading and started skimming this thread about 4 pages ago. It reminds me of the time I was looking at a picture that looked like fuzz. People told me that if you looked at it in a certain way, you could see an actual picture. No matter how hard I tried, I could never see the picture. I think this is similar.

First of all, it is not black or white, all or nothing. We have varying degrees of love and lust in our relations with our wives. Those who have experienced more love and less lust, can understand it. I think it is difficult to comprehend with logic alone, and that seems to be the only tool you are using.

I just posted about this very topic here: guardyoureyes.com/forum/19-Introduce-Yourself/264214-Hello-friends?limit=15&start=30#264536

I think if it can't be explained in 4 pages of back and forth it's probably worth putting it to rest for the time being. It may become clearer over time. I know that a lot of things I learned here did not make sense to me at first. It took time.

waydown wrote:

With such a mindset, whenever ones wife is nidda she may not put on any makeup (no rabbi would allow it) I feel sorry for her, and for you being stuck with such a mindset.