My question, in the simple form: is it wrong to engage in a series of behaviors calculated to change the behavior of your significant other?
Two examples from my own life: In one, I decided to withold sex from my girlfriend until her room was clean. Physical affection, support, cuddling, rubbing of sore backs and foots, but no activites leading to orgasm. The rather predictable results were that we got her room clean within a few days, and then promptly messed up the bed.
I was conflicted about this for a little while. On one hand, I should not feel obligated to provide sex for my SO. On the other hand, there seemed to be something wrong about denying sex under conditions like this. If I was repulsed by the dirty room, that would be one thing, but I had simply decided that talking with my girlfriend wasn’t working, and that this probably would. Eventually, I decided that I had the ethical right to do this, but should be very careful about how I exercised this right.
The second example was a long-term thing. When we began dating, my SO had a predictable and very human tendency to make statements like “It’s nothing” and “That doesn’t bother me” when in fact it was something and it did bother her. I responded to this by taking every statement she made for face value, even when her tone and face were saying something completely different.
I did say after the first time this became an issue what I was doing, clearly and unambiguously. Again, I am torn between twin feelings that I am well within my ‘rights’ in a relationship to behave in a certain way, and that there is something very skeevy about trying to manipulate your significant other, even with her knowledge. Also added into the equasion is that I am doing what I am doing openly, with no pretense that I am not, and will stop if I am asked.
Interesting question. In my opinion, the withholding of sex was borderline. I’m presuming that you were upfront with her about the plan, so that she could make an informed decision whether to go along with you or not. The problem, for me, is that the state of her room really isn’t any of your business, unless you live there, too. You could refuse to have sex in her room, but using it to get her to clean was not very nice.
In the second case, I think you were perfectly justified. The purpose of speech is clear communication, and she wasn’t using it that way. Making you try to guess what she really means versus what she actually says isn’t fair and you were right to call her on it.
Ethical or not, I know the guy who told me “no sex until you clean your room” wouldn’t be having sex with me at all, ever. Mutually-agreed on cleanliness standards if you’re cohabitating is one thing; punishing your SO because she didn’t adhere to your standards is quite another.
Another woman chiming in to say it’s none of your damn business whether she wants to clean her room or not. If it’s so horrifyingly dirty that you can’t get it up, that’s one thing – but otherwise, is you’re not living there, you don’t get a vote.
Bah, women have been doing exactly what you described for eons. Good for you for joining the fun. If you don’t like something about someone and want them to change, you are free to do whatever you want to try to get them to change, and it’s up to them to decide how to react. Plus, regarding your second point, I say good for you, I’ve done that too. There is nothing (and I really mean nothing) in the world more annoying than when your girlfriend says one thing but definitely means another.
The clean room thing is disturbing to me. Controlling.
The other is an attempt to illustrate what needs to happen in healthy communication. My husband will pull the “I dunno” response out too many times if I ask something like what he wants for dinner. I explicitly say that if he says he doesn’t know, and if I end up picking without his input, complaints are not welcome. He doesn’t say “I dunno” all that often anymore.
Yes, the clean room thing bothers me, too. That seems way too controlling.
I’m not completely against manipulation–I think we all do it, even subconsciously. However, I do think that sitting down and talking it out is the best path first. Making deals like “no sex until this happens” or “I’m going to do this from now on until you change” doesn’t help if the person didn’t already know what they were doing upset you (then it feels controlling and punishing rather than an honest attempt to help). I try to stay away from actively manipulating my fiance. I know it’ll happen now and then, but I still think communication and consideration for other ways of solving the issue are best.
#1- I would have handled it a bit differently. I’m of the opinion tha t ultimatums serve no one and create bad will.
#2- I’m with you all the way. Relationships thrive on honesty- and if I ask for your opinion and you throw “I dunno,” well, then, we’re getting Popeye’s for dinner, I’m renting Die Hard, this weekend’s date is Six Flags, and so on, until you tell me just what in the heck you DO want.
I do think it is wrong to manipulate your partner and further, even thought I will admit to having manipulated mine, I resent being put in the position of manipulating anyone…especially my husband. It seems like a dishonest and immature method of problem solving. But when communication fails, sometimes I do it.
,
A guy withholding sex??? Sounds to me like a losing proposition.
Two issues.
First, it sounds like you are dating people who are not suited to you. These issues are obviously very important to you, and just as obviously not important to her. But things like neatness are rather ingrained. You can make a slob a littler neater, but you’re not going to change them into a neat freak. I think your energy would be better spent finding a better match then trying to remake you girlfriend into you want. Which leads me to the second point.
I find the calculated controlling aspect weird. There will come a point in time or an issue that she will refuse to budge. What will you do then? What if in a month the room is dirty again? Are you ready to play this game over and over again?
Also how did you feel when she succumbed to your wishes? Did you feel a sense of accomplishement? Did you also start wondering what other things you can make her do?
There is a big difference in making a person do something, and a person making an effort to change because they realize it’s important to you.
I’m finding it interesting to try to put my finger on the differences between the second example and the first. (“Predicatable result,” my Aunt Fanny. If you pulled that on me, the “predictable result” would be me kicking your sorry ass to the curb.)
I the best I can come up with is that in the second case, you’re simply forcing her to deal with the direct consequences of her behavior. I think it’s reasonable for you to say that if she says nothing’s wrong, then you’re going stop pestering her about it instead of jumping through a bunch of hoops to try to wheedle it out of her. In that case IMHO she’s being more manipulative, consciously or unconsciously.
A reasonable response to the dirty room would be refusing to go into the room. The consequence is a direct result of the problem: that the bedroom is messy, and you find this unpleasant, so you’re not going in there until it’s clean. It’s still a somewhat manipulative thing to do, but sometimes there are behaviours that need to change if the relationship is going to work out, and as you say, talking about it isn’t always sufficient.
That’s my super-logical look at the situation. There’s definitely more to it, but I can’t quite articulate it.
From an ethics standpoint, it’s not at all unethical to say “I don’t want to have sex in a messy room”, as you are just setting limits on the conditions under which you are comfortable having sex. The same is true for the communication – you can and should expect your partner to take responsibility for clearly communicating her feelings to you.
As for trying to manipulate your SO into changing her behavior by withholding something which is normally freely given in a loving relationship: very bad idea. I would also say it’s highly unethical, but even it wasn’t it would still be a very bad idea.
Rule #1 in relationships: don’t try to change people. It’s much easier and smarter to keep dating different people until you find someone who is naturally very close to your ideal and whose incompatibilities with you are small enough that if they never changed them, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
Rule #2 in relationships: never use affection or sex as bargaining chips. Once they become currency, it undermines the entire foundation of the relationship, namely that you do these things for each other freely out of love, not out of any expected gain for yourself.
I find your first example utterly abominable. Threats, ultimatums, and attempts at controlling one another have absolutely no place whatsoever in a loving relationship between equals. Honestly not wanting to have sex with someone is one thing; I’m a strong supporter of that. Nobody should feel obligated to have sex if they don’t want to. But a calculated, deliberate, “by god, that’ll teach him/her!” refusal of sex is an entirely different animal. The differing emotional undertones make the situations completely incomparable. (And add me to the chorus that cannot believe you pulled this obnoxious shit over something as stupid and ultimately pointless as her room not being clean enough to suit you.)
The other situation I have no problem with whatsoever. Not taking someone’s statements at face value is, for all intents and purposes, assuming they’re lying. I have a hard time seeing not assuming your SO is lying to you as a bad thing, frankly. And if your SO is in fact lying, then training them out of that habit is something else I can’t see as a bad thing.
In retrospect, I guess I did give Dr.J a sort of ultimatum once. Back when we were in college I told him that I had a right not to fall into the toilet in the middle of the night in my own ensuite bathroom, and if he wouldn’t put the seat down when he was done he couldn’t use my bathroom anymore. (He carried on like it was a huge, bitchy imposition, denying him the chance to take a piss at my place, but in actual fact the communal bathroom was a whopping five steps down the hall.)
Most of our “god, you’re getting on my nerves” issues are resolved by simply saying “god, you’re getting on my nerves with the ____” and the other person trying to work on not doing that anymore (or at least not as much [or at least not as much when the other person is around]). When the other person chooses not to work on said issue, we usually just chalk it up to everyone having annoying habits (except me, all of my habits are cute ) and go on. If we can’t ignore it and go on, we point out that no, really, it’s bugging the everloving shit out of us and we really need to find some sort of compromise somewhere.
There is a big difference between
“I’m not doing this until you do this”
and
“If you do this then I’m gonna do this”
In other words, saying “No O for you until you clean your room” (OK Daddy :rolleyes: ) is hell’a different then saying “If your room was clean, I’d be looking at your O-face right now…” One is the way of the a-hole, the other is a tempting way to get things done with a reward at the end.
And, umm, did you offer to help her? That’s the least a-hole way to get things done.
The “no sex till you clean your room” thing sounds a bit oogey to me.
I will say that I have refused sex when I’ve been angry at someone. It’s not been a game to try to get what I want. Instead, I’m just really, really angry and the last thing I want is to have sex with that person.
Your second example doesn’t seem like maniupulation to me. It seems more like you refusing to be manipulated yourself.
If my man were to treat sex as if it’s a doggie treat that I only get for proper behavior, I’d be out of the relationship so fast that there would be a loud thunderclap sound caused by the air suddenly rushing to fill the vacuum where I had previously stood.
I see that I was right to be concerned about this issue. It seems that almost universally, the first example is a bad one, and the second is a good one. I am curious what the salient percieved differences are.
As for the controlling and creepy bit: why, exactly? As I said,
Had my SO been as skeeved out at these examples as many of you seem to be, I would have dropped the issue. I would also point out that this was a one-time deal: I have and had no intentions of changing my SO’s behavior in the long term with this.
Also, I would point out that we live in seperate houses, with our parents (we are both college-age) yes, we did end up cleaning the room together, the second day after I made my decision, we did clean the room together. Finally, I would point out that the state of the room was such that my SO had lost, just for example, her wallet. (We found it under the mattress).
So, is the primary skeevieness caused by the witholding sex in the first example? Had I actually been repulsed by the room, and (as was the case) our practical options for another place (without spending money on a hotel room or some such) were not available, the practical effects would have been exactly the same. Would this, were it true, also be skeevy?
And finally, would lying and saying that I was repulsed by the room be more or less objectionable than what I did?
) and go on. If we can’t ignore it and go on, we point out that no, really, it’s bugging the everloving shit out of us and we really need to find some sort of compromise somewhere.