"Comparing the male undergoing extensive periods without sexual intimacy with a female undergoing extensive periods without conversational intimacy is not at all skewed.
What intimate conversation (combined with an affectionate attitude) provides for most females is precisely what sexual intimacy provides for most males."
I would disagree, it is skewed, you have taken a valid observation regarding womens greater need for conversation and mens greater need for sexual relations within a marriage relationship and set them as absolutes.
In your first post you take the position that men need sex to feel intimate and woman likewise need deep conversation therefore if men are denied sex either through decency, the fasting rules of the Church or due to the woman not wishing to do so, women should be denied conversation.
Infact both conversation and sexual intimacy are part of a health marriage are both are needed by both partners. Men and woman need to talk, this is how most relationships, romantic or otherwise, are formed in the first place, by two people talking to each other. The need to continue this and the wider aspect of companionship within a marriage is vital. Now I would argue it is true that woman need this aspect more, in my view men normally feel a greater degree of intimacy through being with someone, whereas woman have a greater need for them to be actively communicating with each other. Likewise helping each other in common tasks for the home along with the division between manual labour and an outside vocation for men, and ruining of the household and caring for children for women, are part of the relationship, as are common decisions (moving house, finances, buying a pet ect...), mutual support, raising children ect.... Sexual relations are also part of the relationship, they provide a deeper level of intimacy one which is only rightly expressed between a married couple and which can lead to the producing of children the ultimate physical union between them "and the two shall become one flesh". Now it could be argued, I would be inclined to agree with such an argument, there greater need for this form of intimacy for men then for women, the way men and women view sexual relations may to an extent differ but the level of intimacy and the need therefor exists in both men and woman just as do the other parts of a relationship. It does not follow that these two things should then be picked out, juxtaposed, and then set as opposites (one needed by men, one by women) the lack of one meaning there should be a lack of both, this is taking them out of context and taking the observations and arguments too far for the shake of creating an argument for more sexual relations within a marrige.
"The illustration is actually a good comparison for women to understand exactly what men desire and the level of importance it has for the average male, to counteract Puritanical/Victorian attitudes toward sex."
Maybe to an extent but it is not that useful within the context of the debate on this forum.
"Women keeping silent is very much in keeping with Tradition. The wife is to be subject to her husband and traditionally this especially includes the sexual relationship. Your assertion that females keeping silent is at odds with the Tradition is flat out wrong." On the contrary your idea that a woman take a vow of silence in order to deny her intimacy to the level you believe men are denied sexual intimacy and connecting it to apostolic writings regarding women keeping silence in Church is what is what is "flat out wrong". Further your entire post come across as ranting that women aren't letting men have enough sex therefore they should not be allowed to talk because this would either act as some-kind of equalizer or make them realize that their husbands "need" sex and they should give it too them with little regard to how they feel in a "lie back and think of England" approach. Though further posts have made your argument a little clearer and dispassionate, and may have provided more that is suitable for a discussion, still your first post comes across highly personal, augmentative and an poor start to such a discussion.
Edited by Daniel R., 24 November 2014 - 10:35 PM.