a loving spouce would want to meet your needs.
a selfish spouce would say just wait.
a selfish spouce would say just wait.
I personally think that if there is "an unwritten implication she provide another means of sex" then it isn't a typical marriage, it's one with problems. Sex shouldn't be something that's ever implied or expected, it should be freely given out of love and desire.If you can't have sex due say a yeast infection or an inability to get an erection, should you be expected to provide something for your spouse/partner, or should your partner be expected to wait the issue out?
This is only regarding short-term perfomance issues, not long-term ones and only when something else (such as say oral, HJ, etc.) can be provided by the spouse who is unable to perform.
To give you an example, if your wife has an infection and figures it'll take a week to clear up, and it's already been say a week since you last had sex, is there an unwritten implication she provide another means of sex, or are you expected to wait it out?
I'm talking in general as well, not directly to your own personal relationship. Just how do you feel this situation should be handled in the typical marriage/relationship.
oh believe me I saw, she wasn't faking (atleast not all the time) there is no way I wanted to touch that red nasty smelling thing with medicine oozing out of it. Basically it was a perfect mood killer, whether that was her intention or not.That's weird that she would constantly have a yeast infection lon. Like I said... if its a legitimate issue... then sure I wouldn't mind waiting it out and yes for a spouse to reject just for shyts and giggles is wrong... I'm not advocating that mind you and there are many other non sexual ways to keep that fire going. The fact that your ex conviently had a yeast infection everytime you tried for it.... totally manipulative imo and just because it appeared as if she were treating something... doesn't mean she was.
You should have asked her to show it to ya imo lon and I highly doubt it was you... she was probably just a bytch.
Posted via Mobile Device