# Just Wondering



## Gaming Your Wife (Jun 16, 2011)

It seems like the battle is never over with lack of sex in Marriage.Just wondering if its the same all over?It just does not matter what you bring to the table nothing changes.If I am a A**hole for a week,Or a nice guy for a week,its the same.
I have been around these boards long enough to know there is no fixing the problem.Sure you have the one's that say you need to cuddle more,Do the dishes,Listen more,forget about sex,Just hold your wife,Do the Map,Read a book,If so many here have read the book tell me the answers.As many here we are all very smart and still we can not figure the problem out. I never thought I would have to read a book to get laid.And why is it that the one who does not what sex is happier then the one that wants it?


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

Ok have you tried balancing yourself out? I know it seems like reading a book is outragious.... Like things should just happen and be perfect but they arent. Have you seen if your wife is holding some sort of resentment? Taken her to the doc to rule out any medical issues?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

I know one answer is to not be an a-hole for one week and a nice guy the next...


----------



## Gaming Your Wife (Jun 16, 2011)

kingsfan said:


> I know one answer is to not be an a-hole for one week and a nice guy the next...


Maybe thats where I have been going wrong?Maybe it should be 3 weeks on 3 weeks off.Just kidding Thanks for replying,Yes their is resentment in the air with both of us.Its a shame to say this but,At this point in my life all I would like is to be at peace whit it all.Yes find some balance.One day you except the way things are. And then the next day I am pissed off about it.Some days I say to myself I don't care,Then I do.The whole thing really messes with your brain.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

there is no single answer to this. if there was this web site would be blank, the news stand would be devoid of all the mags that come out week after week with relationship advice, Dr Phil and all the other TV counselor/gurus would be unemployed.
You have to work at it, every day, every night. Sometimes you screw up; sometimes she screws up. Most of the time i think we each make our own messes. We assume what the other person is thinking or motivated by when it is impossible for us to be inside the head of anyone. Some of us have a harder time going with the flow than others.
No magic pill, no secret answer to make it all right.
We all wonder and then we se sigh, realizing there is no single right way and we do the best we can. I try to be honest with myself and look at what I can do to make things better before I put the burden on the other person. It is a constant effort but nothing that i view as a burden. It's life.


----------



## Gaming Your Wife (Jun 16, 2011)

You Know I like that, Theirs some peace there.I think just you saying that .I can grow from that.Some days I get a little pissed about the whole thing.Over the years Dec. is always a bad month for sex in my house because of the stress level.But its always some excuse.


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

Gaming,
Firstly, I have to say that your username made me feel you were looking for a quick answer and a roadmap to get a quota of sex. (that's okay if you are, btw)

I'm a woman, btw. 

Knowledge is power. 30 years of marriage means a lot of really engrained habits to get over. Sometimes, change isn't even possible, because your partner doesn't want to, or simply CANNOT.

But she isn't here. You are. (would she come here??). Have you guys gone to see a counsellor? DId you do the His Needs Her Needs Quizzes together? Is she working WITH you on this? Or is this just "Gaming" on your end?

If you are willing to read yet another insight....

If you break down women and men to the bare animal instincts, you get a simple equation. Take away modern society, and look at how the instinct for women is wired, for species survival.

For a woman to have intercourse, is an instinctual state of vulnerability. It is the most vulnerable thing a human woman can allow. She could be physically hurt. She could become pregnant. She could be left alone, pregnant, and no ability to provide and support. If your wife has kids, this instinct can be stronger. Her role has changed. Protect the family, the kids, make sure there is a support system in place. Her preferences for a mate will change. Someone who will take care of things. Be reliable. As women get older, the bare animal instinct to have sex for procreation changes, too. More practical instincts come forward.

Thus, the security aspect comes into play. 

If safety and security is in place, the level of attractiveness can be based on their "sexuality". Some women don't even know how to tap that sexuality. Or they have supressed it, because they had to.

The cruel trick is.... every woman is different. Read some of SimplyAmourous' posts. It can be awakened. If they feel safe enough to do so, and there is a desire there to move forward with it. Yes, a few women do have past histories that prevent them from moving forward. But, the painful truth is the RIGHT behavior will awaken the sexuality. Or the right person. 

Doing the same old thing will result in the same old thing. 
But taking a chance means you learn a lot about yourself, women, and maybe the end result is what kind of relationship you want, and with whom. Best of luck in your journey,


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Before coming to TAM, I had no idea there were so many people with problems with lack of sex in their marriages. The only times I have had a decreased interest in sex is when there were other issues in the relationship that created a lack of interest (resentment, major disagreements, feeling neglected, etc.) OR I had lost attraction to the guy.

I have a hard time believing the "our marriage is perfect except she won't have sex with me". I doubt that.

In my experience, sex problems is what the guy finally notices after not noticing or ignoring the problems in the relationship outside the bedroom for a while. And then they exacerbate the problem by pushing for sex and turning it into "we have to fix this because now I'm not happy" despite not working on the relationship itself prior to it getting to the no sex stage.

I do think, though, that women might be reluctant to tell their husbands they aren't attracted to their hubbys much anymore or that they want to suffocate them with a pillow sometimes. So they say "nothing's wrong, it's my low drive"...

I don't know. Just speaking from my experience. And I'm sure it goes both ways - not just for women refusing sex, but men not wanting it with their wives. I'm not saying this applies to you as I don't know your background at all.


----------



## sweaty teddy (Nov 13, 2012)

norajane said:


> Before coming to TAM, I had no idea there were so many people with problems with lack of sex in their marriages. The only times I have had a decreased interest in sex is when there were other issues in the relationship that created a lack of interest (resentment, major disagreements, feeling neglected, etc.) OR I had lost attraction to the guy.
> 
> I have a hard time believing the "our marriage is perfect except she won't have sex with me". I doubt that.
> 
> ...


with all that said threre are no reasons to comunicate that nothing is wrong when something is wrong. if a spouce comes to their wife/husband and they ask whats wrong we dont seem to be having sex any more then they should be honest and tell them whats up. .....well I'm not in the mood because of this or that. some of the reasons might even be from some misscomunications or missunderstanding.

so the spouce who refuses intamacy but accepts a pay check is being very unfair and controling to a point.

there unhappy but not enough to leave or to selfish to leave or stupid to comunicate what bothering them with the relationship.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Where does the paycheck come in? I said nothing about paychecks.

I have never accepted anyone's paycheck for sex, and if you mean SAHM's, sorry, but they do WORK for the family which includes the husband. I have never been a SAHM and have always had jobs and frankly, make more money than most of the guys I've dated, including my partner.

Linking marital sex with money is exactly one those things that kills a woman's sex drive. That you think of it that way is the big turn off. That's not a sex problem. That's a relationship problem because you see sex as your due because you earn a salary for your household.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Gaming Your Wife said:


> It seems like the battle is never over with lack of sex in Marriage.Just wondering if its the same all over?It just does not matter what you bring to the table nothing changes.


You are correct. The battle never ends. Your wife is attracted to certain traits. If you stop exhibiting those traits, she will stop wanting to have sex with you. It's very simple. There will never be a day that you can stop being attractive to your wife and she will still want to have sex with you.



Gaming Your Wife said:


> I have been around these boards long enough to know there is no fixing the problem.


Sure there is. Be attractive. That's the solution. It's not a quick fix. LTR game is infinitely harder than ONS game. For a ONS, you can lie to the girl. You can use canned routines that are tried and true. You can mimic attractive traits. Tell her you're a rich man, but you have to go back to her place because your mansion is being fumigated.

In a LTR, none of that works. You will run out of canned routines quickly. Your lies will be discovered. You can't just mimic attractive traits. You have to actually BE attractive.



Gaming Your Wife said:


> I never thought I would have to read a book to get laid.


I understand. The red pill is almost never pleasant. You don't remember the day you found out about Santa Claus as a pleasant experience. But it opened your eyes to the world around you.

Ignorance is not bliss. It's just ignorance.



Gaming Your Wife said:


> And why is it that the one who does not what sex is happier then the one that wants it?


Because she's getting what she wants. I assume that you don't force her to have sex when she doesn't want it. And I assume you don't make her life hell in other ways when she doesn't give it up. So she's in a situation that works for her.

Your job is to change the situation into one that no longer works for her. The best way is to become someone she wants to have sex with.

Good luck.


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Ignorance is not bliss. It's just ignorance.


Walk in on your 300 lbs. Uncle giving your Aunt the 'festive log' and tell me ignorance isn't bliss...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

norajane said:


> Linking marital sex with money is exactly one those things that kills a woman's sex drive. That you think of it that way is the big turn off. That's not a sex problem. That's a relationship problem because you see sex as your due because you earn a salary for your household.


He was discussing female needs versus male needs in marriage. Women tend to rank financial security high on their list of needs in marriage. Men don't. Men tend to rank sexual fulfillment high on their list of needs in marriage. Women don't.

So, many (most?) marriages are mutually beneficial relationships where men satisfy women's need for financial security in exchange for women satisfying men's need for sexual fulfillment. In other words, paychecks for sex.

In marriages where women withhold sex, they are refusing to satisfy their husbands' needs. And that's bad. The other poster was simply pointing out that most of those women will continue to allow those husbands to fulfill their needs at the same time.


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

norajane said:


> Before coming to TAM, I had no idea there were so many people with problems with lack of sex in their marriages. The only times I have had a decreased interest in sex is when there were other issues in the relationship that created a lack of interest (resentment, major disagreements, feeling neglected, etc.) OR I had lost attraction to the guy.
> 
> I have a hard time believing the "our marriage is perfect except she won't have sex with me". I doubt that.
> 
> In my experience, sex problems is what the guy finally notices after not noticing or ignoring the problems in the relationship outside the bedroom for a while. And then they exacerbate the problem by pushing for sex and turning it into "we have to fix this because now I'm not happy" despite not working on the relationship itself prior to it getting to the no sex stage.


This. Many times the wife expresses things that are bothering her in the marriage before the sex drops off. The hubby still thinks everything is fine because there is still sex. Meanwhile the wife is not feeling listened to and understood. Which causes resentment, and will lead to the decrease in sex. This is what gets the hubby's attention. Then he comes to the forum and says, "everything is perfect except for the sex".

The lack of sex gets the attention of the hubby 99.9% of the time. I've seen this time and time again irl and on internet forums.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

sweaty teddy said:


> so the spouce who refuses intamacy but accepts a pay check is being very unfair and controling to a point.


I guess that this is about marriages in which one of the couple doesn't work and stays home and takes care of house chores and kids? Since it wouldn't realy apply to cases in which both works. If that's the case, then pay check for sex kind of logic is silly. Both agreed that one of the couple stays home while the other works. Yea money might come from the one who works, but then it doesn't mean that the person with money is the superior one. It's just they agreed that one of them works outside while the other works inside. And taking care of house chores and children can be very tiresome too. Specially if the one that works doesn't really need to take care of these at all, leaving the domestic one to take care of these 24/7.
Also, can the one that takes care of the house stop taking care of it? I don't think so. So can the one who works outside stop providing money? I don't think so.

But then I can't really understand how can one think about a partner accepting money but not giving sex is unfair. I mean, are you marrying a hooker or someone you love, that sex is not something to be bought but a demonstration of love and care? I would think of partner not carring about my sexual or whatever needs but only cares about his needs selfish, but I would never be in a relationshio in which any of us ever think like "I give you money but you are being unfair to not give me sex".


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

techmom said:


> This. Many times the wife expresses things that are bothering her in the marriage before the sex drops off. The hubby still thinks everything is fine because there is still sex. Meanwhile the wife is not feeling listened to and understood. Which causes resentment, and will lead to the decrease in sex. This is what gets the hubby's attention. Then he comes to the forum and says, "everything is perfect except for the sex".
> 
> The lack of sex gets the attention of the hubby 99.9% of the time. I've seen this time and time again irl and on internet forums.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is true, some women spend their time trying to tell their men what they are unhappy about, but then their men might not understand what they are saying and not really worry much, 'till sex is gone and then they'd wonder what went wrong in their "perfect" relationship. Although it is also true that some women end up not explaining things well (they can lack of objectivity and get too abstract for men sometimes) or giving up trying, so that men would have thought that everything is alright, since they have asked and their women said they were fine (but some men can be more sensitive and able to spot that something is wrong indeed). Or sometimes some men sucks at choosing the right words that the women concluded that it's no use trying to explain things.

All in all, it's the miscommunication that is often the issue. That a lot of times, women and men are not communicating well with each other, that the issues ended up penting up and so women ended up stop showing affection. And men are right to be worried when sex is gone, not just coz sex is gone, but coz there are underlying issues that have developed too much for a long time.

There are indeed women who loses drive and are not sure why. But for a woman to not even show affection in any way, it's very probably that the cause are some underlying issues in the relationship instead of just loss of drive.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I guess that this is about marriages in which one of the couple doesn't work and stays home and takes care of house chores and kids? Since it wouldn't realy apply to cases in which both works.


It can apply to either scenario. A single income household where the husband earns the money is the most obvious example. But a husband providing one income in a dual-income household is also a typical case.



lilith23 said:


> Yea money might come from the one who works, but then it doesn't mean that the person with money is the superior one.


Nobody has used the word, "superior." We're talking about contributions to the marriage. Women tend to value men's financial contributions and men tend to value women's sexual contributions. And many women don't see anything wrong with accepting a man's financial contribution while refusing to make her own sexual contribution.



lilith23 said:


> But then I can't really understand how can one think about a partner accepting money but not giving sex is unfair. I mean, are you marrying a hooker or someone you love, that sex is not something to be bought but a demonstration of love and care?


The word for a situation where men are obligated to contribute and women have no such obligation is *slavery*. And very few men want to marry in order to become slaves.

Marriage should be about two people contributing to each other's happiness. Since men and women value different things and have different abilities, they will contribute different things in different ways. It's odd that some women take issue with that notion.


----------



## jaharthur (May 25, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> The word for a situation where men are obligated to contribute and women have no such obligation is *slavery*. And very few men want to marry in order to become slaves.


That's an absurd comparison and diminishes the wrong done to people who are or were truly enslaved.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> It can apply to either scenario. A single income household where the husband earns the money is the most obvious example. But a husband providing one income in a dual-income household is also a typical case.
> 
> 
> Nobody has used the word, "superior." We're talking about contributions to the marriage. Women tend to value men's financial contributions and men tend to value women's sexual contributions. And many women don't see anything wrong with accepting a man's financial contribution while refusing to make her own sexual contribution.
> ...


So how about house chores? Isn't that house wife's contribuition? So the man's money from work is contribuition, but a woman taking care of house and kids is not?

The working one that provides an income can't cut off the income for the sake of the house, just like the one that stays home can't stop taking care of house and kids for the sake of the house. So just saying how unfair it is for men to provide money while woman cutting off sex is just ignoring the part of the woman' work and that's not fair. And this applies to both genders, whoever stays home or works.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## oldgeezer (Sep 8, 2012)

Gaming Your Wife said:


> It seems like the battle is never over with lack of sex in Marriage.Just wondering if its the same all over?It just does not matter what you bring to the table nothing changes.If I am a A**hole for a week,Or a nice guy for a week,its the same.
> I have been around these boards long enough to know there is no fixing the problem.Sure you have the one's that say you need to cuddle more,Do the dishes,Listen more,forget about sex,Just hold your wife,Do the Map,Read a book,If so many here have read the book tell me the answers.As many here we are all very smart and still we can not figure the problem out. I never thought I would have to read a book to get laid.And why is it that the one who does not what sex is happier then the one that wants it?


In our case, the key to more sex, and good sex was not skills, not lists of chores, and not the "right toy" or right move. It was, in fact, mending our relationship. We had been pulling away and resisting each other for many years. 

I resented the lack of sex (as did she), and we each began shielding ourselves from our hurts - which drove us farther apart. 

Our processes of mending a relationship included a lot of introspection for both of us, and then a lot of open and very often painful conversations on various topics. 

We went from months (or even a year or more) to daily (or more). Now, admittedly, my wife got in touch with her own sexuality, as part of trying to understand her own hangups and why my behavior bothered her so bad. And I had to come to grips with why I resisted, why I was angry. And why I resorted to porn and my right hand so much. 

Yes, this level of intimacy has its ups and downs, it's joys and it's agonies, and it's not "safe" because it's easy to be hurt.. But we're going to keep on down this road, because we've tried the other way and that was a living hell for both of us. 

This may have moments of living hell, but they only interrupt a lot of being happy, and we now think "this will pass" and work on doing whatever it takes. 

The key, in our lives, was truly heartfelt commitment and communication, on both our parts. Where we say what we think instead of trying to spare each other's feelings.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

jaharthur said:


> That's an absurd comparison and diminishes the wrong done to people who are or were truly enslaved.


I'll grant you that a modern husband who is enslaved to his wife has a better life than a field hand in 1850. But what kind of word would you ascribe to a man who is obligated to labor on someone else's behalf for little or no benefit of his own? Indentured servant?


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> So how about house chores? Isn't that house wife's contribuition? So the man's money from work is contribuition, but a woman taking care of house and kids is not?


It is a contribution. It's just not the contribution the man is most interested in.

If you went to a restaurant and ordered a steak, but the waiter brought out tofu, would you feel slighted? The waiter has, certainly provided something of value. It's just not what you wanted.



lilith23 said:


> The working one that provides an income can't cut off the income for the sake of the house, just like the one that stays home can't stop taking care of house and kids for the sake of the house. So just saying how unfair it is for men to provide money while woman cutting off sex is just ignoring the part of the woman' work and that's not fair. And this applies to both genders, whoever stays home or works.


What isn't fair is for a woman to decide that vacuuming is an acceptable substitute for sex. Now, if a couple decides before marriage that sex is something that neither partner is particularly interested in, then I support the wife putting her own priorities into play.

Both sexes need to recognize their spouse's priorities and provide for their needs on that basis. My wife needs sex. And she needs to talk. But she needs to talk about 10x as much as she needs sex. It would be unfair of me to stop talking to her because I've decided that, as long as I'm satisfying her need for sex, all is well.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> It is a contribution. It's just not the contribution the man is most interested in.


So the logic here is "honey, both of us are responsible to contribute to the house in different ways, but since my main interested is sex, you should add duty sex in your list as well (in case you are not interested in sex with me for whatever reason), or it would be fair for me to just stop contributing to the house even if you still continue taking care of the house."

Also, last time I checked, women are mostly interested in emotional needs being met. And women who are marrying for money are not exactly marrying for love.
Although true, if someone decides to choose those kind of women to marry then why not? It has always been agreed on that way in those cases anyways.

Sometimes, reading some posts here makes me happy with my own marriage. Both my husband and me have emotional and sexual needs, and instead of thinking about abandoning our house contribuitions (we both work and take care of house chores by the way) whenever we felt our needs are not being met, we would choose to talk about it and be understanding with each other instead of wondering if it's fair or not fair to abandon our house responsibilities.


----------



## TryingandFrustrated (Nov 7, 2012)

techmom said:


> This. Many times the wife expresses things that are bothering her in the marriage before the sex drops off. The hubby still thinks everything is fine because there is still sex. Meanwhile the wife is not feeling listened to and understood. Which causes resentment, and will lead to the decrease in sex. This is what gets the hubby's attention. Then he comes to the forum and says, "everything is perfect except for the sex".
> 
> The lack of sex gets the attention of the hubby 99.9% of the time. I've seen this time and time again irl and on internet forums.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are correct. I think the problem then comes from the confusion from the husband after he fixes the problems or inattentiveness that the wife was complaining about and he still doesn't get the sex back. He then is left wondering what the problem really is. It may not be like this in all cases. It appears that some women then put a time frame or something in their mind to see if the man will keep this up before picking the sex back up. The guy sees this as punishment, and she sees it as "building up the trust again". This can lead to resentment on the guys part if the communication isn't good between them.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> So the logic here is "honey, both of us are responsible to contribute to the house in different ways, but since my main interested is sex, you should add duty sex in your list as well (in case you are not interested in sex with me for whatever reason), or it would be fair for me to just stop contributing to the house even if you still continue taking care of the house."


That's one way to look at it. The logic is, "We should both contribute to the marriage in ways the other finds most meaningful." It is a selfish person who disregards her husband's priorities and simply does whatever she wants.



lilith23 said:


> And women who are marrying for money are not exactly marrying for love.


Women can marry for both money and love. One of the thought experiments we use here is to suggest that you imagine your husband quits his job and devotes his life to playing video games. He refuses to make any economic contribution to the family at all. How would you react? Most women, even those who love their husbands, would react negatively.



lilith23 said:


> Sometimes, reading some posts here makes me happy with my own marriage. Both my husband and me have emotional and sexual needs, and instead of thinking about abandoning our house contribuitions (we both work and take care of house chores by the way) whenever we felt our needs are not being met, we would choose to talk about it and be understanding with each other instead of wondering if it's fair or not fair to abandon our house responsibilities.


That's wonderful. I can only hope that you treat your sexual responsibilities similarly.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> That's one way to look at it. The logic is, "We should both contribute to the marriage in ways the other finds most meaningful." It is a selfish person who disregards her husband's priorities and simply does whatever she wants.


I agree with the "We should both contribute to the marriage in ways the other finds most meaningful." logic. But then how can one assume that women's primary need is money? It's not fair to simply take assumptions like that and then assume that the husband is satisfying that need while demanding his own primary need to be satisfied.



PHTlump said:


> Women can marry for both money and love. One of the thought experiments we use here is to suggest that you imagine your husband quits his job and devotes his life to playing video games. He refuses to make any economic contribution to the family at all. How would you react? Most women, even those who love their husbands, would react negatively.


If my husband quits his job and decides to devote his life to gaming, then I would be disappointed. And why would I feel that way? Since I see it as wasting his own life as well as not sharing responsibilities.

This is not exactly about marrying for money, but rather making it possible to have a life together. I'm not looking for a rich guy (or else I wouldn't have chosen him), but rather someone with similar financial background so that we can sustain a home together. *This is not a one sided need, but both needs money to live*. And I expect both men and women to be disappointed, if there's not enough income but their partners decided to waste their own lives in gaming instead of helping to build a home together.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I agree with the "We should both contribute to the marriage in ways the other finds most meaningful." logic. But then how can one assume that women's primary need is money? It's not fair to simply take assumptions like that and then assume that the husband is satisfying that need while demanding his own primary need to be satisfied.


I'm not arguing about whether financial commitment ranks #1 or #3 on most women's list of priorities in marriage. I'm simply stating the obvious fact that women rank finances much more highly than men do. Conversely, men obviously rank sex much more highly than women do.

And it really shouldn't matter exactly where women rank money and men rank sex. What matters is that women and men try to satisfy their spouse's highest priority needs and have their spouses meet their own highest priority needs. Those marriages are successful. Marriages where people decide for themselves what needs their spouse should, or shouldn't have, are doomed.



lilith23 said:


> If my husband quits his job and decides to devote his life to gaming, then I would be disappointed. And why would I feel that way? Since I see it as wasting his own life as well as not sharing responsibilities.
> 
> This is not exactly about marrying for money, but rather making it possible to have a life together. I'm not looking for a rich guy (or else I wouldn't have chosen him), but rather someone with similar financial background so that we can sustain a home together.


Exactly. You have economic needs and you expect your spouse to try to meet your needs. Since your needs are reasonable, your expectations are also reasonable. And you would understandably be hurt if your husband decided to stop meeting your needs.

The same thing can be said for men with sex. Assuming husbands are talking about a reasonable frequency and effort for their sex lives, then it's reasonable to expect their wives to try to satisfy them. And if their wives decided to stop trying, the husbands would be hurt, disappointed, and everything you would be if your husband decided to quit meeting your needs.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump, I don't think that what we are thinking is too different, as I think that we both agree that it's important for both sides' needs to be met, whether they are financial, sexual, emotional, intellectual and so on. What I just don't agree is assuming that money is women's priority and then saying that it's not fair for men to provide money while women withhold sex. I don't agree with the last part specially coz I see men bringing home money the same as women taking care of house and kids. Also, often women's priority is on the emotional side of the marriage rather tha financial. Financial need is a need shared by both and not one sided. When it comes to sustaining the house and kids both financialy and taking care of house chores, it's a need shared by both and not exactly about who cares more about money (unless the husband does not really need money himself to survive).


----------



## Naomi22 (Dec 27, 2012)

well I am on the other side of it! I am a woman who wants sex a lot more than my husband does- and I probably feel the same frustartion that you do. It sucks, it tears apart a marriag and makes me resentful. I don;t think it is only men who deal with a lower sex drive woman- I think many women deal with lower sex drive men and it is equally as challenging for either gender to not get the sex you want and need.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> PHTlump, I don't think that what we are thinking is too different, as I think that we both agree that it's important for both sides' needs to be met, whether they are financial, sexual, emotional, intellectual and so on.


I agree.



lilith23 said:


> What I just don't agree is assuming that money is women's priority and then saying that it's not fair for men to provide money while women withhold sex.


If you're arguing that women don't tend to prioritize finances more highly than men, or that men don't prioritize sex more highly than women, then you're wrong.



lilith23 said:


> I don't agree with the last part specially coz I see men bringing home money the same as women taking care of house and kids. Also, often women's priority is on the emotional side of the marriage rather tha financial. Financial need is a need shared by both and not one sided. When it comes to sustaining the house and kids both financialy and taking care of house chores, it's a need shared by both and not exactly about who cares more about money (unless the husband does not really need money himself to survive).


This is just a rationalization to tell yourself that women's needs are more important than men's needs. That is the trap that many women, and many marriages, fall into.

You're wrong. And not just about whether a paycheck is equivalent to vacuuming. It's not. What you're most wrong about is telling yourself that your needs are more important than your husband's needs. They're not. Each partners needs are important. And it's selfish and cruel to disregard your husbands needs because you've rationalized that he doesn't really need what he thinks he needs. He actually needs what you need. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


----------



## IndyTMI (Oct 26, 2012)

I had explained to her before that there are two possible outcomes. Simply by me bringing it to her told her which outcome I was seeking, she has since indicated more than once the outcome she seeks is not the same as mine.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You're wrong. And not just about whether a paycheck is equivalent to vacuuming. It's not. What you're most wrong about is telling yourself that your needs are more important than your husband's needs. They're not. Each partners needs are important. And it's selfish and cruel to disregard your husbands needs because you've rationalized that he doesn't really need what he thinks he needs. He actually needs what you need. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


Based in which part of what I said can you assume that I was telling myself that my needs are more important than my husband's needs? If you misunderstand and/or distort what I've said like this, then there's no point in arguing.

Also, both me and my husband gives equal importance to money. We are both live beings needing to eat, clothes to wear and a home for shelter. But if a woman or a man really prioritizes money and give it utmost importance in a marriage, then she is marrying for that and not love. And that's up to anyone to choose the kind of partner they want.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> Based in which part of what I said can you assume that I was telling myself that my needs are more important than my husband's needs? If you misunderstand and/or distort what I've said like this, then there's no point in arguing.


When we're arguing about sex vs. money and you write, "Financial need is a need shared by both and not one sided," then you are implying that sexual needs are one sided. Therefore, women who withhold sex but expect their husbands to continue providing financial support aren't being selfish. They're just being more practical than their husbands. And that's all crap.



lilith23 said:


> Also, both me and my husband gives equal importance to money.


That's great. Because of that, money won't be an issue in your marriage. But you aren't typical. Most women prioritize money more than their husbands. That's what we're talking about here. Not your specific case.



lilith23 said:


> But if a woman or a man really prioritizes money and give it utmost importance in a marriage, then she is marrying for that and not love.


I disagree. I love my wife. And I want things from her. And I want to provide things for her. And she feels the same. And I don't expect us to have identical priorities. And having different priorities doesn't mean we don't love each other.


----------



## Woodchuck (Nov 1, 2012)

Gaia said:


> Ok have you tried balancing yourself out? I know it seems like reading a book is outragious.... Like things should just happen and be perfect but they arent. Have you seen if your wife is holding some sort of resentment? Taken her to the doc to rule out any medical issues?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I have yet to find a woman who dosn't harbor a nest of resentments against her husband in her busom....

It's like the kid in the movie "Christmas story" who was able to whip up a mess of tears any time the situation demanded it.

Women are able to whip up a flimsy excuse at the drop of a hat, based on these "resentments".....

I quizzed my wife about her never ending list of "NO SEX" excuses, and she told me she didn't have to have an excuse for no sex, she was her own person, and if she didn't want sex, she was not going to have sex...PERIOD...(OR NO PERIOD)...

It seems those "SUBTILE" little comments about not sleeping well, coming down with something, totally exhausted, whole body aches....Were not excuses, they were "SUBTILE" little messages she began delivering the minute she walked into the kitchen in the morning, and contunued throught the entire day that I should not even CONSIDER asking for sex that day...It can't be libido, so it must be resentment...

What gets me, is "How doe's someone know they will not want sex that night, at 8:00 AM????? I mean I could hit the lotto that afternoon and be a millionaire at bedtime....

Guys, we are playin against a stacked deck.......


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

Woodchuck said:


> I have yet to find a woman who dosn't harbor a nest of resentments against her husband in her busom....
> 
> It's like the kid in the movie "Christmas story" who was able to whip up a mess of tears any time the situation demanded it.
> 
> ...


Why can't it be libido?

To lump all women into this category just because of your marriage isn't fair to women at all. You've been around here long enough to understand that there are women who do like sex, like frequent sex and like frequent sex with their husbands. And they aren't confined to this forum or some nymphos website. Don't lump all women together because of your own bad experiences. We see women do that to men and it's not fair or correct. Don't do the same back against women.

Btw, talking about harboring resentment, I think you are the pot and your wife is the kettle...


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> When we're arguing about sex vs. money and you write, "Financial need is a need shared by both and not one sided," then you are implying that sexual needs are one sided. Therefore, women who withhold sex but expect their husbands to continue providing financial support aren't being selfish. They're just being more practical than their husbands. And that's all crap.


What's all crap is how you flawed your reasoning is. I disagreed with you saying that women's priority is money, and said that money is a need shared by both. Then just coz I said a certain need is shared by both and not one sided, you assumed that I implied that the rest of the needs are one sided and that I'm ok with the idea of one side's needs being ignored.
Disagreeing with you on what is women's priority need and the relevance of a certain need for both sides doesn't necessarily mean that I agreed that it's ok for one side's need to be forgotten and that it's ok to be selfish. But I can see how convenient it is to distort what I wrote in order to win the debate.

Also, assuming that women's priority is money is an easy way to just assume that they are the selfish ones, since you can then just conveniently assume that their needs are satisfied with husband's income but then they forget about their husband's needs. In many cases, these women's real needs are not really money but they might be as well forgotten.
It's not that women who prioritizes money over emotional bonding and or physical intimacy does not exist. But you simply can't generalize that women's priority is money and use this to say how wives are selfish since they have husband's income but not care for husband's sexual need. Doing so is unfair for many cases in which the wives' real needs are not money and how they are not being met too.

And lastly, in most of the women I know/knew in my life, if not all, prioritizes emotional needs and bonding more than money. It's ok for husbands to desperate over wives not showing affection, but don't just say "she got money so it's unfair that I don't have sex", before really understanding if their wives real needs are being truly met or not.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

kingsfan said:


> Why can't it be libido?
> 
> To lump all women into this category just because of your marriage isn't fair to women at all. You've been around here long enough to understand that there are women who do like sex, like frequent sex and like frequent sex with their husbands. And they aren't confined to this forum or some nymphos website. Don't lump all women together because of your own bad experiences. We see women do that to men and it's not fair or correct. Don't do the same back against women.
> 
> Btw, talking about harboring resentment, I think you are the pot and your wife is the kettle...


I agree with what you have said, I feel that many are just putting women in general into this or that category, instead of analyzing each case. That is unfair for both men and women, and it's not the way to really solve the issues.

Women can stop being interested in sex and even withhold it for several reasons, just like men. Couples needs to understand each other's needs and if both side's needs are being met, and if everything is really ok. Lack of libido, emotionally unsatisfied, resentment... It can be many things.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I disagreed with you saying that women's priority is money, and said that money is a need shared by both.


I have never said the men don't need money. I have said that women prioritize money more than men do. If you want to argue that point, I have no interest beyond saying that you're wrong.



lilith23 said:


> Disagreeing with you on what is women's priority need and the relevance of a certain need for both sides doesn't necessarily mean that I agreed that it's ok for one side's need to be forgotten and that it's ok to be selfish. But I can see how convenient it is to distort what I wrote in order to win the debate.


OK. You've absolutely lost me here.

It seems that you are now arguing that either;
1) Women and men place the same priorities on needs and, thus, think the same way, or
2) Women and men don't prioritize their needs at all and are content for their spouses to meet whatever needs are most convenient, or
3) I'm correct that men and women prioritize their needs differently.

It seems obvious to me that the first two of these suppositions are wrong. If you believe #3, then why are you trying to argue with me against your own belief?



lilith23 said:


> Also, assuming that women's priority is money is an easy way to just assume that they are the selfish ones, since you can then just conveniently assume that their needs are satisfied with husband's income but then they forget about their husband's needs.


I can't recall a thread on this board where men, or even a particular man, objected to meeting his wife's needs. It always seems to be women excusing other women from fulfilling their husbands' needs. That does seem more selfish to me, yes. Now, this is just my impression, so I could be wrong.

However, that is exactly how this argument started. A poster stated that the OP was fulfilling his wife's financial needs and his wife was disregarding his sexual needs. And some women took exception with the idea that women should be obligated to fulfill their husbands' sexual needs.



lilith23 said:


> It's not that women who prioritizes money over emotional bonding and or physical intimacy does not exist. But you simply can't generalize that women's priority is money and use this to say how wives are selfish since they have husband's income but not care for husband's sexual need. Doing so is unfair for many cases in which the wives' real needs are not money and how they are not being met too.


You continue to miss the point. My point is not that all women, or women in general, rank money #1 on their list of needs. My point is that women rank money higher than men do. And that men rank sex higher than women do. And that women tend to be more ready to withhold a highly prioritized need of their husbands than they are to accept their husbands withholding a highly prioritized need of theirs.

Now, you have said a few times that you agree with my underlying premise that both sexes should strive to meet the needs of their spouses to the degree that those spouses prioritize the needs. However, you've been very disagreeable on the specifics. And that is where the rubber meets the road. It's all well and good to say that women should meet their husbands' needs. But, if you turn around and argue that women should not be expected to meet their husbands' sexual needs, then you don't really believe what you claim to. You're right back to arguing that women's needs are more important than men's needs.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> It seems that you are now arguing that either;
> 1) Women and men place the same priorities on needs and, thus, think the same way, or
> 2) Women and men don't prioritize their needs at all and are content for their spouses to meet whatever needs are most convenient, or
> 3) I'm correct that men and women prioritize their needs differently.
> ...


I have already said that I don't agree with you saying that women prioritizes money and then use the logic "that wives are satisfied by husbands' income so it's not fair for them to not satisfy their own sexual needs" in a generalizing way. Not agreeing with this, as well as saying that money is a shared need doesn't imply that they can't have different needs or that it's ok for anyone's needs to be ignored.
So you can distort what I said however you want, it still doesn't change what we are agreeing and disagreeing about.



PHTlump said:


> I can't recall a thread on this board where men, or even a particular man, objected to meeting his wife's needs. It always seems to be women excusing other women from fulfilling their husbands' needs. That does seem more selfish to me, yes. Now, this is just my impression, so I could be wrong.


Huh? There are plenty women, just like plenty men complaining how their partners are not meeting their own needs. Are you now defending that wives are the only ones around who are not meeting their partners' needs?

I have been trying to explain my points of views in a fair way to both genders. But now I'm beginning to understand why are my points distorted and made seem as if the husbands are the main victims here.



PHTlump said:


> However, that is exactly how this argument started. A poster stated that the OP was fulfilling his wife's financial needs and his wife was disregarding his sexual needs. And some women took exception with the idea that women should be obligated to fulfill their husbands' sexual needs.


No one really seemed to have talked about financial needs 'till this:



sweaty teddy said:


> so the spouce who refuses intamacy but accepts a pay check is being very unfair and controling to a point.


This comment is very unfair for women in general, assuming that their needs are pay checks and then assuming that their needs are met while they refuse intimacy. There are many reasons for a person, man or woman, to refuse sex. But using such generalized logic and simply making one of the genders the victims is not fair.



sweaty teddy said:


> You continue to miss the point. My point is not that all women, or women in general, rank money #1 on their list of needs. My point is that women rank money higher than men do. And that men rank sex higher than women do. And that women tend to be more ready to withhold a highly prioritized need of their husbands than they are to accept their husbands withholding a highly prioritized need of theirs.
> 
> Now, you have said a few times that you agree with my underlying premise that both sexes should strive to meet the needs of their spouses to the degree that those spouses prioritize the needs. However, you've been very disagreeable on the specifics. And that is where the rubber meets the road. It's all well and good to say that women should meet their husbands' needs. But, if you turn around and argue that women should not be expected to meet their husbands' sexual needs, then you don't really believe what you claim to. You're right back to arguing that women's needs are more important than men's needs.


Again, distorting my points. My first paragraphs on this post should answer this. But in case you still can't understand my points, I can list them here:

money is a shared need, since both husband and wife needs money to survive (unless the wife needs much more money)
many women prioritizes other aspects of a marriage rather than money - so I disagree generalizations such as "why is it ok for women to take pay check and still not satisfy their men"
both husband and wife can have differen needs, and no one's needs are ok to be ignored, and anyone (man or woman) disregarding the partner's needs is selfish
we simply cannot generalize - both sides can whithold sex for many reasons like resentment, emotional needs not being satisfied, lack of libido, psychological problems. So that simply assuming that women's priority need is money so that they are satisfied and therefore is unfair to not satisfy their men is not only an unfair generalization, but also not not truly analyzing each couple's true issues.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

I'd just like to add that arguments and generalizations favoring one gender over another is not going to help anyone. It just gets in the way of people truly trying to analyze what truly is wrong in their marriages.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> So you can distort what I said however you want, it still doesn't change what we are agreeing and disagreeing about.


It is you who are distorting my posts. I have stated that women tend prioritize money more than men and men tend to prioritize sex more than women. You consistently ignore that fact and argue against the straw man that money is the only need for most women. I never said that. I never will say that. And I will no longer bother correcting your straw men passages implying that I have said it.



lilith23 said:


> There are plenty women, just like plenty men complaining how their partners are not meeting their own needs. Are you now defending that wives are the only ones around who are not meeting their partners' needs?


Read my words again. I haven't said that men fail to fulfill their wives' needs. I have stated that there are few or no men on this board defending the notion that men should be free from the obligation of fulfilling their wives' needs. That position seems to be exclusively feminine.



lilith23 said:


> No one really seemed to have talked about financial needs 'till ...


Yes. The sweaty teddy post introduced the concept that a wife who accepts her husband's obligation to fulfill her needs, while refusing to reciprocate, is unfair. And that very notion touched off this sh!t storm of indignant posts disagreeing.



lilith23 said:


> money is a shared need, since both husband and wife needs money to survive (unless the wife needs much more money)
> many women prioritizes other aspects of a marriage rather than money - so I disagree generalizations such as "why is it ok for women to take pay check and still not satisfy their men"
> both husband and wife can have differen needs, and no one's needs are ok to be ignored, and anyone (man or woman) disregarding the partner's needs is selfish
> we simply cannot generalize - both sides can whithold sex for many reasons like resentment, emotional needs not being satisfied, lack of libido, psychological problems. So that simply assuming that women's priority need is money so that they are satisfied and therefore is unfair to not satisfy their men is not only an unfair generalization, but also not not truly analyzing each couple's true issues.



Yes, money is a shared need. But that fact is immaterial to the discussion. Every need is a shared need. What is material is how each sex prioritizes each need.
Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from a mistaken belief that each sex can have only one priority in marriage. Many of your statements seem to imply that. I'll just say that that's wrong. Each sex can have many priorities. What is material is how each sex prioritizes each need.
We both agree wholeheartedly on the fact that both sexes should attend to the others' needs.
Yes, people can withhold from their spouses for many reasons. But that's immaterial. What is material is that one person is withholding a need from that person's spouse. If a husband came on this site arguing that he should be free from contributing to his household, would it matter whether he was lazy, or resentful, or unhappy? Or would the advice be that he should try to meet his wife's financial needs? It seems obvious to me that the advice would be that he should strive to meet his wife's needs and have her meet his. Yet, somehow, when the topic of wives and sex comes up, things get too complicated for the simple advice that women should strive to meet their husbands' sexual needs.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I'd just like to add that arguments and generalizations favoring one gender over another is not going to help anyone. It just gets in the way of people truly trying to analyze what truly is wrong in their marriages.


I disagree. Generalizations are useful. Abstaining from generalizations is tedious and pedantic. Certainly, the specifics of a certain situation are always better to be known. But that doesn't mean that generalizations can't help inform us.

Refusing to use generalizations makes conversations inordinately difficult.
Is the sky blue? It depends.
Is the grass green? We can't really say.
Are men taller than women? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
Any child asking these questions would come away without learning anything. If we agree to use generalizations, then people can learn that the sky is blue, that grass is green, and that men are taller than women.


----------



## Maneo (Dec 4, 2012)

Lilith and lump, this has turned into a fascinating debate - between the two of you. Why don't you trade barbs in private and give the discussion some air.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> It is you who are distorting my posts. I have stated that women tend prioritize money more than men and men tend to prioritize sex more than women. You consistently ignore that fact and argue against the straw man that money is the only need for most women. I never said that. I never will say that. And I will no longer bother correcting your straw men passages implying that I have said it.
> 
> 
> Read my words again. I haven't said that men fail to fulfill their wives' needs. I have stated that there are few or no men on this board defending the notion that men should be free from the obligation of fulfilling their wives' needs. That position seems to be exclusively feminine.


I'm targetting the part that you're pointing out money as the priority need, not assumed that you said it was the only need.

And you have said "It always seems to be women excusing other women from fulfilling their husbands' needs. That does seem more selfish to me, yes.", which implies that women are ok with not satisfying their men's needs. And that is an unfair assumption.



PHTlump said:


> Yes. The sweaty teddy post introduced the concept that a wife who accepts her husband's obligation to fulfill her needs, while refusing to reciprocate, is unfair. And that very notion touched off this sh!t storm of indignant posts disagreeing.


Of course what he said affected others. There are different ways to present one's point of view, and his way was not very nice nor fair.



PHTlump said:


> Yes, money is a shared need. But that fact is immaterial to the discussion. Every need is a shared need. What is material is how each sex prioritizes each need.
> Perhaps your misunderstanding comes from a mistaken belief that each sex can have only one priority in marriage. Many of your statements seem to imply that. I'll just say that that's wrong. Each sex can have many priorities. What is material is how each sex prioritizes each need.
> We both agree wholeheartedly on the fact that both sexes should attend to the others' needs.
> Yes, people can withhold from their spouses for many reasons. But that's immaterial. What is material is that one person is withholding a need from that person's spouse. If a husband came on this site arguing that he should be free from contributing to his household, would it matter whether he was lazy, or resentful, or unhappy? Or would the advice be that he should try to meet his wife's financial needs? It seems obvious to me that the advice would be that he should strive to meet his wife's needs and have her meet his. Yet, somehow, when the topic of wives and sex comes up, things get too complicated for the simple advice that women should strive to meet their husbands' sexual needs.


What I have been disagreeing is that you assume that women's priority is money and then agree that if her priority need is satisfied then she has to satisfy her husband's need. I'm not misunderstanding if you meant "priority need" or "the only need".

I'll give you an example. Let's say person A has need X as his/her priority need, and assumes that his/her partner, person B's priority need is Y. So then A continuously satisfy B with Y, and then assume that it's unfair how B is not giving X back to fulfill A's need. A then proceeds to say that B is selfish and how A is satisfying B's priority need but not having his/her priority need met by B and B does not seem to care.
But if we think about it, is B's priority need really Y? Isn' it unfair for A to just assume that he/she is satisfying B's priority needs when Y is not even B's priority need, and then assume how unfair the situation is?
And maybe B has been suffering from lack of his/her real priority need, which is Z. But A did not see that and just assumed that it was Y and that B was aready getting what needed primarily.
Of course, then there are other possibilities. What if B also got it wrong and thought A needed W? Maybe B thought that he/se was satisfying A.

Now try to see X, Y, Z and W as different kinds of needs. Financial, sexual intimacy, emotional bonds, and so on.

You see, the reason I've opposed to what sweaty teddy said is that this kind of generalization is unfair and not helping at all.



PHTlump said:


> I disagree. Generalizations are useful. Abstaining from generalizations is tedious and pedantic. Certainly, the specifics of a certain situation are always better to be known. But that doesn't mean that generalizations can't help inform us.
> 
> Refusing to use generalizations makes conversations inordinately difficult.
> Is the sky blue? It depends.
> ...


I said "generalizations favoring one gender over another". And then there are generalizations that are wrong too.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Amazingly, it seems that most of lilith's arguments boil down to generalities versus specifics. So I'll tackle her post with that in mind.



lilith23 said:


> I'm targetting the part that you're pointing out money as the priority need, not assumed that you said it was the only need.


If you're arguing that not every woman in the world prioritizes money more than her husband, then I will agree. I thought such a statement so obvious that you must have been arguing a different point. But I guess not. So I'll just say that you're correct.



lilith23 said:


> And you have said "It always seems to be women excusing other women from fulfilling their husbands' needs. That does seem more selfish to me, yes.", which implies that women are ok with not satisfying their men's needs. And that is an unfair assumption.


Again, I'm not saying that all women in the world are fine with ignoring their husbands needs. I'm simply saying that many women on this board defend that behavior in various threads. And that few or no men defend such behavior. Some might draw conclusions from observations like that. You, obviously, would not.



lilith23 said:


> Of course what he said affected others. There are different ways to present one's point of view, and his way was not very nice nor fair.


That is true. He wasn't very diplomatic. He wasn't wrong, but he wasn't diplomatic. I guess being undiplomatic is a bigger sin these days than being wrong. So, again, you're correct.



lilith23 said:


> What I have been disagreeing is that you assume that women's priority is money and then agree that if her priority need is satisfied then she has to satisfy her husband's need. I'm not misunderstanding if you meant "priority need" or "the only need".


OK. Well, you're correct again. I'm saying that, if a woman's #1 need is financial security, and her husband's #1 need is sexual satisfaction, then she would be unfair to accept her husband's financial contributions while withholding sex from him. She would be equally unfair to claim that she is being unselfish because, while her husband is meeting her #1 need, she is meeting his #12 need of doing the laundry, or that her #1 need is actually a "shared" need, so it should be given special consideration.



lilith23 said:


> But if we think about it, is B's priority need really Y? Isn' it unfair for A to just assume that he/she is satisfying B's priority needs when Y is not even B's priority need, and then assume how unfair the situation is?


If you want to argue generalities, which I was doing, then no. Most reasonable people can agree that women place more importance on emotional bonding than men do. If you want to argue specifics, which you were doing, then you are correct again. We can never know anything because everyone is a snowflake.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

sweaty teddy said:


> with all that said threre are no reasons to comunicate that nothing is wrong when something is wrong. if a spouce comes to their wife/husband and they ask whats wrong we dont seem to be having sex any more then they should be honest and tell them whats up. .....well I'm not in the mood because of this or that. some of the reasons might even be from some misscomunications or missunderstanding.
> 
> so the spouce who refuses intamacy but accepts a pay check is being very unfair and controling to a point.
> 
> there unhappy but not enough to leave or to selfish to leave or stupid to comunicate what bothering them with the relationship.


I think you should read Jane's excellent post again. 

I know you are saying this out of frustration but there is usually a hint of what you really believe there. If you equate a paycheck with sex in your marriage then you may be ignoring relationship problems because you think that a paycheck cancels everything all other consideration except sex. 

I think marital sex is an intimate, mutually enjoyable relationship confirming activity between two people who love each other. It also takes place against a background of mutual meeting of needs on the part of both partners. Each persons needs have the same value. Sex does not occupy a special ceregory that needs to happen no matter how poorly other needs are being met. 

Where does this notion that a man's salary is adequate compensation to his wife for sex? Does that mean by virture of taking up residence in a man's home sex is expected no matter how a woman is treated? That seems rather archaic, no. At lest it is simplistic and not how human relationships work. 

Your wife may not see that she incurs a debit with each paycheck if you are not sexually satisfied. She may think you have gotten more than your money's worth. 

You might do better thinking about the relationship holistically. Your check is spent for the necessities that would accrue if she were there or not. Working to support a family is in itself it's own reward and i assume that you take the responsibility seriously to keep a roof over your head and your children's head. 

Your relationship with your wife is an exchange of satisfactions - mutual meeting of needs. It cannot be measured by coinage. 

I think Jane's point was that many men ignore problems as long as the sex is good. They may ignore their wife's request, trivialize conflict, or refuse to communicate. When the wife gets fed up and loses the desire to have sex with a person who is not meeting her needs then there is a problem. 

Many time the talk is just about sex as if it is the primary problem. The real problems are frequently avoided or continue to be trivialized. Or they are considered hoops that a man must walk through.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Woodchuck (Nov 1, 2012)

kingsfan said:


> Why can't it be libido?
> 
> To lump all women into this category just because of your marriage isn't fair to women at all. You've been around here long enough to understand that there are women who do like sex, like frequent sex and like frequent sex with their husbands. And they aren't confined to this forum or some nymphos website. Don't lump all women together because of your own bad experiences. We see women do that to men and it's not fair or correct. Don't do the same back against women.
> 
> Btw, talking about harboring resentment, I think you are the pot and your wife is the kettle...


It can't be libido because libido fluctuates, while resentment is a constant. 

As far as my resentment, I only quote the obvious, and in my marriage, I absolutely NEVER carry a grudge. I am a forgiving person by nature, however my wife can actually be in full battle mode, skip a day, and come back rip snorting the next without missing a lick...I could never master this level of grudge holding....I hold one resentment over our 47 years of marriage....

It was August 22, 1966, the Beatles were performing at Busch stadium in St. Louis. I had 2 tickets. 

We had been married about 7 months, and she was pregnant, and used it as an excuse NOT to go.....She did not FEEL bad, she was worried about how she LOOKED. And made it clear that only an a$$hole would leave his pregnant wife with her mom, and drive 4 miles away just to see the BEATLES. ....

yaa yaa yaa.... 

just a little bit of resentment there.....On the other hand if it had been ELVIS......

To rub it in, I took my brother and his gf to the stadium, stayed with my wife at the mil's house, and picked them up after the concert, and his old gf still has my 2 unused tickets.......


----------



## techmom (Oct 22, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> I think you should read Jane's excellent post again.
> 
> I know you are saying this out of frustration but there is usually a hint of what you really believe there. If you equate a paycheck with sex in your marriage then you may be ignoring relationship problems because you think that a paycheck cancels everything all other consideration except sex.
> 
> ...


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:

If the marriage is bad from the wife's point of view and the couple is still having sex, would the husband notice? Would he notice if she was silently stewing? I have friends who were in bad relationships but still had sex with the guy, meanwhile planning their escape. Some women still give good sex to keep the peace, pulling the wool over his eyes until the final moment when they walk out of the door.

Most sexless marriages, in my opinion, are caused by resentments from issues that the wife had told the hubby previously but was ignored because the sex was still good. When the sex dropped off, the guy became angry, the wife's resentment builds more because then she says, "You just notice the sex, nothing else matters but the sex". This is where that phrase comes from. 

This is why some wives feel like the only thing that matters to their hubby is the sex, because that is the only thing the hubby notices when it drops off.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Amazingly, it seems that most of lilith's arguments boil down to generalities versus specifics. So I'll tackle her post with that in mind..
> 
> If you're arguing that not every woman in the world prioritizes money more than her husband, then I will agree. I thought such a statement so obvious that you must have been arguing a different point. But I guess not. So I'll just say that you're correct.





PHTlump said:


> If you want to argue generalities, which I was doing, then no. Most reasonable people can agree that women place more importance on emotional bonding than men do. If you want to argue specifics, which you were doing, then you are correct again. We can never know anything because everyone is a snowflake.


I'm arguing that one cannot simply apply generalizations like "women's priority need is money and so it's unfair for her to take pay check form husband while not giving him sex". Specially when this generalization is not even correct. Women tend to prioritize more emotional needs than money. If you pay attention to the online communities, you would find more women stating about their emotional needs, and rarely talk about financial needs unless they have something they should worry about (money not enough to sustain home and so on). Maybe you can find some women saying that they need to be richer to buy LV bags and so on, but that's very rare compared to women who talks about their emotional needs around the forums. 

And I think that what Catherine602 said sums it well:



Catherine602 said:


> If you equate a paycheck with sex in your marriage then you may be ignoring relationship problems because you think that a paycheck cancels everything all other consideration except sex.





PHTlump said:


> Again, I'm not saying that all women in the world are fine with ignoring their husbands needs. I'm simply saying that many women on this board defend that behavior in various threads. And that few or no men defend such behavior. Some might draw conclusions from observations like that. You, obviously, would not.


"Always" is a quite absolute word. You stated that women here in this forum always find excuses for other women ignoring their men's needs.

But now just a curiosity... Are they really excusing them? What I see is often other women commenting that there might be more serious issues behind the relationship whenever a wife withholds sex. It is not excusing, it is stating possible underlying issues that are causing the situation. Women tend to find out the underlying reasons, while men tend to present solutions. It doesn't mean that neither cares for anyone's needs not being satisfied. 



PHTlump said:


> That is true. He wasn't very diplomatic. He wasn't wrong, but he wasn't diplomatic. I guess being undiplomatic is a bigger sin these days than being wrong. So, again, you're correct.


Of course diplomacy counts. And the choice of correct words too. Can I come here and say "men are selfish and cares about sex instead of figuring out what is truly wrong with their wives"? It is very different from saying "men sometimes can't understand that there are underlying problems behind lack of sex". The first sentence is so not understanding for men, and unfair to many who does in fact care but might not know how to understand and solve the issues.



PHTlump said:


> OK. Well, you're correct again. I'm saying that, if a woman's #1 need is financial security, and her husband's #1 need is sexual satisfaction, then she would be unfair to accept her husband's financial contributions while withholding sex from him. She would be equally unfair to claim that she is being unselfish because, while her husband is meeting her #1 need, she is meeting his #12 need of doing the laundry, or that her #1 need is actually a "shared" need, so it should be given special consideration.


There's a difference between putting an "if" in your sentence and not using it, which is a matter of generalizing or being specific. With an "if", like in this sentence now, makes the logic about specific cases where women do prioritize money. Without the "if", like your previous sentences in your previous posts, makes the logic generalized and that is not fair nor correct.


----------



## Phenix70 (May 6, 2012)

norajane said:


> Before coming to TAM, I had no idea there were so many people with problems with lack of sex in their marriages. The only times I have had a decreased interest in sex is when there were other issues in the relationship that created a lack of interest (resentment, major disagreements, feeling neglected, etc.) OR I had lost attraction to the guy.
> 
> I have a hard time believing the "our marriage is perfect except she won't have sex with me". I doubt that.
> 
> ...


I think you're right & by that time, whatever was the original cause for the downturn in sex, has been lost in all the other turmoil in the relationship.
I equate the health of your marriage, to your own physical well being.
When you notice that something isn't right, you go to the doctor for a check up, just to make sure things are okay.
Also, if you have a gaping wound, you go in & have it tended to by a professional, you don't just stick a band-aid on it at home & hope for the best.
Waiting until gangrene has set in isn't the healthiest thing to do & could very well cost you a limb or your life, this same thought process should be applied to your own marriage.
If you wait until there's no sex, you probably missed out on what caused the lack of sex to begin with.
That's why communication is key & part of effective communication is active listening, you have to listen to what your spouse is saying to you.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> Women tend to prioritize more emotional needs than money.


You're seriously going to pitch a 50 post hissy-fit about generalizations and then make one yourself? Snowflakes, remember? What we can say about women, that women won't object to, is ... nothing!

Women don't tend to prioritize anything more than anybody else. We're all snowflakes. Snowflakes, damnit!!!


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> You're seriously going to pitch a 50 post hissy-fit about generalizations and then make one yourself? Snowflakes, remember? What we can say about women, that women won't object to, is ... nothing!
> 
> Women don't tend to prioritize anything more than anybody else. We're all snowflakes. Snowflakes, damnit!!!


I've targeted your generalization coz it is not correct and even unfair, not coz it was just a generalization. And yet you threw another generalization that is unfair for women, with "What we can say about women, that women won't object to, is ... nothing!".

Well, what can we say to guys who uses generalizations in order to victimize their own gender? Nothing.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

PHTlump said:


> Amazingly, it seems that most of lilith's arguments boil down to generalities versus specifics. So I'll tackle her post with that in mind.
> 
> 
> If you're arguing that not every woman in the world prioritizes money more than her husband, then I will agree. I thought such a statement so obvious that you must have been arguing a different point. But I guess not. So I'll just say that you're correct.
> ...


What! Spurious arguments indeed. 

Do you really think that when a man provides finacial security to his family that he gets sex from his wife in recompense? Even a business deal is more complicated than that. 

Well I will redouble my efforts to make sure my daughter is well educated, has a career and pursues it. She is too precious to be at the mercy of a man looking for a home piece. I want her to have the freedom to pass up those gems of humanity. 

Are you sure that men, think this way? I wonder if there is any association between a man's sexual satisfaction and the exchange attitude. 

Humans being what they are, a woman married to such a man may protest with her body. Disagree by saying no. What is he going to do? Cheat, divorce? 

Those treats to the relationship are there whether a woman has sex or not so that gains no traction. Should he walk away and refuse to support his family because he is not getting compensated adequately? Throw his wife into the street? Use corporal punishment. 

If women had no leverage in our culture, all of the above would be possible. But that is not the case. 

We are right back where we started - operating at cross purposes. 

I am being hyperbolic but remember we are talking about two human beings with free will and options. I think it is safer to regard sex as an intimate exchange with all the complexities that any human exchange brings.

You are an expert on men - do men feel that is too complicated? Should it be simple - have sex I paid for you.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I've read plenty of stories on this site. I see similar stories all the time. I haven't read all of this thread, but I wanted to write this before I forgot. I apologize if it was covered already.

Is it possible the LD partner does not know what is wrong? Is it possible they think there is nothing wrong? 

There are different answers for each of these questions if looked at separately and alone, which is how I thought best to look at them.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I've targeted your generalization coz it is not correct and even unfair, not coz it was just a generalization. And yet you threw another generalization that is unfair for women, with "What we can say about women, that women won't object to, is ... nothing!".
> 
> Well, what can we say to guys who uses generalizations in order to victimize their own gender? Nothing.


You don't get it yet? 

Only men can make generalizations about woman. I am not sure why but it may be a throw back to 50 yrs ago. Men were the normative by which women were measured. 

We seem to come up short more often than not. In this belief system, we are incapable of any authoritative pronouncement about men. Well that's what men think. 

There I made a generization too so there.


----------



## kingsfan (Jun 4, 2012)

Woodchuck said:


> It can't be libido because libido fluctuates, while resentment is a constant.


It can also change as we age, have health issues, etc. Libido is not constant and if you've had a partner who had a consistent libido for 40+ years, consider yourself lucky.



Woodchuck said:


> As far as my resentment, I only quote the obvious, and in my marriage, I absolutely NEVER carry a grudge. I am a forgiving person by nature, however my wife can actually be in full battle mode, skip a day, and come back rip snorting the next without missing a lick...I could never master this level of grudge holding....


Try rereading some of your past posts. If you talk to your wife the same way you post on these boards, I'd definately beg to differ on your statement above.



Woodchuck said:


> I hold one resentment over our 47 years of marriage....
> 
> *It was August 22, 1966, *


But when I hold resentment, I do so for 46 years and counting...



techmom said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:
> 
> If the marriage is bad from the wife's point of view and the couple is still having sex, would the husband notice? Would he notice if she was silently stewing?


If you marry someone who will communicate with you and listen to what you have to say, then yes, he would. We tend to agree here that communication and the ability to have open, honest dialogue about everything in a marriage is the key to its survival. If you have that, you won't need to silently stew and you can tell your husband what is on your mind, and in return he can try to fix it.

Needing to pull the plug on your marital sex life in order to get your point across speaks to deeper issues in the marriage than the health of the sex life itself.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

2ntnuf said:


> I've read plenty of stories on this site. I see similar stories all the time. I haven't read all of this thread, but I wanted to write this before I forgot. I apologize if it was covered already.
> 
> Is it possible the LD partner does not know what is wrong? Is it possible they think there is nothing wrong?
> 
> There are different answers for each of these questions if looked at separately and alone, which is how I thought best to look at them.


Yes read Simply Amorous posts about the difference in her understanding about sex early in her marriage and her understanding now. 

I only realized what sex in a LTR meant for men by reading books and post here on this site. 

Nothing anyone told me would have convinced me that there was an emotional component associated with sex when a man falls in love. I would not have believed my husband if he told me. 

I had to learn it and believe it myself. Then I asked my husband. 

You have to understand that we don't learn about the nature of mature sex and love in sex education. 

Do most women know how men mature sexually and what that means in their attitude towards sex? I don't think so but I could be wrong. 

I think you are asking how to get your partner to understand how she is hurting you emotionally by refusing sex. 

The only way I know of is exposure to information. Nothing you say will convience her. She may think it is self serving - like the teen boys trying to get sex. 

She has to be motivated to learn. Motivation can be negative or positive. A sense of impending separation and divorce, uncertainty, a feeling of love, competition. 

I was motivated because I was unhappy and I did not understand my husband. I felt he loved me but I could not decode his behavior. 

Researching, reading and learning is my accustomed way of solving problems. How does your wife handle problems?


----------



## Kermitty (Dec 27, 2012)

I think you should print out this post and have her read it. Should certainly make for an interesting conversation at the very least...


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

quote: How does your wife handle problems?



Adultery, lies, deception, separation and finally, divorce. It takes a world of courage to work through issues. Each party needs to understand the other. This can't be done when others are intimately(not necessarily sex) are involved.


quote: I was motivated because I was unhappy and I did not understand my husband. I felt he loved me but I could not decode his behavior. 


Good for you. I think it is easier to find a satisfactory sex life than it is to find a compatible partner for a relationship. If you have the second, the first is well worth the time and effort. Obviously, satisfying sex was there in the beginning or you wouldn't have gotten married. Unless there was something that changed physically about one partner or the other, I can't see giving up too quickly. 

Thanks for your response.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

lilith23 said:


> I've targeted your generalization coz it is not correct and even unfair, not coz it was just a generalization.


Ah! Well, in that case, you're wrong. Accounting for snowflakes, on average, women obviously care about money more than men do. And men care about sex more than women do. Arguing otherwise is just foolish. And I'm at a complete loss how you can argue that the fact that men and women value different things is unfair. If that's what you think is unfair, then life will be downright cruel to you.



lilith23 said:


> And yet you threw another generalization that is unfair for women, with "What we can say about women, that women won't object to, is ... nothing!".


You'll have to pardon me. I'm new to the whole snowflake mindset. I would have changed my statement acknowledging that only you object to generalizations, but you seem to only object to generalizations that don't agree with your biases. Although that generalization could be wrong. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with you as a snowflake.


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> Do you really think that when a man provides finacial security to his family that he gets sex from his wife in recompense? Even a business deal is more complicated than that.


I believe that a man who satisfies his wife's needs should expect her to satisfy his as well, yes. I know that is a very unpopular position, but there it is.



Catherine602 said:


> Well I will redouble my efforts to make sure my daughter is well educated, has a career and pursues it. She is too precious to be at the mercy of a man looking for a home piece. I want her to have the freedom to pass up those gems of humanity.


Absolutely. Any woman incapable of meeting another's needs should never marry.



Catherine602 said:


> Are you sure that men, think this way? I wonder if there is any association between a man's sexual satisfaction and the exchange attitude.


Not all men think this way. Many men believe that marriage exists so a man can serve his wife with no expectation of reciprocity. Perhaps you should encourage your daughter to marry such a man. Some other men believe that marriage exists for a woman to serve as a slave to a man. The happiest men view marriage as I do. A mutually beneficial arrangement where each party is obligated to the other.



Catherine602 said:


> Humans being what they are, a woman married to such a man may protest with her body. Disagree by saying no. What is he going to do? Cheat, divorce?


Perhaps. When one spouse disregards the needs of the other, the marriage is in trouble. Whether that trouble manifests in quiet resentment, adultery, divorce, or something else is unpredictable.



Catherine602 said:


> I am being hyperbolic but remember we are talking about two human beings with free will and options. I think it is safer to regard sex as an intimate exchange with all the complexities that any human exchange brings.


You are correct. Sex within marriage is an exchange. It should be mutually beneficial. If it's not, the marriage will suffer. But saying so is obviously objectionable. The contract must remain covert or it loses all its magic (for some).



Catherine602 said:


> Should it be simple - have sex I paid for you.


It's more like, "If I meet your needs, you should meet mine." That's my basic belief on marriage. And it meets with great disapproval from many women. I think any woman who views mutual reciprocity in marriage as a crime against women is destined to be unhappy.


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> I think you should read Jane's excellent post again.
> 
> I know you are saying this out of frustration but there is usually a hint of what you really believe there. If you equate a paycheck with sex in your marriage then you may be ignoring relationship problems because you think that a paycheck cancels everything all other consideration except sex.
> 
> ...


I'm one of those women that brought up "relationship problems" and wanting to have certain needs met. I tried many different approaches.

However, I was also one of the higher drive women, and didn't draw a line in the sand between needs and sex. Meaning that I still initiated and gave intimacy on a regular basis. Or tried to, based on his self-expressed "low drive".

But eventually, resentment led to zero desire. Only when I refused all forms of intimacy, repeatedly and consistently ignored sexual advances, did he even begin to "clue in" that I had given up and things were over. Months of sleeping in separate bedrooms didn't do it. Counselling didn't do it. 

Except the point to saying no has not been to 'punish' or force an issue. It's truly just dead, for me. I have zero interest in trying to repair anything. Thus, I have zero interest in giving of myself to someone who cannot take the time and effort to do simple things like meet my needs in my love language. 

Long version of the problems start outside the bedroom. 
The result isn't pretty.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump said:


> Ah! Well, in that case, you're wrong. Accounting for snowflakes, on average, women obviously care about money more than men do. And men care about sex more than women do. Arguing otherwise is just foolish. And I'm at a complete loss how you can argue that the fact that men and women value different things is unfair. If that's what you think is unfair, then life will be downright cruel to you.
> 
> 
> You'll have to pardon me. I'm new to the whole snowflake mindset. I would have changed my statement acknowledging that only you object to generalizations, but you seem to only object to generalizations that don't agree with your biases. Although that generalization could be wrong. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with you as a snowflake.


It's not about arguing to whom each priority is more important, but rather how you are implying that women's priority is money, and then use it to support your logic of "I've paid you so it's unfair for you to not give me sex".

And I'm objecting your generalization coz you are using it to support an unfair logic.

And by the way, I don't know what's this snowflake thing means.


----------



## lilith23 (Sep 6, 2012)

PHTlump, you also fail to see Catherine602's point.

I have seen none here disagreeing with the idea that marriage should be satisfying for both sides. It's just your generalization that women's priority need is money and your logic of "I've paid you so it's just fair to give me sex" that we are disagreeing with. If you fail to understand why, then you might really lack of understanding about women. At least a few men here in this topic are more knowledgeable and acknowledges that lack of sex is often about deeper issues in the marriage and lack of communication, and not simply jump to logics like "I've paid for you so it's not fair for not giving me sex".


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

deejov said:


> I'm one of those women that brought up "relationship problems" and wanting to have certain needs met. I tried many different approaches.
> 
> However, I was also one of the higher drive women, and didn't draw a line in the sand between needs and sex. Meaning that I still initiated and gave intimacy on a regular basis. Or tried to, based on his self-expressed "low drive".
> 
> ...


Yea yea I get all that but is he supporting you? Working bringing in a paycheck? I mean, are you sleeping and eating in a home that he pays for?


----------



## deejov (Sep 24, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> Yea yea I get all that but is he supporting you? Working bringing in a paycheck? I mean, are you sleeping and eating in a home that he pays for?


Not really. We are supposed to be splitting all the costs, he's usually short on his end, and so I pay "most" of the house costs.
And I also do all the housework and laundry, shopping.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> I think marital sex is an intimate, mutually enjoyable relationship confirming activity between two people who love each other. It also takes place against a background of mutual meeting of needs on the part of both partners. Each persons needs have the same value. Sex does not occupy a special ceregory that needs to happen no matter how poorly other needs are being met.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have to say that as much as I liked the rest of your post, this one part bothered me. It seems to put sex on some special pedestal. I agree it is not so special that it needs to happen under any circumstances. But it is also not so special that it should only happen when all other needs have been fully met. I don't think that is what you intended, but it certainly comes across that way.

It also seems to ignore that for many men, sex is a need within the marriage and in fact an important one. For many men, having sex is part of a mutual meeting of the needs, not something that occurs afterwards.


----------

