# Any Gentlemen Here Who Don't Believe In "Working" For Sex?



## jaquen

As to not hijack any of the other many threads that are about helping guys do all they can do to "get" their wives to sleep with them, I created this one.

I have to know...

Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?

Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"? 

I'm still floored by the amount of people who are flying to the moon, and back, just to warm up coldfish. It's not in my DNA to think that way at all. If you don't want to be here as much as I do, if we're not in this thing together as mutually attracted, sexually excited people, then bye bye.

Am I the only one?


----------



## SpinDaddy

Ahhh, that’d be the “Talk about Divorce and Separation” section – No?


----------



## Deejo

jaquen said:


> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?


Now see, MOST guys that initially start out on the 'Man Up' journey start with the notion that by firming up their boundaries, modifying their behavior, and working on themselves that this will win back their disinterested spouse and lead to more and better sex. 

Nothing you, or I could say is EVER going to change that perception. These are usually men that love their wives more than they love themselves. I know. I was one.

The fact of the matter is that the goal is to enable those men, to have the courage, confidence and self-respect to say those very words you laid out above.

And if it isn't in one's DNA, then they have to be taught it, or learn it for themselves. Pure and simple. The road to getting there, enables a guy to test-drive some behavioral stuff, that is basically designed to rule out whether your wife and you have simply lost your way in working at the marriage, or, if she in fact wants nothing to do with what you have to offer.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm not a guy...but it's such a juicy topic I can't help myself!

I don't think anyone should "work" for sex.I think a healthy sex life should come along with being in a healthy relationship with a person who is right for you.

When I was with my SO I wanted him all the time.he never did anything that could be considered "work". He loved me,shared his life with me,and spent time with me. He gave me exactly what I gave him in the relationship.

We had sex every day but I will tell you that if he did something for me like run a hot bath we'd do it twice that day

I think if people learned how to communicate with each other like mature adults,their sex life wouldn't be pushed into non-existence by resentment,passive aggression,and simmering anger.


----------



## Entropy3000

Is there no one else?

Indeed you are the only one. 

But then again I personally approach everything in life that has value to me with obsessive fervor. I am passionate about things. Always wanting to be the better me. I want the best and most passionate marriage I can have.  It is how I know I am alive. For those in the extreme though indeed it is unsettling. Most just need some guidance. I do love my wife more then myself. That would change if she were to be unfaithful however. But yes if I had to sacrifice myself to save her I would. So far I have not had to but I have put myself in harms way for her. That said, I do not work for sex, but rather put my efforts into passion.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

jaquen said:


> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?


I was getting to that point. But I needed to get back to being happy with what I am.

Because until I reached that point, how could I expect her to like what I did not?


----------



## costa200

> Any Gentlemen Here Who Don't Believe In "Working" For Sex?


I never "work" for sex. Sex isn't a reward. Sex is something we both enjoy doing and i expect to have it without jumping hoops.


----------



## Jerry Maine

jaquen said:


> Am I the only one?


He'll no. 

My wife knows the score
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## east2west

The problem is that you have to be ready to leave her to pull such a stunt, and most of the men in this position are not. Otherwise she just calls your bluff and wants you even less.

It's almost always better to try to alpha up, with the last and final step being an ultimatum as you described. If it doesn't attract your wife, it will prepare you for being single and dating again.


----------



## Tigerman

The idea of working for sex (intimacy,etc) used to make sense to me at a certain level because of some screwed up ideas I had about women and relationships, and because I have a mindset that is strongly directed toward believing that I can rationally analyze and solve every single problem I encounter. While I haven't thoroughly purged all that stuff, I'm much more oriented toward a way of thinking that's something like "I'm going to be the best version of myself that I can be because that's good for me. Hopefully, being that best version of me turns on my wife. However, if she's so locked up in the mental attic, so preoccupied with resentments based on the past, just not into the real me, or whatever, there's nothing I can or will do that deviates from me being the best version of me to try to win her over. Any such effort is highly unlikely to work and even if it did, that would be inauthentic and not worth it. If I get my act together and my wife doesn't respond (after some reasonable period of time for her to adjust, believe, and so forth), there is sure to be a quality woman or two out there who will respond."

So, unless the sort of work involved in "working for sex" is work done on improving myself, I don't at all believe in working for sex.


----------



## Amplexor

I fell into that trap a few years ago. I remember thinking what in the hell am I doing wrong. I cook, clean, shuttle kids..... the problem is these are things (acts of service) that don't really have an impact on my wife and I am sure she didn't associate it with a Pavlovian response. I looked at my acts and the escalating drop off in sex as a tally board, and over time I fixated on this aspect, grew resentful and disconnected from the marriage. So did she. Through our R, we have struggled with HD/LD all along but what I have learned is that the best way for us to keep things in sync is to make my expectations known. Not an ultimatum throw down but a simple, these are my needs. On the flip, I make sure I understand hers and make sure we spend quality time together. My wife and I believe most women need an emotional connection to desire sex with their men. Pushing a vacuum around the living room for the hopes of sex is not foreplay, it's servitude. And when most woman recognizes it for that, they will look at the male as needy. We have always shared duties but I still do the same amount of housework as before. But not for reward, I do it because I have pride in my home and so does she. She appreciates my work for what it is. Likewise I don't take her to dinner in hopes of getting laid later that evening. I do it for her company and conversation and that is what turns her on, not the money I'm willing to spend on her. Understanding each others needs is what helps keep things in balance. Foreplay for my wife starts in the head, long before I slip my hand up her blouse.


----------



## AFEH

Sometimes the only way you get to know it’s coldfish is, well by flying to the moon and back. Doesn’t just happen over night.


But even those like me whose wife never said no in over 40 years actually “work for sex”.


A woman is highly unlikely to give of her sex to a man she doesn’t respect or appreciate. A man who has more feminine traits than masculine etc. etc. A man who hasn’t looked after himself and who’s maybe even become obese. A man who does not make sex exciting, variable and passionate. And seemingly most certainly not a man who more or less begs her for it.


But she will undoubtedly give of her sex to a man who is a good and consistent provider and protector, who cares for her when she’s ill, who’s thoughtful, passionate and considerate, who goes out of his way to make sex exciting.

A woman will give of her sex to the man she wants to keep in her life. I think it’s one of the main reasons she does. My wife actually believed that sex was a cornerstone of our marriage, one of its very foundations and I was truly blessed because of it.


I worked for sex for 42 years with my wife and got it any day I wanted. Any man who says he doesn’t work for it is in my mind fooling himself.

It does undoubtedly take work. Being a good and consistent provider, nursing her when ill, helping her parents when in need. Being her source of safety and security, her reliable companion. Helping her through her grieving, being there for her. Enabling her to do what she wants to do. So much work yet so very much reward when you get it right.

But you do need a wife who actually enjoys sex, a wife who believes sex is one of the most basic foundations of a marriage and a wife who will not under any circumstances use her sex as a weapon of some kind or other.

It sure does take two to tango.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

I wouldn't be in a relationship with a woman who wasn't as passionate about sex with me as I am with her. I shake my head at threads that read something to the effect "our relationship is perfect except for the sex". Well then no...your relationship is not perfect (unless of course neither one of you are interested in it). 

Sex is one part of a healthy adult relationship. Without it is like a chair that's missing a leg. You can make it work but you're going to spend more energy trying to balance it than you'll save by sitting in it. 

Sex is not something people should engage in as a reward or because of duty or one side is afraid of losing the other. Sex is something couples should engage in because it feels good to both, they trust each other and it helps them to feel closer to one another. 

My thinking is if you're having sex problems...you're having relationship problems. Don't sweep the issue under the rug. Deal with it the moment it rears its head. Long standing patterns are very hard to break.


----------



## Chris Taylor

You don't work for sex. You work to make a relationship strong and loving. If you do that, sex usually follows.

If it doesn't, stop working on the relationship.


----------



## Memento

jaquen said:


> As to not hijack any of the other many threads that are about helping guys do all they can do to "get" their wives to sleep with them, I created this one.
> 
> I have to know...
> 
> Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?
> 
> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?
> 
> I'm still floored by the amount of people who are flying to the moon, and back, just to warm up coldfish. It's not in my DNA to think that way at all. If you don't want to be here as much as I do, if we're not in this thing together as mutually attracted, sexually excited people, then bye bye.
> 
> Am I the only one?



No, you are far from being the only one.
But different people have different weakness and strengths. The majority of men that writes about those issues you mentioned, suffer from chronic "Mr Nice Guy" Syndrome. Whilst they love their wives deeply, they resent them, with the same intensity, for being sexually unavailable and emotionally distant.


----------



## southern wife

Amplexor said:


> Foreplay for my wife starts in the head, long before I slip my hand up her blouse.


This is me as well. Start with my mind and the rest of me will be like jello in your hands!


----------



## zookeeper

Chris Taylor said:


> You don't work for sex. You work to make a relationship strong and loving. If you do that, sex usually follows.
> 
> If it doesn't, stop working on the relationship.


Exactamundo.


----------



## CharlieParker

I never had to jump through hoops for sex, I expected it and she expected it, it was great. About a month ago I got a nasty surprise. In discussing it I did have to say "something [primarily the sex I thought] is broken between us, we need to fix it, and fast, or we are done". I think that helped as it really brought home the seriousness of the situation. The problem was 50/50 me/her and 50/50 inside/outside the bedroom.



Amplexor said:


> Pushing a vacuum around the living room for the hopes of sex is not foreplay, it's servitude.


Very true but made me laugh.


----------



## Stonewall

She has never said no!


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

My wife has made it very clear that her "love language" is acts of service. And not any old act of service but home remodeling activities are what makes her feel loved. I think she may have a compulsive need problem (I have an old thread around regarding my confusion over this) but she says it's her love language and I will take her at her word. 

I have always been clear and present in asserting that my love language is sex. If we are loving, we are sexing and that's all there is to it. Love is love is love is sex. No other way to it, I have a one track mind. But we have a serious drive difference like every other day compared to every other week. After my love tank is filled, in 48 hours it will run out.

So when my needs are getting met, I couldn't be happier and if she asks for some project to be done, I jump right in because I know it makes her feel loved and I know she sure does make me feel loved. If that's working for sex, then that's exactly what I do.

Now Friday nights are my favorite time for intimacy. It really sets me right after and long and arduous week and it's just always been my preference since I first became sexually active. My wife, on the other hand, is totally emotionally messed up on Friday nights. This goes back to her childhood where her father came home dead drunk every Friday night and either passed out, stumbled around and broke things or got in major fights with her mom. Obviously, Friday night sets the tone for the weekend and having a full time job, I can only do home remodeling work on the weekends, so I pretty much get what I want so she can get what she wants. So my question is, is my wife sexing for work?


----------



## Amplexor

Ten_year_hubby said:


> So when my needs are getting met, I couldn't be happier and if she asks for some project to be done, I jump right in because I know it makes her feel loved and I know she sure does make me feel loved. If that's working for sex, then that's exactly what I do


Not at all, that is communication and understanding at it's best. 5LL has a great impact on a marriages health, hence I used the terms "acts of service" and "quality time" in my post. You use AOS to keep balance and your wife happy, just as I do with QT. It's not working for sex, its honoring your spouses needs.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Yeah, I picked up on that in your post. It seems to have worked out really well for us since we both have very well defined needs


----------



## MEM2020

Bob
All very true


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> Is there no one else?
> 
> Indeed you are the only one.
> 
> But then again I personally approach everything in life that has value to me with obsessive fervor. I am passionate about things. Always wanting to be the better me. I want the best and most passionate marriage I can have. It is how I know I am alive. For those in the extreme though indeed it is unsettling. Most just need some guidance. I do love my wife more then myself. That would change if she were to be unfaithful however. But yes if I had to sacrifice myself to save her I would. So far I have not had to but I have put myself in harms way for her. That said, I do not work for sex, but rather put my efforts into passion.


I like that,it's a good way to think


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Chris Taylor said:


> You don't work for sex. You work to make a relationship strong and loving. If you do that, sex usually follows.
> 
> If it doesn't, stop working on the relationship.


Smart man.:smthumbup:


----------



## Funcool32

Wow, I must be doing something wrong. I've read many comments like "you need to remain attractive to your wife". I believe I've done that. Gym 5 times per week (not for her admittedly, I was doing it long before meeting her). We share the housework, because I too am proud about the cleanliness of my home. I talk to her a lot and tell her I love her often enough (not too often as I'm just not that type of guy). I'm manly and do all the things manly men do. So I'm still trying to work out what I'm doing wrong. She's pregnant at the moment and not at all keen for sex so I've given her space. I don't pressure her at all. But before she got pregnant I was lucky to get it once every two weeks!

I will definitely put my foot down after the pregnancy because my wife knows I am a good catch. Her friends tell her all the time! And mind you, I'm not young, I'm in my late 30's!

Thanks for the thread, I agree with your sentiments.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## east2west

Funcool32 said:


> Wow, I must be doing something wrong. I've read many comments like "you need to remain attractive to your wife". I believe I've done that. Gym 5 times per week (not for her admittedly, I was doing it long before meeting her). We share the housework, because I too am proud about the cleanliness of my home. I talk to her a lot and tell her I love her often enough (not too often as I'm just not that type of guy). I'm manly and do all the things manly men do. So I'm still trying to work out what I'm doing wrong. She's pregnant at the moment and not at all keen for sex so I've given her space. I don't pressure her at all. But before she got pregnant I was lucky to get it once every two weeks!
> 
> I will definitely put my foot down after the pregnancy because my wife knows I am a good catch. Her friends tell her all the time! And mind you, I'm not young, I'm in my late 30's!
> 
> Thanks for the thread, I agree with your sentiments.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not really about doing "manly" things like chopping wood and fixing cars. It's more about how you interact with her and assume a leadership role in overall relationship. Her friends can see you as a catch all day but if she takes you for granted or sees you as a butler/assistant in life, then then the V will be closed for business until further notice.


----------



## AFEH

Funcool32 said:


> Wow, I must be doing something wrong. I've read many comments like "you need to remain attractive to your wife". I believe I've done that. Gym 5 times per week (not for her admittedly, I was doing it long before meeting her). We share the housework, because I too am proud about the cleanliness of my home. I talk to her a lot and tell her I love her often enough (not too often as I'm just not that type of guy). I'm manly and do all the things manly men do. So I'm still trying to work out what I'm doing wrong. She's pregnant at the moment and not at all keen for sex so I've given her space. I don't pressure her at all. *But before she got pregnant I was lucky to get it once every two weeks!*
> 
> I will definitely put my foot down after the pregnancy because my wife knows I am a good catch. Her friends tell her all the time! And mind you, I'm not young, I'm in my late 30's!
> 
> Thanks for the thread, I agree with your sentiments.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think a great deal of it is to do with the chemistry that exists between the couple. Our chemistry was such that just being in one another’s company was a turn on. It’s why after our separation I wont see her because I know my resolve to stay separated will weaken.


If the sexual chemistry and energy on both sides just isn’t there then it’s always going to be hard work. Both need to be “sexual beings” to have the degree of sex we had over a very long and sustained period.


----------



## Caribbean Man

The first time I ever heard this concept of 
" doing housework/ chores for sex" is on this TAM forum.
Seriously!

I have NEVER asked any woman for sex. I have NEVER had to jump through any hoops , or all that foolishness. 
Ever since I was single, I always knew that asking for sex was a huge turn off for women. Doing stuff for sex is even worse.

The key to getting all the sex you want, when you want is keeping your wife sexually attracted to you.

I do the laundry, cook , press my own clother and sometimes hers if she's in a hurry because ,
I LOVE DOING HOUSE WORK. Even when I was single ,I loved doing it.
Now that I'm married,its part my house, my responsibility.
and even when I don't do it because I'm too busy,we still have good sex.

I'm sexually attracted to my wife, she has the hots for me and so we have sex. Whether its a sensual massage with rose petals all over the bed , sex in the shower, a quickie , Hj, BJ, whatever. 
We just keep our hands off each other.
And when we're too tired for sex, we just find comfort in each other's embrace and fall asleep.
Sex is always there.
Don't have to " be a good boy " or " work " for it.
I really can't understand what's the mysterious,
" psycho - sexual " connection between housework, chores and sex.


----------



## Faithful Wife

jaquen...I totally get what you are saying. There is kinda two sides to your point though, I think.

One side is desire for our spouse. If my husband had to work to make me desire him, HIM personally, his body, his scent, etc...he would leave me in a heart beat. I am totally attracted to him and there is no question ever that I am so. If there was a question of my attraction and desire for him personally, he would not be here. He would not even have dated me more than once if that was the case. My desire and attraction for him are a given, and vice versa. This is something that shouldn't change in the absence of major physical changes or some kind of huge problems in the marriage.

It is possible to lose attraction for each other, but only due to these kinds of changes. Otherwise, this attraction and desire is a given and doesn't need to be worked for. The "work" has already been done, by the fact that we stay attractive for each other and deliberately fulfill each other's emotional needs.

Then the second point is sex itself. I still agree that it shouldn't have to be "worked for" by either spouse. It should be built into every marriage.

BUT....yes, we do "work" to make sex funner, better, always upping any part of it we can. We "work" to make sure neither of us loses connection, to make sure we are always giving our very best game at all times. We voluntarily "work" toward our spouse's total fulfillment.

This game goes on for life. There are no limits on how good this can get. We both keep growing and expanding our wants and needs in the bedroom, and sharing those with each other so the other can make new and better changes as we grow and learn.

There is never a time when you 100% know your spouse, because he or she is always growing, like you are. Continuing to get to know your loving spouse is a joy, and can add the fuel needed to keep a marriage from becoming stagnant.

I know your point was about marriages where one spouse has to basically convince the other to have sex with them, and how this is an absurd arrangement, and I do agree with that.


----------



## sinnister

Well Im an idiot and I know it. But I finally figured out Im not going to keep banging my head against a brick wall. I'm not fighting anymore. I'm old..and I'm tired. Just so, so tired. But I'm never leaving my lil girls.


----------



## waiwera

sinnister said:


> Well Im an idiot and I know it. But I finally figured out Im not going to keep banging my head against a brick wall. I'm not fighting anymore. I'm old..and I'm tired. Just so, so tired. But I'm never leaving my lil girls.


Lil girls...is that your daughters? 

If so what happens when your lil girls grow up and leave you...at home with your wife in your empty nest?


----------



## Lyris

I don't look at having sex with my husband as doing him some kind of favour. He doesn't have to 'do' anything at all to make me want him, except be himself. The person he's always been.


----------



## RandomDude

Well I don't know mate, like I don't expect to get laid if I don't take care of myself considering the competition, so I keep fit, and I enjoy flirting naturally. Still, I don't believe in jumping through hoops, there's a line.

What I feel is, if you feel comfortable with yourself, like you have the body you want, the romantic style that suits you the best etc etc. If a woman doesn't like it - then fk it.

In the end, comes down to balance I guess.


----------



## EleGirl

No one should feel they have to work to have sex with their spouse.

However a married person (male & female) needs to realize that ya cannot be neglectful in other areas of the relationship and still expect the desire to remain strong.

I think that a lot of people misunderstand what meeting their spouses needs is about.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I have always felt it was worth doing whatever it took to get the "reward". I have been thinking about this since I read it earlier.

I agree that many do not understand what meeting their spouses needs is about. I don't think I knew what my XW needs were. I don't even remember talking about my needs and her needs. I guess I thought: food, shelter, clothing, love, etc.

Too bad really.

Edit: When I say needs I mean what is it that you need me to do so you feel loved. I thought I was doing what she needed. She initially asked me to make her respectable. I finally "officially" asked at our wedding on my knee in front of all the guests after asking her mother and reading a short story of how we met. We lived together two years with no strings attached. She had a house of her own and chose to live with me in my small apartment. WTF?? I wasn't meeting her needs? Yeah right. I think her needs changed without notice.


----------



## jaquen

So glad I made this thread. Such fascinating, varied, and intelligent lines of thought!


----------



## I Notice The Details

Amplexor said:


> I fell into that trap a few years ago. I remember thinking what in the hell am I doing wrong. I cook, clean, shuttle kids..... the problem is these are things (acts of service) that don't really have an impact on my wife and I am sure she didn't associate it with a Pavlovian response. I looked at my acts and the escalating drop off in sex as a tally board, and over time I fixated on this aspect, grew resentful and disconnected from the marriage. So did she. Through our R, we have struggled with HD/LD all along but what I have learned is that the best way for us to keep things in sync is to make my expectations known. Not an ultimatum throw down but a simple, these are my needs. On the flip, I make sure I understand hers and make sure we spend quality time together. My wife and I believe most women need an emotional connection to desire sex with their men. Pushing a vacuum around the living room for the hopes of sex is not foreplay, it's servitude. And when most woman recognizes it for that, they will look at the male as needy. We have always shared duties but I still do the same amount of housework as before. But not for reward, I do it because I have pride in my home and so does she. She appreciates my work for what it is. Likewise I don't take her to dinner in hopes of getting laid later that evening. I do it for her company and conversation and that is what turns her on, not the money I'm willing to spend on her. Understanding each others needs is what helps keep things in balance. Foreplay for my wife starts in the head, long before I slip my hand up her blouse.


This is very well said!!! I have learned over the years of my marriage that I can never change my wife's sex drive, but I can give her all of the love and attention she needs...and always continue to focus on the communication between us, both verbally and non verbally. I have let her know what my expectations and sexual needs are, and she understands me and my high sex drive. Our sex life isn't perfect, but it is pretty healthy and nurturing.

We also don't have a lot of resentment in our marriage like many couples do, but rather, a mutual love and respect for each other that has grown over the years. I think this goes back to communicating our needs and kindling the passion for each other over time. Sure it takes effort, but life is short, and she is worth it!


----------



## Lordhavok

I dont know jaquen, I guess I'm in the minority here and fixing to piss off alot of the ladies here. But no, I dont jump through hoops, dont do dishes and clothes washing. I think sex should be expected. She's hd and so am I. I didnt settle down and get married again to jerk off. She knows this as well and keeps me very well satisfied. We dont have alot of sexual issues here like alot of others do, for that, I am very thankfull and I feel sorry for the ones that do. We got a score of other problems to deal with though. I will never be in a sexless marriage again. Thats 90% of why the first marriage failed and why I cheated. Current wife knows this and I treasure her for her efforts. She's my queen


----------



## EleGirl

Lordhavok said:


> I dont know jaquen, I guess I'm in the minority here and fixing to piss off alot of the ladies here. But no, I dont jump through hoops, dont do dishes and clothes washing. I think sex should be expected. She's hd and so am I. I didnt settle down and get married again to jerk off. She knows this as well and keeps me very well satisfied. We dont have alot of sexual issues here like alot of others do, for that, I am very thankfull and I feel sorry for the ones that do. We got a score of other problems to deal with though. I will never be in a sexless marriage again. Thats 90% of why the first marriage failed and why I cheated. Current wife knows this and I treasure her for her efforts. She's my queen


There is no prescription that says doing dishes and washing clothes is the way to meet a wife’s needs. Needs differ for with every person. For example for most men sex is their first or second top need. For a HD woman, sex is probably one of their two 2 needs as well. It’s great when it works out this way.


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> I have always felt it was worth doing whatever it took to get the "reward". I have been thinking about this since I read it earlier.
> 
> I agree that many do not understand what meeting their spouses needs is about. I don't think I knew what my XW needs were. I don't even remember talking about my needs and her needs. I guess I thought: food, shelter, clothing, love, etc.
> 
> Too bad really.
> 
> Edit: When I say needs I mean what is it that you need me to do so you feel loved. I thought I was doing what she needed. She initially asked me to make her respectable. I finally "officially" asked at our wedding on my knee in front of all the guests after asking her mother and reading a short story of how we met. We lived together two years with no strings attached. She had a house of her own and chose to live with me in my small apartment. WTF?? I wasn't meeting her needs? Yeah right. I think her needs changed without notice.


Needs do change over time and with circumstances. A person should be in tune enough with their own needs to know when something has changed and to communicate it to their spouse. So often this does not get commumicated, but then they blame their spouse for not guessing that things have changed.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

EleGirl said:


> There is no prescription that says doing dishes and washing clothes is the way to meet a wife’s needs. Needs differ for with every person. For example for most men sex is their first or second top need. For a HD woman, sex is probably one of their two 2 needs as well. It’s great when it works out this way.


:iagree:


----------



## jaquen

Lordhavok said:


> I dont know jaquen, I guess I'm in the minority here and fixing to piss off alot of the ladies here. But no, I dont jump through hoops, dont do dishes and clothes washing. I think sex should be expected. She's hd and so am I. I didnt settle down and get married again to jerk off. She knows this as well and keeps me very well satisfied. We dont have alot of sexual issues here like alot of others do, for that, I am very thankfull and I feel sorry for the ones that do.


This is us. We made it perfectly clear before marriage that sex was expected, was not to be used as a form of bartering, and was to continue regardless of whatever other issues were going on in our relationship. Our connection, our sexual chemistry, or deep feelings of love, existed prior to us ever having sex, but it is a vital part of our marriage, and it's expected to continue.

Any conversations about sex, if it's waning, are a reminder that things need to pick up, and that they WILL pick up. The reasons for waning are discussed, and quickly remedied. If the dip starts happening again, we talk honestly about what's happening, and we correct it immediately. Typical dips for us are when sex gets down to once a week for too many consecutive weeks, and it's usually because of something like a body image issue, or just overall busyness/stress. Usually it's reaffirmed that we both still want sex about equally as frequently, 3-4 times a week, but we're letting other things get in the way. And since we are comfortable denying each other, sometimes it's just a case of being out of sync too many weeks in a row.

I think sex snags come up in all marriage. All married people define "enough" depending on their own unique make up. I know that for us, "once a week" is way low, but for other couples we know that would be a bunny fest. It's just about finding what way works for us. 

And for me, as a man, I can't find it in myself to live in a marriage where a woman has shut down sex, regardless of her reason (baring obviously things like abuse, or severe neglect, or physical impairment). Sex, in our marriage, just hasn't been tied to some of the things that I see around here, and in other couples in our offline life. Sex happens no matter what because we both want it. It's very tough for me to imagine being in a situation where sex is something a woman "lets" you have with her, where it's a gift, or a prize. I look at some of the situations I see around here and my blood boils, because I'm too damn stubborn, and too damn proud, and too damn sexually spoiled to put myself in the shoes of well meaning spouses who are jumping through hoops, scaling mountains, swimming all the world's seas, just to find the right combination to open up their lover's legs (this goes for men and women).

I think chronic sexual refusal is unacceptable, on par with adultery, and strong grounds for divorce.

No part of me wants to be with a woman who does not equally want to be there with me, on the same accord, lost in love and satisfying sex.


----------



## CharlieParker

:iagree:

jaquen, the whole post was spot on, and I fully agree with you. We do generally live like that.


I'll just pull the first part out.



jaquen said:


> This is us. We made it perfectly clear before marriage that sex was expected, was not to be used as a form of bartering, and was to continue regardless of whatever other issues were going on in our relationship. Our connection, our sexual chemistry, or deep feelings of love, existed prior to us ever having sex, but it is a vital part of our marriage, and it's expected to continue.


I wonder how many couples actually had that talk before marriage? We did. 

Also, how many did have the talk and didn't follow through?


----------



## Memento

sinnister said:


> Well Im an idiot and I know it. But I finally figured out Im not going to keep banging my head against a brick wall. I'm not fighting anymore. I'm old..and I'm tired. Just so, so tired. But I'm never leaving my lil girls.


How about when your girls are not so little anymore?


----------



## AFEH

I offered to pay for it on a few occasions, always got a laugh but we'd never agree on a price.


----------



## EleGirl

jaquen said:


> This is us. We made it perfectly clear before marriage that sex was expected, was not to be used as a form of bartering, and was to continue regardless of whatever other issues were going on in our relationship. Our connection, our sexual chemistry, or deep feelings of love, existed prior to us ever having sex, but it is a vital part of our marriage, and it's expected to continue.
> 
> .....


What some, those who withhold sex, do not seem to realize is that good sex improves everything in marriage. Sex = Oxytocin , the bonding hormone. I heard it called the “amnesia” hormone because it’s quite a potent drug. It causes bonding and thus seems to smooth out the emotions allowing people to be more forgiving of their spouse. Take that away and we start to see our spouse through a harsher lens. Every little thing starts to annoy.

The longer a couple goes without sex the further they grow apart. It often comes to a point where neither wants to be touched; this is especially true of women apparently. This is why once the withholding starts the marriage is usually doomed. Even if the couple stays together its usually not a very pleasant relationship for either spouse.

I too do not get withholding. If a person is at the point of wanting to withhold sex, either fix the marriage or get out.


----------



## Caribbean Man

CharlieParker said:


> :iagree:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wonder how many actually couples had that talk before marriage? We did.
> 
> Also, how many did have the talk and didn't follow through?*


^^^^^^
Ahhhhhhh!
Now,
That's the " million dollar " question.
In fact, for quite sometime I've been thinking of starting a thread dealing specifically with that.


----------



## CharlieParker

CM, please do, with poll?

And for the record, while I do speak English goodly, I did edit my post to read "couples actually".


----------



## Caribbean Man

CharlieParker said:


> CM, please do, with poll?
> 
> And for the record, while I do speak English goodly, I did edit my post to read "couples actually".


Yes.
Will do, but I need some help in structuring the questions in such a way that those who are most affected would participate, and share their experience and views.

I will probably send the OP of this thread a message .


----------



## TrustInUs

My husband doesn't have to work for sex, but he also told me that it was expected, and that I should expect it of him as well. Sex is the one area that seperates your relationship with your spouse from every other relationship you have outside the marriage.

It shouldn't be used as a reward, or withheld, but I notice that the more he is fulfilled in that area, the more he goes out of his way to meet my other needs. 

I've also noticed that when we are clicking really well and on the same page outside the bedroom, are the times when we are on a roll inside the bedroom.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Sorry for the double post.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Quote: What some, those who withhold sex, do not seem to realize is that good sex improves everything in marriage. Sex = Oxytocin , the bonding hormone. I heard it called the “amnesia” hormone because it’s quite a potent drug. It causes bonding and thus seems to smooth out the emotions allowing people to be more forgiving of their spouse. Take that away and we start to see our spouse through a harsher lens. Every little thing starts to annoy. End Quote.

_____________________________________________________________

It's so much more than this. We not only start to see our spouse differently but we are looking through colored lenses with different rules in our minds for "judging" while our partner is doing the same with us but from a completely polarizing position. I believe, there is no chance for R or even recovery if anything is added to either side of the equation.

Ele, I just had to get this out. No offense intended. It was bursting from my soul.


Edited to add: This euphoria we feel is the source of our blindness in the presence of overwhelming evidence of infidelity. When we are deeply in this euphoria and it is suddenly taken away and coupled with completely opposite responses(responses not reactions) from our SO, we are mentally broken. For some, like me, that becomes a life altering mental and emotional change which hinders personal development. Most folks can work their way through this if they have been exposed to it enough in life. I was unprepared. My lack of experience and scars from my previous marriage set me up for a massive amount of injury from their perfect storm.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

sinnister said:


> I'm not fighting anymore. I'm old..and I'm tired. Just so, so tired.


sinnister,

I would implore you, man to man, don't give up the fight. Do it for your girls. When I hear people, men and women, say "You need to fight for your marriage", this is what I hear them saying and that's what I do. Don't give up the fight


----------



## Trickster

jaquen said:


> Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?
> 
> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"


I've done all the above...I exercise every day, I cook , clean, run the vac, keep a clean shave, I've read about a dozen books on marriage, I've done the tarrot cards as well as another book called cards of your destiny by Robert Lee Camp, which breaks down compatability charts according to birthdays as to when the best time for romance would be as well as any other thing. I've spent soooo many hours here on TAM it blows my mind and guess what?????? Nothing has really changed.

I gave up...I don't care anymore. I am not even trying for sex because it is just the "duty" sex for her. Now I don't really want sex with my wife anymore!

I think I did tell my wife just that..."if you're not interested in me or attracted to be, just let me go find somebody who is!

When I said that, the sex was good for about a year. I know she was never into it at all. She just didn't want me to leave. I am just tired of the hoops.


----------



## Thundarr

It's naive to think marriage doesn't take work from both sides. That means LD spouse needs to let their HD spouse try to get them in the mood sometimes when they are not. It also means the HD spouse (which I assume OP is) has to put forth effort and not whine about having to initiate.

It's this stupid posturing that gets us in trouble where the guy (usually) thinks she married me so it's her duty and the wife (usually) thinks all he cares about it sex. In reality both side have to do a little bit of work. But then again that's one of the problems of our society now that everyone feels entitled.


----------



## BeachGuy

Already Gone said:


> I think I did tell my wife just that..."if you're not interested in me or attracted to be, just let me go find somebody who is!
> 
> When I said that, the sex was good for about a year. I know she was never into it at all. She just didn't want me to leave. I am just tired of the hoops.


I hear ya man. I told my wife the same thing a few years ago and she still didn't get it. I never "got it" either. Same as you...she just wants me to stay so she can keep her little life.

How does a person rationalize that in their mind? "I want you to stay married to me but I'm still not interested in sex with you. And you can't have it with anybody else either." Yeah, I know, it's my fault for letting it go on but how in the hell does she think I'm really supposed to be "ok" with living that way???

:banghead:


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Caribbean Man said:


> The first time I ever heard this concept of
> " doing housework/ chores for sex" is on this TAM forum.
> Seriously!


There is a very famous marriage counselor who has counseled thousands, if not tens of thousands of couples. He gives seminars and sells books and courses and is very well known and very well respected in the field. And he says point blank in his counseling to men, "men doing housework, taking care of the kids, helping your wife around the house is an aphrodisiac for women". And I have numerous women on the record offering advice to men and saying that this works for them.

However, I can say without reserve that it didn't work in my marriage and it didn't take very long to figure out that it didn't work and it was never going to work. I have my own theories on what works as well as you do but we can both agree that this doesn't work. When I was selecting material for a course I'm leading, I had to pass by this guy even though he has the big name and everyone has heard of him because I just can't present something to people that I know from personal experience is flawed


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Already Gone said:


> I gave up...I don't care anymore. I am not even trying for sex because it is just the "duty" sex for her. Now I don't really want sex with my wife anymore!
> 
> I think I did tell my wife just that..."if you're not interested in me or attracted to be, just let me go find somebody who is!


Dude, I'm going to repeat myself, don't give up the fight. Maybe this is some kind of intergalactic inter-dimensional battle between the sexes, maybe not, but you can't win if you give up so please don't


----------



## Trickster

Ten_year_hubby said:


> Dude, I'm going to repeat myself, don't give up the fight. Maybe this is some kind of intergalactic inter-dimensional battle between the sexes, maybe not, but you can't win if you give up so please don't


I don't think sex/intimacy should NOT be a battle. She should want to come sit by me when she comes in the room and not sit at the other end of the couch, she should want to dance when a good song come on the radio, it would be nice if she would touch my butt while I am cooking dinner, it would be nice if she gave me a peek at her g-string...(oh, I forgot, she doesn't have any) A sexy text would be nice sometimes.


----------



## TrustInUs

Ten_year_hubby said:


> There is a very famous marriage counselor who has counseled thousands, if not tens of thousands of couples. He gives seminars and sells books and courses and is very well known and very well respected in the field. And he says point blank in his counseling to men, "men doing housework, taking care of the kids, helping your wife around the house is an aphrodisiac for women". And I have numerous women on the record offering advice to men and saying that this works for them.


When my husband does these things I think of love and respect not sex, if that makes sense.

I love when he takes care of the kids-but it's also his responsibly (as well as mine)

I love when he helps around the house- but it's also his responsibility, it's his house as well.

I respect him for taking care of his responsibilities.

None of these things makes me think "let me jump his bones tonight"

I suspect that I'm not the only woman who feels this way, that makes me think of a reward system. But I'm sure there are women who get turned on by that.


----------



## Trickster

Just thought I needed a definition of intimacy.

I notice it is plural...Oh it says often plural. I must be in the part that is singular.

intimacy [ˈɪntɪməsɪ]
n pl -cies
1. close or warm friendship or understanding; personal relationship
2. (often plural) Euphemistic sexual relations


----------



## Thundarr

TrustInUs said:


> When my husband does these things I think of love and respect not sex, if that makes sense.
> 
> I love when he takes care of the kids-but it's also his responsibly (as well as mine)
> 
> I love when he helps around the house- but it's also his responsibility, it's his house as well.
> 
> I respect him for taking care of his responsibilities.
> 
> None of these things makes me think "let me jump his bones tonight"
> 
> I suspect that I'm not the only woman who feels this way, that makes me think of a reward system. But I'm sure there are women who get turned on by that.


I think there is a good balance here. Him helping inside and outside the house and basically taking care of his business is a solid trait of a good provider. I think some guys try to do housework expecting love and admiration but they aren't doing the other things they need to. In those cases, helping out around the house does absolutely nothing to make their wife respect them.

By the way a man spending time with his kids wheather it's fun time or just carrying them back and forth is not a chore or helping out his wife. It's part of taking care of his business.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

We have a poster on our wall at work here. I can't help but think of #1 when it comes to a topic like this.



21 Suggestions for Success

H Jackson Brown Jr

1. Marry the right person. This one decision will determine 90% of your happiness or misery.

2. Work at something you enjoy and that's worthy of your time and talent.

3. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.

4. Become the most positive and enthusiastic person you know.

5. Be forgiving of yourself and others.

6. Be generous.

7. Have a grateful heart.

8. Persistence, persistence, persistence.

9. Discipline yourself to save money on even the most modest salary.

10. Treat everyone you meet like you want to be treated.

11. Commit yourself to constant improvement.

12. Commit yourself to quality.

13. Understand that happiness is not based on possessions, power or prestige, 
but on relationships with people you love and respect.

14. Be loyal.

15. Be honest.

16. Be a self starter.

17. Be decisive even if it means you'll sometimes be wrong.

18. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for every area of your life.

19. Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things 
you didn't do more than the ones you did.

20. Take good care of those you love.

21. Don't do anything that wouldn't make your Mom proud.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Merriam-Webster says:


in·ti·ma·cy noun \ˈin-tə-mə-sē\
plural in·ti·ma·cies

Definition of INTIMACY

1
: the state of being intimate : familiarity
2
: something of a personal or private nature

I was taught that it does not have to mean sex. I was taught, first and foremost it meant a closeness which includes the sharing of personal thoughts, emotions and experiences. I was never taught this was the only definition. For me, sex is sex. It is intimate in nature but only the product of intimacy not the definition. That's just how I learned it and I like that definition.


----------



## TrustInUs

Thundarr said:


> I think there is a good balance here. Him helping inside and outside the house and basically taking care of his business is a solid trait of a good provider. I think some guys try to do housework expecting love and admiration but they aren't doing the other things they need to. In those cases, helping out around the house does absolutely nothing to make their wife respect them.
> 
> *By the way a man spending time with his kids wheather it's fun time or just carrying them back and forth is not a chore or helping out his wife. It's part of taking care of his business.*


:iagree: 100%


----------



## EleGirl

2ntnuf said:


> Quote: What some, those who withhold sex, do not seem to realize is that good sex improves everything in marriage. Sex = Oxytocin , the bonding hormone. I heard it called the “amnesia” hormone because it’s quite a potent drug. It causes bonding and thus seems to smooth out the emotions allowing people to be more forgiving of their spouse. Take that away and we start to see our spouse through a harsher lens. Every little thing starts to annoy. End Quote.
> 
> _____________________________________________________________
> 
> It's so much more than this. We not only start to see our spouse differently but we are looking through colored lenses with different rules in our minds for "judging" while our partner is doing the same with us but from a completely polarizing position. I believe, there is no chance for R or even recovery if anything is added to either side of the equation.
> 
> Ele, I just had to get this out. No offense intended. It was bursting from my soul.
> 
> 
> Edited to add: This euphoria we feel is the source of our blindness in the presence of overwhelming evidence of infidelity. When we are deeply in this euphoria and it is suddenly taken away and coupled with completely opposite responses(responses not reactions) from our SO, we are mentally broken. For some, like me, that becomes a life altering mental and emotional change which hinders personal development. Most folks can work their way through this if they have been exposed to it enough in life. I was unprepared. My lack of experience and scars from my previous marriage set me up for a massive amount of injury from their perfect storm.


No offense taken at all... I think that what you said here expands on the point I started with.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Already Gone said:


> I don't think sex/intimacy should NOT be a battle. She should want to come sit by me when she comes in the room and not sit at the other end of the couch, she should want to dance when a good song come on the radio, it would be nice if she would touch my butt while I am cooking dinner, it would be nice if she gave me a peek at her g-string...(oh, I forgot, she doesn't have any) A sexy text would be nice sometimes.


So you are really not looking for intimacy but you are looking to have certain expectations filled and when they weren't (filled) you quit. To each his own, but I'll take the sex


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

TrustInUs said:


> When my husband does these things I think of love and respect not sex, if that makes sense.
> 
> I love when he takes care of the kids-but it's also his responsibly (as well as mine)
> 
> I love when he helps around the house- but it's also his responsibility, it's his house as well.
> 
> I respect him for taking care of his responsibilities.
> 
> None of these things makes me think "let me jump his bones tonight"
> 
> I suspect that I'm not the only woman who feels this way, that makes me think of a reward system. But I'm sure there are women who get turned on by that.


There must be, but not in my house. I just heard this guy say this and I said to myself "What a good idea, let me give it a try." But it didn't work. I just brought it up because CM said he had never heard of it before and I wanted to point out that the idea is really out there.

Recently, a mom in a group therapeutic setting shared that she felt loved when her husband came home from work and took over all the responsibilities for the kids. Homework, baths, going to bed, having him do all that stuff giving her the time to herself. This may work for her but it doesn't work where I live


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Thundarr said:


> By the way a man spending time with his kids wheather it's fun time or just carrying them back and forth is not a chore or helping out his wife. It's part of taking care of his business.


Exactly. This is the man's responsibility and if his wife wants to help, well that's very nice and if she doesn't, he needs to find some other way for her to contribute. Once the kid is out of the womb and drinking out of a bottle, they're mine. I think a lot of guys are misled on this one.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Ten_year_hubby said:


> There must be, but not in my house. I just heard this guy say this and I said to myself "What a good idea, let me give it a try." But it didn't work. I just brought it up because CM said he had never heard of it before and I wanted to point out that the idea is really out there.
> 
> Recently, a mom in a group therapeutic setting shared that she felt loved when her husband came home from work and took over all the responsibilities for the kids. Homework, baths, going to bed, giving her the time to herself. This may work for her but it doesn't work where I live


Did not work where I lived either. I think a large part of it is the misconception that love=attraction. I have no doubt that the mom you mentioned (and my wife) felt loved when their spouse did those things for them. But for me that never translated into sexual attraction. While there may be some overlap, they are separate and distinct.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Ten_year_hubby said:


> Exactly. This is the man's responsibility and if his wife wants to help, well that's very nice and if she doesn't, he needs to find some other way for her to contribute. Once the kid is out of the womb and drinking out of a bottle, they're mine. I think a lot of guys are misled on this one.


I have seen some women who do the misleading. No one can raise their child better than they can, especially the father.


----------



## Thundarr

Ten_year_hubby said:


> There must be, but not in my house. I just heard this guy say this and I said to myself "What a good idea, let me give it a try." But it didn't work. I just brought it up because CM said he had never heard of it before and I wanted to point out that the idea is really out there.
> 
> Recently, a mom in a group therapeutic setting shared that she felt loved when her husband came home from work and took over all the responsibilities for the kids. Homework, baths, going to bed, giving her the time to herself. This may work for her but it doesn't work where I live


Taking over the responsibilities for their kids like baths and homework is not in the least related to washing clothes or doing dishes. Spending time with our kids is what a man does and it's a reward builds memories. Those other household chores do not belong in the same category. For that matter, they are things that mom and dad need to delegate to the kids anyway. If my wife had thought me changing a diaper or helping with homeword was in any way unattractive then I would have lost respect for her instantly.


----------



## TrustInUs

Ten_year_hubby said:


> There must be, but not in my house. I just heard this guy say this and I said to myself "What a good idea, let me give it a try." But it didn't work. I just brought it up because CM said he had never heard of it before and I wanted to point out that the idea is really out there.
> 
> Recently, a mom in a group therapeutic setting shared that she felt loved when her husband came home from work and took over all the responsibilities for the kids. Homework, baths, going to bed, having him do all that stuff giving her the time to herself. This may work for her but it doesn't work where I live


I've read about this type of advice in books and in blogs too. The more I think about it, it seems as if this would be a turn on for women whose love language is "acts of service" so I can see that being advised to the husbands of those wives, but not as a blanket statement to men across the board.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

jaquen said:


> As to not hijack any of the other many threads that are about helping guys do all they can do to "get" their wives to sleep with them, I created this one.
> 
> I have to know...
> 
> Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?
> 
> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?
> 
> I'm still floored by the amount of people who are flying to the moon, and back, just to warm up coldfish. It's not in my DNA to think that way at all. If you don't want to be here as much as I do, if we're not in this thing together as mutually attracted, sexually excited people, then bye bye.
> 
> Am I the only one?


Jaquen, GREAT question/observation.

I read a lot of posts here about manning up, being more alpha etc. Basically what you're calling "working" for sex. I think that has it's appropriate place, but mostly when the wife has already started checking out (even if just sexually). What's the success rate, I'm not sure to be honest. I see the validity and that it would work sometimes, but many times, I can see where a wife has checked out, no matter what the husband will do, it's already too far gone. Statistics would be interesting, but that's a different topic.

I think a lot of it has to do with the relationship. I don't work for sex, but I get it a few times a week. If I hit 1 week without sex, then somethings going on and my wife and I talk about it. Now, I take care of my "business" if you will. I make sure I remain a strong husband. I make sure I'm a strong father (something my wife finds attractive). I do my best with my appearance (I've always been a "beefy" guy as my wife calls me, which she loves, so I just make sure I don't get any beefier LOL). I make sure she's taken care of sexually (like after the other night her saying "You sure know how to pound a girl" love that). I make love to her like a lover, not a husband. Now all of those things aren't "work" to me. I also make sure I'm the same guy that I've always been. I don't become "soft" or "appease her to keep the peace", I never have and never will.

If I had to truly change who I am to "inspire" her to want to have sex with me, I'd look for a new woman. My attitude is. 

This is who I am, This is the man you fell in love with. If YOUR tastes have changed, so be it. I won't hold you back, but I'm not going to go without sex because you've changed your opinions. I can find PLENTY of women who I can, and would want me to, make scream my name.


----------



## MEM2020

Already gone, 
Do you have a v shape or a runners build? 

House work and other stuff is rarely an aphrodisiac for women. 

The strong bonding stuff is typically:
- quality time doing something exciting or intense or fun
- being her emotional anchor, this means really knowing her
- having enough edge to say 'hey, this is important to ME' 

It also means being realistic. Last night my W was not feeling it, but it had been a few days and she wanted to spend an hour making it all about me. I could have said: well if you aren't going to have an O, I would rather do nothing. But that leaves her feeling like a lame sexual partner and me feeling tense and edgy.


----------



## TrustInUs

Thundarr said:


> Taking over the responsibilities for their kids like baths and homework is not in the least related to washing clothes or doing dishes. Spending time with our kids is what a man does and it's a reward builds memories. Those other household chores do not belong in the same category. For that matter, they are things that mom and dad need to delegate to the kids anyway. If my wife had thought me changing a diaper or helping with homeword was in any way unattractive then I would have lost respect for her instantly.


That's the point I was wanting to make when I mentioned those aren't the things that turned me on about my H because that is expected of him, and me as well, as apart of raising children.

Of course I get those loving feelings when I catch them playing around, but he has his own relationship with our kids that he is fostering when he spends time with them. And I admire him for that, but that doesn't speak sex to me.....I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Tall Average Guy said:


> I think a large part of it is the misconception that love=attraction.


This is a great subject for another thread. I think a lot of people are confused about this, including myself. To me they both seem equally malleable


----------



## Thundarr

TrustInUs said:


> That's the point I was wanting to make when I mentioned those aren't the things that turned me on about my H because that is expected of him, and me as well, as apart of raising children.
> 
> Of course I get those loving feelings when I catch them playing around, but he has his own relationship with our kids that he is fostering when he spends time with them. And I admire him for that, but that doesn't speak sex to me.....I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense.


It makes sense to me however I think that lack of admiration or respect directly makes someone less attractive. In other words your admiration of him sets the stage for you to find him sexy or attractive as well. Just my opinion


----------



## MEM2020

If you don't fix the sitting next to each other on the couch problem, the rest is totally unfixable.


----------



## jaquen

Dad&Hubby said:


> I make sure she's taken care of sexually (like after the other night her saying "You sure know how to pound a girl" love that). I make love to her like a lover, not a husband.


Very, very dead on observation. How proficient the withheld spouse is as a lover is actually not spoken of nearly enough on this board.

How many people are truly LD, and how many are just sick of BAD sex?



Dad&Hubby said:


> I don't become "soft" or "appease her to keep the peace", I never have and never will.


I am right there with you. It's a very novel concept to me. 



Dad&Hubby said:


> If I had to truly change who I am to "inspire" her to want to have sex with me, I'd look for a new woman. My attitude is. This is who I am, This is the man you fell in love with. If YOUR tastes have changed, so be it. I won't hold you back, but I'm not going to go without sex because you've changed your opinions. I can find PLENTY of women who I can, and would want me to, make scream my name.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Dad&Hubby said:


> If I had to truly change who I am to "inspire" her to want to have sex with me, I'd look for a new woman. My attitude is.
> 
> This is who I am, This is the man you fell in love with. If YOUR tastes have changed, so be it. I won't hold you back, but I'm not going to go without sex because you've changed your opinions. I can find PLENTY of women who I can, and would want me to, make scream my name.


I am in complete agreement and think that this is great *IF* you are still that person. Some are not. So changing back to that person is needed for some of us.


----------



## 45188

Jaq I do believe its a womans duty to have sex with her husband. However, I also believe its a mans duty to keep his wife happy emotionally - proving your love. Proving you'll jump through the hoops if thats what it takes. If shes emotionally unhappy, then she's not going to want sex. It takes two.


----------



## Trickster

MEM11363 said:


> Already gone,
> Do you have a v shape or a runners build?
> 
> House work and other stuff is rarely an aphrodisiac for women.
> 
> The strong bonding stuff is typically:
> - quality time doing something exciting or intense or fun
> - being her emotional anchor, this means really knowing her
> - having enough edge to say 'hey, this is important to ME'
> 
> It also means being realistic. Last night my W was not feeling it, but it had been a few days and she wanted to spend an hour making it all about me. I could have said: well if you aren't going to have an O, I would rather do nothing. But that leaves her feeling like a lame sexual partner and me feeling tense and edgy.


I have thighs and butt of steel. Because of my build, many people think I was a gymnast. I am far from a body builder, and I think I have about a 8% body fat. I could loose a 3 pounds in my stomach. Some weeks when I run a lot more than normal and cut back on the wine, My washboard stomach and ribs show. I am in better shape today than I was 20 years ago. My wife is way overweight and out of shape and has no desire to exercise. She has always been like that. My bad!!! If sex last more than 5 minutes, she is exhausted, especially if she has to be in different positions. If she is on top for more than a minute she is exhausted.

Oh, and during her period, she doesn't want sex at all. One time several months ago, I tried and she was in a bad mood for a week. As far as oral, she likes when I do her, but she says she doesn't want to give me oral during her period. She says she isn't that good at it. I have to agree to that. I just don't tell her. I don't want to make her upset.

Emotional anchor???? I am the emotional idiot here and I am the fool that wants to talk about my feelings. Not very manly.


----------



## jaquen

kipani said:


> Jaq I do believe its a womans duty to have sex with her husband. However, I also believe its a mans duty to keep his wife happy emotionally - proving your love. Proving you'll jump through the hoops if thats what it takes. If shes emotionally unhappy, then she's not going to want sex. It takes two.
> Today 02:42 PM


This goes back to what someone posted earlier, about marrying the right person being the key.

I wouldn't have married a woman for whom this is true, even if it's true for a lot of women. 

My wife and I look at sex as an expectation from one another. Not her dutifully providing sex, while I dutifully provide her emotional happiness.

I am not responsible for my wife's happiness. Happiness is a state of being that originates from within in. No person can "make" you happy (though we all say that, myself definitely included). They can treat you well, be kind to you, be considerate, they can even love you with a passion of the heat of a thousand suns, but none of that will affect your happiness unless you chose to allow it to do so. This is why there are people who have seemingly everything; money, friends, love, sex, great spouses, and are still utterly miserable. No human being is responsible for your happiness, spouse or otherwise.

So no, sex can't be tied to happiness in my marriage. I can't make my wife happy, and I can not be the "perfect" husband day in, and day out, whatever that means. 

There has to be a baseline level of attraction from her to who I am, warts and all, and the same from me to her (though I do sincerely believe my wife is damn near a perfect human being). She has to want me, and I have to want her, in our naked, raw states, just for who we are. We firmly believe in this.

So no, I don't I agree with this. There is no hoop jumping in my marriage, because I've never been a hoop jumper in my life, marriage or otherwise. We MUST continue to make love to one another, to share that bound, even when we make mistakes, even when we get it wrong, even when things aren't the best, or I'm not the best. It cannot, for us, be contingent on too many variables because then we rob ourselves of the basic pleasure of enjoying sexual/emotional/spiritual connection from the simple perspective of two people who are in love, and just want to just be together.

I pray to God that we can hold on to this perspective for our life time to come.

For me, I am not interested in any other way. There is no reason for me to be married to a woman who thinks otherwise.


----------



## Trickster

kipani said:


> Jaq I do believe its a womans duty to have sex with her husband. However, I also believe its a mans duty to keep his wife happy emotionally - proving your love. Proving you'll jump through the hoops if thats what it takes. If shes emotionally unhappy, then she's not going to want sex. It takes two.


I can't answer for Jaquen, for me, I have been jumping through hoops for years, Even moving to a different city because she had a job offer. Just as soon as I moved our stuff, she quit the job. We've moved a dozen times or so in the past 20 years and me being the chump and trying to please her I do what she wants. Even buying our home when she promised to get a job once we got settled. Two year later and many thousands of dollars in debt, she still wasn't working. So I made her get a job and now the sex has dropped to almost nothing.


----------



## Trickster

MaritimeGuy said:


> We have a poster on our wall at work here. I can't help but think of #1 when it comes to a topic like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 21 Suggestions for Success
> 
> H Jackson Brown Jr
> 
> 1. Marry the right person. This one decision will determine 90% of your happiness or misery.
> 
> 2. Work at something you enjoy and that's worthy of your time and talent.
> 
> 3. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.
> 
> 4. Become the most positive and enthusiastic person you know.
> 
> 5. Be forgiving of yourself and others.
> 
> 6. Be generous.
> 
> 7. Have a grateful heart.
> 
> 8. Persistence, persistence, persistence.
> 
> 9. Discipline yourself to save money on even the most modest salary.
> 
> 10. Treat everyone you meet like you want to be treated.
> 
> 11. Commit yourself to constant improvement.
> 
> 12. Commit yourself to quality.
> 
> 13. Understand that happiness is not based on possessions, power or prestige,
> but on relationships with people you love and respect.
> 
> 14. Be loyal.
> 
> 15. Be honest.
> 
> 16. Be a self starter.
> 
> 17. Be decisive even if it means you'll sometimes be wrong.
> 
> 18. Stop blaming others. Take responsibility for every area of your life.
> 
> 19. Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things
> you didn't do more than the ones you did.
> 
> 20. Take good care of those you love.
> 
> 21. Don't do anything that wouldn't make your Mom proud.


I have this exact poster in my office too. I also agree with #1.


----------



## MaritimeGuy

jaquen said:


> I am not responsible for my wife's happiness. Happiness is a state of being that originates from within in. No person can "make" you happy (though we all say that, myself definitely included). They can treat you well, be kind to you, be considerate, they can even love you with a passion of the heat of a thousand suns, but none of that will affect your happiness unless you chose to allow it to do so. This is why there are people who have seemingly everything; money, friends, love, sex, great spouses, and are still utterly miserable. No human being is responsible for your happiness, spouse or otherwise.


I believe this is a very important point.


----------



## east2west

Already Gone said:


> I can't answer for Jaquen, for me, I have been jumping through hoops for years, Even moving to a different city because she had a job offer. Just as soon as I moved our stuff, she quit the job. We've moved a dozen times or so in the past 20 years and me being the chump and trying to please her I do what she wants. Even buying our home when she promised to get a job once we got settled. Two year later and many thousands of dollars in debt, she still wasn't working. So I made her get a job and now the sex has dropped to almost nothing.


All the ab muscles in the world won't save you if you act like that.

She's mad at you for not stopping her from being stupid. 

And rightfully so.


----------



## Memento

east2west said:


> All the ab muscles in the world won't save you if you act like that.
> 
> She's mad at you for not stopping her from being stupid.
> 
> And rightfully so.



Uh? She is mad because he didn't stop her? Has a woman, that doesn't make any sense to me. 
My husband doesn't stop me from doing anything. He simply doesn't enable every whimsy decision that I make. 2 different things.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

kipani said:


> Jaq I do believe its a womans duty to have sex with her husband. However, I also believe its a mans duty to keep his wife happy emotionally - proving your love. Proving you'll jump through the hoops if thats what it takes. If shes emotionally unhappy, then she's not going to want sex. It takes two.


Hmmm interesting.

1. I've told my wife. Say no to sex before you do it as a "wifely duty". I don't want a "pity f$%ck" EVER.

2. Sorry, we always talk about "be secure because she "chose you"". Well my wife chose me because of who I am. I do so much for my wife. I take care of her completely. We're just wrapping up her "birthday week". She writes poems on facebook about how I am as a husband. I prove my love everyday. But....

3. If she suddenly took this attitude about wanting me to jump through hoops. Uhhh sorry. You play a game with me, you lose me. I give 100% to my marriage. My proof is in my pudding 

Now, you may not be talking about "playing emotional games", and I'm 100% in agreement, if the wife isn't happy, she's not going to be sexual. What you said could describe two VERY different mentalities that a woman could have. One, which I think you're talking about, is dead on. The other, a woman who plays games and is constantly looking for her hubby to prove himself even if he is very attentive already, that is wrong.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

Already Gone said:


> I can't answer for Jaquen, for me, I have been jumping through hoops for years, Even moving to a different city because she had a job offer. Just as soon as I moved our stuff, she quit the job. We've moved a dozen times or so in the past 20 years and me being the chump and trying to please her I do what she wants. Even buying our home when she promised to get a job once we got settled. Two year later and many thousands of dollars in debt, she still wasn't working. So I made her get a job and now the sex has dropped to almost nothing.


Did you ever consider going to a doctor? In an amazing 5 minute meeting, my wife's gyn explained several treatments they have available for low drive. Since it was in doctor speak, the whole conversation went right over my wife's head, who still insists it is female nature


----------



## EleGirl

jaquen said:


> This goes back to what someone posted earlier, about marrying the right person being the key.
> 
> I wouldn't have married a woman for whom this is true, even if it's true for a lot of women.
> 
> My wife and I look at sex as an expectation from one another. Not her dutifully providing sex, while I dutifully provide her emotional happiness.
> 
> I am not responsible for my wife's happiness. Happiness is a state of being that originates from within in. No person can "make" you happy (though we all say that, myself definitely included). They can treat you well, be kind to you, be considerate, they can even love you with a passion of the heat of a thousand suns, but none of that will affect your happiness unless you chose to allow it to do so. This is why there are people who have seemingly everything; money, friends, love, sex, great spouses, and are still utterly miserable. No human being is responsible for your happiness, spouse or otherwise.
> 
> So no, sex can't be tied to happiness in my marriage. I can't make my wife happy, and I can not be the "perfect" husband day in, and day out, whatever that means.
> 
> There has to be a baseline level of attraction from her to who I am, warts and all, and the same from me to her (though I do sincerely believe my wife is damn near a perfect human being). She has to want me, and I have to want her, in our naked, raw states, just for who we are. We firmly believe in this.
> 
> So no, I don't I agree with this. There is no hoop jumping in my marriage, because I've never been a hoop jumper in my life, marriage or otherwise. We MUST continue to make love to one another, to share that bound, even when we make mistakes, even when we get it wrong, even when things aren't the best, or I'm not the best. It cannot, for us, be contingent on too many variables because then we rob ourselves of the basic pleasure of enjoying sexual/emotional/spiritual connection from the simple perspective of two people who are in love, and just want to just be together.
> 
> I pray to God that we can hold on to this perspective for our life time to come.
> 
> For me, I am not interested in any other way. There is no reason for me to be married to a woman who thinks otherwise.


What you say is is basically true.

However there are cases in which one spouse seriously neglects the other or does things that damage the relationship.

For example:

#1-- in a case where one spouse works to support the family and has to do everything else.. raise the children, take care of the house, handle finances...etc. All the while the other spouse plays computer games all day and spends no time with the spouse. In this case the spouse who has all responsibilities dumped on them will most likely lose interest in sex because they are overburdened, do not really have a partner and feel ignored. 

#2-- Another example would be where one spouse works their 8 hours day and comes home to do nothing but relax at home. A SAHM who is raising a few kids and takes care of everything in the house often has to work a lot longer than 8 hours, 5 days a week. So now you have the 'working' spouse who gets a lot of relaxation and time to do what he/she wants. And you have the SAH spouse who is frazzled and tired all the time.

#3-- Or the couple equally work in the home and out of the home. But one of them is very cold, will not spend time with their spouse at all… well except when they want sex and then they expect it on demand. This type of person often does not see to taking care of their spouse’s sexual needs either. IT’s to the point that the neglected spouse feels seriously hurt and used.

We have had both men and women here with these types of situations.

These are extreme cases. But they actually happen pretty often. I'm sure that people here can come up with more examples of situations we have read on TAM and ones they know of in real life.
The advice telling some guy to get off his duff and do his share of housework, or to spend more time with his wife apply to this type of case. It does not mean that they are responsible for the other’s happiness. It means that if they expect their spouse to stick around or expect their spouse to want sex with them they will need to start treating their spouse a lot better.

This is not doing work for sex. This is a person being told to grow up and take some responsibility for the health of their marriage and in some cases for the things they are responsible for.


----------



## amorous_1

jaquen said:


> and was to continue regardless of whatever other issues were going on in our relationship.


This part taken by itself seems like a setup for duty sex. She's not in the mood for whatever reason but she has a duty to fulfill and must comply no matter what else is going on.


----------



## CharlieParker

jaquen said:


> and was to continue regardless of whatever other issues were going on in our relationship


Riptide, jaquen will answer for himself but I see this come into play when we are fighting. I like to think of it as rug sweeping sex. It's OK if both understand it's not make up sex and there still issues. And I've found it tends to make the issues more resolvable or at least less big.

If the sex is regular not in the mood is no big deal.


----------



## east2west

Both partners have a duty to maintain themselves in a way that makes the other want to have sex with them.

If either cannot do that then they are doing it wrong...

Or the other person has a medical issue killing the sex drive.


----------



## Ten_year_hubby

CharlieParker said:


> Riptide, jaquen will answer for himself but I see this come into play when we are fighting. I like to think of it as rug sweeping sex. It's OK if both understand it's not make up sex and there still issues. And I've found it tends to make the issues more resolvable or at least less big.
> 
> If the sex is regular not in the mood is no big deal.


In New York City, a really good rain washes away all the trash and all the dog doo and all the mess that has leaked out of all the piled up garbage bags; the rain washes all this ugly, smelly stuff off the sidewalks and into the streets and down the streets and into the storm sewers or into the rivers or where ever it all goes, but when you walk outside your apartment after a big rain, every is fresh. That's what waking up after a great sexual encounter (which is probably all of mine) is like for me


----------



## jaquen

Riptide said:


> This part taken by itself seems like a setup for duty sex. She's not in the mood for whatever reason but she has a duty to fulfill and must comply no matter what else is going on.


We don't believe in "duty sex". Both my wife, and I, are free, open, and clear to deny any individual sex session whenever we chose to. And trust me, we both do. There are a lot of "nos" in our marriage.

But the "nos" are just well outweighed by the "yeses". And we take it on complete faith that no actually means "not yet".

Works for us.

Again, we_ both_ see it this way. I am a little baffled at the attempt to separate that fact, and cast her in the light of the suffering, duty bound wife.


----------



## jaquen

Ten_year_hubby said:


> In New York City, a really good rain washes away all the trash and all the dog doo and all the mess that has leaked out of all the piled up garbage bags; the rain washes all this ugly, smelly stuff off the sidewalks and into the streets and down the streets and into the storm sewers or into the rivers or where ever it all goes, but when you walk outside your apartment after a big rain, every is fresh. That's what waking up after a great sexual encounter (which is probably all of mine) is like for me


Sexing away your problems is highly under appreciated, we've discovered.

We're talkers; we've spent untold amount of hours discussing our relationship, and long before we were married. I am extremely introspective, and intuitive, and she is a deep feeler, and has a strong desire for truth, so that's produced a ton of verbiage. 

When sex became a part of our relationship, along with it came the welcome discovery that, for us, good, connected sex could be the solution to a problem in and of itself. Now this isn't the case for all issues, but sometimes sex can serve as a refreshing, powerful, and of course enjoyable, short hand past minor issues and problems. Sometimes the very root of those minor problems are just a need to really connect in an intimate way. Sex you both want takes care of that immediately.


----------



## Caribbean Man

MEM11363 said:


> If you don't fix the sitting next to each other on the couch problem, the rest is totally unfixable.


:iagree:

Truer words have not been spoken!


----------



## WyshIknew

jaquen said:


> We don't believe in "duty sex". Both my wife, and I, are free, open, and clear to deny any individual sex session whenever we chose to. And trust me, we both do. There are a lot of "nos" in our marriage.
> 
> But the "nos" are just well outweighed by the "yeses". And we take it on complete faith that no actually means "not yet".
> 
> Works for us.
> 
> Again, we_ both_ see it this way. I am a little baffled at the attempt to separate that fact, and cast her in the light of the suffering, duty bound wife.


My wife and I are a little different in this respect. I am generally a higher drive than her. If I go more than two days without it gets very uncomfortable for me and even if she is not one hundred percent 'into it' she will always ensure I get a release when I am horny. Duty sex if you like but I appreciate the fact that she cares enough about me to give me a release when I need one.



waiwera said:


> I've been interested to read the posts on this thread... I am constantly amazed and confused at how hard some folk have to work for a shag...off their spouse :scratchhead:
> 
> Neither of us jump hoops for sex. We both want/desire each other so it's just not an issue. I like to think we picked well.
> 
> One thing I find interesting.. if any of the Athol/MAP followers met my H they would see he is a beta man, he is the nicest bloke you'd ever meet.. there is some alpha there but he's definitely more beta.
> 
> So I have no idea why I still lust for him after 25 years..according to many posts I've read here i should have lost respect and desire for him years ago and stopped all sexy times and he should now man up and 'pretend' to be alpha...to impress me. I don't know maybe I still don't understand properly.
> 
> I only know *I* wouldn't want to work for sex and I don't want my H to ever feel like he has to work for it either.


I read MMSLP and quite enjoyed it. I took a number of things from it and have used them.

I have felt that I am way Beta as I cook, help with laundry etc.
However my wife feels that I am very Alpha as I tend to just do things and expect her and others to follow.

When I read the book I actually started doing more Beta things as I felt I wasn't doing enough. I also get laid like tile so something must be working.


----------



## jaquen

waiwera said:


> I've been interested to read the posts on this thread... I am constantly amazed and confused at how hard some folk have to work for a shag...off their spouse :scratchhead:


It blows my mind everytime I read it.

I. Don't. Get. It. 

I know, from an intellectual standpoint, that it's a common reality; I knew that before coming to TAM. But still, on a visceral level, I have amazing trouble connecting to the notion that people have to work so, so hard to have sex..._with their_ _spouse_. If I was interested in working that hard for some sex, I'd have forsaken marriage, played the field, and at least had the "luxury" of getting a hefty variety of women for all my troubles.


----------



## jaquen

OK, so you can help me understand something here...



WyshIknew said:


> My wife and I are a little different in this respect. I am generally a higher drive than her. If I go more than two days without it gets very uncomfortable for me


Is your wife low drive, or just _lower_ drive than you?

Because if she's bonifide low drive, then I need help with this...



WyshIknew said:


> When I read the book I actually started doing more Beta things as I felt I wasn't doing enough.* I also get laid like tile so something must be working.*


This stumps me about all the MMSL/NMMNG stuff. 

If these women are often taken to be "low drive", and then you change some behaviors that spark their libido, and get you "laid like tile", are these women really "low drive"? 

Like _why_ does the sex increase? And if these women are actually sexual beings, why do they need major behavior modifications in order to sleep with you more? Do they not have their own totally autonomous need for sex?

Perhaps some of the women can help me out here. Because the biggest thing that stands out to me about all of this is that it supposes a woman doesn't necessarily feel actively sexual, and needs to be "activated". 

Is that the case? That most women can easily detach from their sexual drive, and that they need men to find the right way to press their buttons?

And if that's the case, is it really even best to use terms like "low drive" and "high drive" for women? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "activated drive" and "dormant drive"?


----------



## Trickster

Ten_year_hubby said:


> Did you ever consider going to a doctor? In an amazing 5 minute meeting, my wife's gyn explained several treatments they have available for low drive. Since it was in doctor speak, the whole conversation went right over my wife's head, who still insists it is female nature


My wife doesn't even see the gyno. it's been several years since she has gone. She doesn't see it as a problem for her.


----------



## Trickster

EleGirl said:


> What you say is is basically true.
> 
> However there are cases in which one spouse seriously neglects the other or does things that damage the relationship.
> 
> For example:
> 
> 
> 
> #2-- Another example would be where one spouse works their 8 hours day and comes home to do nothing but relax at home. A SAHM who is raising a few kids and takes care of everything in the house often has to work a lot longer than 8 hours, 5 days a week. So now you have the 'working' spouse who gets a lot of relaxation and time to do what he/she wants. And you have the SAH spouse who is frazzled and tired all the time..


I'd come home after a full work day to a messy home and a sink full of dishes as well as a load of laundry in the dryer. I would still make dinner if I was home early enough. My wife is just lazy and too lazy for sex.


----------



## EleGirl

Already Gone said:


> I'd come home after a full work day to a messy home and a sink full of dishes as well as a load of laundry in the dryer. I would still make dinner if I was home early enough. My wife is just lazy and too lazy for sex.


Your wife sounds like my ex-husband. Your situation fits the #1 scenario I gave. Not the #2..

Some poeple are just lazy. I don't understand people like that.


----------



## Trickster

I wish my wife had the "need" for sex. That has never happened. Since TAM.... Its been a year now for me. Nothing has really changed. I just have to accept that no matter what I do will spark her interest. So whether I jump through hoop or not, it never increases her desire for sex. 

She was a virgin when we met so it was never because of anything that I do or don't do. She just never had that desire for sex with me or anybody before me. She just realized that I stuck around longer than anybody ever did before I came around. I honestly believe she never even thinks about sex. Yes, I knew 20 years ago she was a very LD woman and I stayed because she was such a sweetheart and at the time, I was hopeful that her drive over time would improve.My bad!!!


----------



## EleGirl

Already Gone said:


> I wish my wife had the "need" for sex. That has never happened. Since TAM.... Its been a year now for me. Nothing has really changed. I just have to accept that no matter what I do will spark her interest. So whether I jump through hoop or not, it never increases her desire for sex.
> 
> She was a virgin when we met so it was never because of anything that I do or don't do. She just never had that desire for sex with me or anybody before me. She just realized that I stuck around longer than anybody ever did before I came around. I honestly believe she never even thinks about sex. Yes, I knew 20 years ago she was a very LD woman and I stayed because she was such a sweetheart and at the time, I was hopeful that her drive over time would improve.My bad!!!


I do not get LD people. Seems to me that a person would want to rev up their drive 'cause sex is a good thing. It actually makes people healthier. Two rolls in hay a week is equivalent to running 90 miles a year. I'd much rather take a good roll in the hay then run/jog.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Jaquen said*: Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?



Speaking only of our lagging sexual past here....

My husband never jumped through any hoops, if he felt the slightest hesitation on my end.... he would just roll over ..... looking back... I could KICK HIS ASS for this [email protected]#$%

As he should have shown me what he wanted...let me feel his LUST...his need & passion..... I never once gave pity sex, nor did I ever have a headache - he would vouch for this. I did happen to be in love with books though.  And he should have kicked our babies out of bed. 

In comparison... when I wanted him.....I'd lay on the seductive charm, I'd go to any lengths to make it worth his while (not that this was difficult)...he did not do this....And we missed each other much more than should have been.  It was never that I wasn't into him...he was too sensitive & misinterpreted. He just needed to turn up the Heat ~ to bring me there.... when he did start something >> he got what he wanted every single time. 

Women are like slow cookers - isn't that what they say. Now I am the microwave, but still. 

Now he *is *forthcoming ... I love it, welcome it Praise it !



> *Jaquen said*: We don't believe in "*duty sex*". Both my wife, and I, are free, open, and clear to deny any individual sex session whenever we chose to. And trust me, we both do. There are a lot of "nos" in our marriage.
> 
> But the "nos" are just well outweighed by the "yeses". And we take it on complete faith that no actually means "not yet".


My husband is so utterly repulsed (or I could say sensitive) to anything related to Pity/ duty / affectionate-less sex...Heck... he'd never touch me again if I gave such an attitude !! and Me, I feel the same way, I am very sensitive to this...I NEED his desire. I asked him about this one night...he said it wouldn't be worth "the aggravation"...

But we are different here... we both genuinely







to please ....that we near NEVER turn each other down.... only if one is feeling sick or if too tired..... he may ask me to wake him up in a few hours .... and me.....NOTHING would stop me....I get off on pleasing him .... tonight I was arguing with him (jokingly) how I wish he needed me more so. He bipassed a BJ cause he'd rather wait for me to get mine. I told him this is a very backwards conversation. 

His Pleasure is my Pleasure and My Pleasure is His pleasure ... I am like a little girl in a candy store when he is "wanting"... I feel I took this for granted for so many years , not recognizing what a GIFT his sex drive truly was ....It's now my most enjoyable passion to fulfill.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

waiwera said:


> The only time in my life I was LD is was situational... It was during the time when i was pregnant, breastfeeding and taking care of very young babies (3x)... it took up few years of our marriage. It was really hard on my hubby, he felt very neglected and forgotten at times. In truth... my thoughts and energy WERE with my babies and not with him!


 Many new parents do not realize that upped Prolactin levels during breastfeeding zaps the sex drive ... I think it would help many men to realize this is not permanent. 



> *Hormones* Does Breastfeeding Lower Your Sex Drive?
> 
> The biggest culprit to blame for your lack of desire when it comes to sex after baby is due to your hormones. Breastfeeding can and will effect your hormones. Since your estrogen levels lower during breastfeeding and estrogen is responsible for keeping your vaginal lining moist and flexible, intimacy with your partner becomes less enjoyable.
> 
> Furthermore, breastfeeding can increase levels of prolactin, which naturally reduces your sexual drive. And lastly, testosterone, the hormone that boosts a woman s libido is significantly lower while breastfeeding. So is all of this the reasons behind your limited sex drive? Not entirely.[/url]


I never cared to breastfeed -so never had this issue.... I was HIGH drive during all my pregnancies (probably why he didn't care how many we had - I was always coming on to him during that time... I almost felt I was bothering him ! And after I had each baby....I remember wanting to do it sooo bad...would break down weeks earlier cause I was so horny......Why our 3rd son popped out 11 months after our 2nd. 

But I screwed up royally too.... and it was situational as well... I was a basketcase when I couldn't get pregnant... I was , grouchy, and all I cared about was his









This is where my husbands HURT began...He felt rejected & not appreciated cause I was so damn one tract minded ....most difficult time FOR ME....feeling my dream of a larger family was failing us....(also for HIM)...as I put sex on a time schedule to increase our odds. I didn't even care about my own pleasure, just give me the







deposit please..... I read a # of books on how to achieve pregnancy but not 1 about the Pleasures of sex. (terrible blunder in our early marriage!)

Ya know....he never complained, he put up with me... I only realized the depths of how that time HURT HIM once I opened up this conversation 4 yrs ago...then I felt horrible about it. 

Us women can surely MISS it - when we have other things on the brain. Then once the babies started coming one after the other.... I was so darn overjoyed feeling the heavens were opened, that I forgot about Dad again! 

Though for me....I physically *needed it* at least once a week, so there was never any "desert" spells longer than this, he knew like clockwork ~ I'd be initiating if he didn't come to me by then.


----------



## Holland

EleGirl said:


> *I do not get LD people.* Seems to me that a person would want to rev up their drive 'cause sex is a good thing. It actually makes people healthier. Two rolls in hay a week is equivalent to running 90 miles a year. I'd much rather take a good roll in the hay then run/jog.


I was married to one for many years and honestly think that it is not really about just sex. When we did do it he enjoyed it.
It is about being scared of intimacy. His parents had a very loveless marriage, he did not have a good example.

This is why I found the strength to end the marriage, I want my kids to know that it is better to be on your own than in a loveless or sexless marriage. 

As for the OP, well my current partner just has to be himself and he gets plenty.


----------



## Holland

jaquen said:


> ..........
> 
> Perhaps some of the women can help me out here. Because the biggest thing that stands out to me about all of this is that it supposes a woman doesn't necessarily feel actively sexual, and needs to be "activated".
> 
> Is that the case? That most women can easily detach from their sexual drive, and that they need men to find the right way to press their buttons?
> 
> And if that's the case, is it really even best to use terms like "low drive" and "high drive" for women? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "activated drive" and "dormant drive"?


I have no clue but here is my situation. Not sure how it fits into your question.

Me HD
Ex LD - fear of intimacy
After many years of rejection I turned my drive off. Ok had a couple of kids, busy life etc so I had not problem to not think about sex so much.

Finally blew a gasket and ended the marriage when the repressed feelings and needs were too much to cope with.

After we separated I did not date for 12 months, not interested and never really thought I would have sex again.

Woke up one day 12 months later, joined online dating, was dating several men at a time and having a great time. I had made the decision to get back into things as I had consciously switched my drive back on.

Met a wonderful man, we clicked, both talked very early on about sex as we both have a big need for it. We have been having great sex often, ever since. 

So is that an activated drive? Maybe but it is within me to switch it on or off according to what is available. I don't think (based on reading TAM) that men are as capable of switching their drive off.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> This stumps me about all the MMSL/NMMNG stuff.
> 
> *If these women are often taken to be "low drive", and then you change some behaviors that spark their libido, and get you "laid like tile", are these women really "low drive"?
> *


That's because the whole concept of HD and LD is an overused , abused one IMO.
During my adolescence years ,I used to suffer from migraine headaches.
Whenever my mother asked me to do something that I didn't want to, I simply told her that I had a headache.
My belief is that there are certain issues in a relationship that couples refuse to properly address for whatever reasons.
This overlaps and causes a decline in sexual attraction.Then come the LD concept / excuse.

Yes, there are some LD cases that are genuine, but real love , appreciation and mutual respect is the best aphrodisiac for a spouse who has " suddenly " become LD after a few years of marriage.


----------



## WyshIknew

jaquen said:


> OK, so you can help me understand something here...
> 
> 
> 
> Is your wife low drive, or just _lower_ drive than you?
> 
> Because if she's bonifide low drive, then I need help with this...
> 
> Generally I am higher drive and she is just lower drive than me, but when she gets her thang on it can be difficult for me to keep up especially balancing work and home life. Multiple times a day I find difficult these days unless I have had at least four to five hours 'recuperation' time. I'm pretty sure that is an age thing.
> 
> What do you mean by this bit? I don't understand.
> Because if she's bonifide low drive, then I need help with this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This stumps me about all the MMSL/NMMNG stuff.
> 
> If these women are often taken to be "low drive", and then you change some behaviors that spark their libido, and get you "laid like tile", are these women really "low drive"?
> 
> Like _why_ does the sex increase? And if these women are actually sexual beings, why do they need major behavior modifications in order to sleep with you more? Do they not have their own totally autonomous need for sex?
> 
> Perhaps some of the women can help me out here. Because the biggest thing that stands out to me about all of this is that it supposes a woman doesn't necessarily feel actively sexual, and needs to be "activated".
> 
> Is that the case? That most women can easily detach from their sexual drive, and that they need men to find the right way to press their buttons?
> 
> And if that's the case, is it really even best to use terms like "low drive" and "high drive" for women? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "activated drive" and "dormant drive"?


I probably misled you here accidentally. I should have stipulated that I was pretty much getting 'laid like tile' anyway. I think a lot of the stuff I was just doing instinctively anyway. My wife has said that while she did like what she regarded as 'alpha' in me she did sometimes resent it a little as she sometimes felt she was being ordered around. It was something I hadn't realised I was doing. I have since insured that I involve her a little more and as I have already stated I have been doing some more beta type things around the house.

The main thing I do not like about all this alpha/beta thing is people seem to have this black and white thing going about it.

I am in total agreement with Simply Amorous about beta qualities, for some reason a lot of posters seem to look down on beta men as though they are somehow lesser men and I just do not understand this viewpoint.

The other side of the coin are those people who seem to think that they need to become inconsiderate, selfish, uncaring, unhelpul jerks to become 'alpha'.

What my wife has said that she likes about me (and she has stated it on this forum) is that I am a mix of all these attributes. I think that is what people should be aiming for, the right mix for their marriage.


----------



## WyshIknew

waiwera said:


> The only time in my life I was LD is was situational... It was during the time when i was pregnant, breastfeeding and taking care of very young babies (3x)... it took up few years of our marriage. It was really hard on my hubby, he felt very neglected and forgotten at times. In truth... my thoughts and energy WERE with my babies and not with him!
> 
> For me it took for the situation to change for me to change....ie babies sleeping the night and not bed sharing and weaning off breastfeeding but also once the babies became toddlers and were a little more independent.
> 
> It took having sex to re-connect and to WANT sex. NEEDING sex took a bit longer. But it did happen.
> 
> I'm so glad he had faith in me.... he says he knew he'd get me back. I love the fact he thinks I was worth waiting for.
> 
> Having said this... our marriage was never as low/no sex as many marriages I see on here... just low for us.



Exactly the same for us Waiwera, I don't think your situation was that unusual. Us men rather shoot ourselves in the foot don't we?
We get our wives pregnant by having loads of sex and then suddenly they turn into this baby looking after machine and we take a back seat. There were times back in the day when I thought something might go 'pop' if I didn't have sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Holland said:


> I have no clue but here is my situation. Not sure how it fits into your question.
> 
> Me HD
> Ex LD - fear of intimacy
> After many years of rejection I turned my drive off. Ok had a couple of kids, busy life etc so I had not problem to not think about sex so much.
> 
> Finally blew a gasket and ended the marriage when the repressed feelings and needs were too much to cope with.
> 
> After we separated I did not date for 12 months, not interested and never really thought I would have sex again.
> 
> Woke up one day 12 months later, joined online dating, was dating several men at a time and having a great time. I had made the decision to get back into things as I had consciously switched my drive back on.
> 
> *Met a wonderful man, we clicked, both talked very early on about sex as we both have a big need for it. We have been having great sex often, ever since. *
> 
> *So is that an activated drive? Maybe but it is within me to switch it on or off according to what is available.* I don't think (based on reading TAM) that men are as capable of switching their drive off.


^^^^^
My point exactly.


----------



## janesmith

my husband has NEVER begged or asked for sex in the almost 19 years we have been married. If he did I would think he was a punk and any desire I had for him as a man would surely wane. I want this dude even when Im mad at him. But when we are having regular sex it is very hard to stay angry.

I also think women are unfairly and overly diagnosed with "low drive". People are constantly surprised when they divorce and their "low drive" spouse becomes a freak. People need actions and environments that support and nurture sexy loving feelings and it i different for everyone. Both spouse need to be committed to finding out and sharing what that "it" is.


----------



## jaquen

waiwera said:


> I'm so glad he had faith in me.... he says he knew he'd get me back. I love the fact he thinks I was worth waiting for.


That reminds me of something my wife says:

"_Just trust us_".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

janesmith said:


> I also think women are unfairly and overly diagnosed with "low drive". People are constantly surprised when they divorce and their "low drive" spouse becomes a freak. People need actions and environments that support and nurture sexy loving feelings and it i different for everyone. Both spouse need to be committed to finding out and sharing what that "it" is.


:iagree::iagree::iagree: I think many times it is a slow growing RESENTMENT build up , the roots of which have been buried under the ground, masked for years as other issues...many times the couple themselves can not make sense of it.


----------



## TrustInUs

I have to be honest, and I know this is probably a bit naive, but I don't really even understand the whole LD, HD bit. I've just always considered my H with a normal healthy drive, and while mine I believe is a normal one, it's just not as high as his. So does that make him HD and me LD?

And I guess I still don't comprehend the whole doing extra house work bit, probably because I dont turn him down and because I'm in a space now where I can enjoy and understand what a healthly sexual relationship should and can be.

With all that being said, if for some reason we weren't having enough sex, and he started doing extra housework, I would think he's only doing for sex and not genuinely because he wants to help. I'd rather him just say that he needs more sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TrustInUs said:


> I have to be honest, and I know this is probably a bit naive, but I don't really even understand the whole LD, HD bit. I've just always considered my H with a normal healthy drive, and while mine I believe is a normal one, it's just not as high as his. So does that make him HD and me LD?
> 
> And I guess I still don't comprehend the whole doing extra house work bit, probably because I dont turn him down and because I'm in a space now where I can enjoy and understand what a healthly sexual relationship should and can be.
> 
> With all that being said, if for some reason we weren't having enough sex, and he started doing extra housework, I would think he's only doing for sex and not genuinely because he wants to help. I'd rather him just say that he needs more sex.


No you're naive,
You are thinking!

Lots of marriages lack one of the basic ingredients to make any relationship work, and that is honesty.
And so, people adopt all sorts of fancy sounding terminologies to rationalize the emotional state of their relationships. In reality its just another band aid on the festering sores in the marriage.
It never works.
The end result of all these shenanigans is always resentment and ultimately, divorce.


----------



## CharlieParker

TrustInUs said:


> I don't really even understand the whole LD, HD bit.


Not exactly the same but it reminds me of this. We've always had similar drives (high, low, whatever, similar), but hers took a nose dive after her dad died. Understandable and I never complained. She did theoretically want to have sex, she really wanted the release but she just couldn't get into it. It was a real struggle for her to actually do it. We went from every other day to once every 7 to 10 days. I was ready and willing to help her but it just didn't work, I couldn't make her want sex. Took almost a year. It did give us an appreciation for how good we had/have it when it works well.

My limited brush with LD/HD issues. Not sure if this actually added anything to the thread, but it's now typed.


----------



## Holland

I think in the end the basic answer is that if you are not getting any, have tried to fix things but still getting nowhere, then you are with the wrong person.


----------



## Chumpless

CharlieParker said:


> I wonder how many couples actually had that talk before marriage? We did.
> 
> Also, how many did have the talk and didn't follow through?


We had that talk for the first time 9 years into our marriage. It's been pretty good since and the desire seems to be coming back.

No hoops though, unless you consider the typical MAP stuff. 
We had an episode the other day where she tried to play the sex card. Took no longer than 15 minutes of communication and we were putty in each others arms. Best "make-up" sex ever


----------



## Chumpless

TrustInUs said:


> ...but I notice that the more he is fulfilled in that area, the more he goes out of his way to meet my other needs.


Bingo!


----------



## jaquen

Chumpless said:


> We had that talk for the first time 9 years into our marriage. It's been pretty good since and the desire seems to be coming back.
> 
> No hoops though, unless you consider the typical MAP stuff.
> We had an episode the other day where she tried to play the sex card. Took no longer than 15 minutes of communication and we were putty in each others arms. Best "make-up" sex ever


Can you tell us what she tried, and how you guys communicated your way out of it?


----------



## lalsr1988

jaquen said:


> As to not hijack any of the other many threads that are about helping guys do all they can do to "get" their wives to sleep with them, I created this one.
> 
> I have to know...
> 
> Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?
> 
> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?
> 
> I'm still floored by the amount of people who are flying to the moon, and back, just to warm up coldfish. It's not in my DNA to think that way at all. If you don't want to be here as much as I do, if we're not in this thing together as mutually attracted, sexually excited people, then bye bye.
> 
> Am I the only one?



Hardly. I'm not a dog, to do tricks for treats. If my wife wasn't into sleeping with me whenever, the marriage would be over
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SomeDamagedGoods

*Awesome thread - thank you!*

There are so many assumptions by women about men and their "thinking with the wrong head" on here and in society in general. Sex is a union of _two_ (very) willing participants. 

Working for sex in the true sense - is essentially monogamous prostitution. Who wants that on either side of the bed?


----------



## WyshIknew

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, so you can help me understand something here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by WyshIknew 
My wife and I are a little different in this respect. I am generally a higher drive than her. If I go more than two days without it gets very uncomfortable for me 

Is your wife low drive, or just lower drive than you?

Because if she's bonifide low drive, then I need help with this...



Jaquen, still not sure what your question was, I'm probably being a dumbo. She is lower but not low. I've classified myself as high but perhaps I am just average. I think I am at least average for my age it's more than twice a day that I really really struggle with.


----------



## Lordhavok

Sometimes I think the hd/ld thing is flawed. I know several guys that think they are hd, its not that really, just lack of sex because of problems in the marriage. The old quote "sex is 10%of a relationship, unless your not getting it, then it becomes 90%". Alot of people are just going without alot, then things get worked out and they realize they not as hd as they thought they were, now they cant keep up with the wife, or vise versa. I guess this dont have anything to do with nothing, just an observation.


----------



## TrustInUs

Holland said:


> I think in the end the basic answer is that if you are not getting any, have tried to fix things but still getting nowhere, then you are with the wrong person.


:iagree:

what I'm really trying to figure out is if there is a baseline? How do you decide what is high, low, or normal? When I say my husband is normal, I guess I really just mean he has an active sex drive. I'm not trying to imply that there is no such thing as a high or low drive, I'm just curious.

There are many stories on here where many woman were active and then changed. Are they truly low drive, is it just that life has gotten in the way? Or problems in the relationship? Selfishness? (which I admitt to thinking that is the case sometimes).

OP- I don't mean to h/j your thread, these are just some questions I've been thinking about.


----------



## Chumpless

jaquen said:


> Can you tell us what she tried, and how you guys communicated your way out of it?


It was her day off work and the kids were in school which usually means "sex day".

We got into a bit of a tiff and she said "...and we were supposed to have a nice fun morning in bed together...not gonna happen now".

I said, "the day just started" and laughed. We talked some more about our feelings...she listened to me, I listened to her without getting upset...then put my arms around her waist, kissed her, playful slap on the butt then led her to the bedroom. It may have been the listening without getting pissed off that did it. Or maybe my "I don't care if we just finished a fight, I still want to have sex with you" attitude? Perhaps a little both.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TrustInUs said:


> There are many stories on here where many woman were active and then changed. Are they truly low drive, is it just that life has gotten in the way? Or problems in the relationship? Selfishness? (which I admitt to thinking that is the case sometimes).
> 
> OP- I don't mean to h/j your thread, these are just some questions I've been thinking about.


I started a thread & a poll dealing with that last evening and it disappeared.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

Men should be doing housework and treating their wives and children well, and doing lovely things for them, not for sex but because it's the right thing to do. Men and women should be meeting each others needs, no matter who is HD.

However both people should be respectful and have good relationship boundaries, so the other will respect them and find them attractive and not take advantage, as when someone, man or woman is constantly taken advantage of they get tired of it eventually and it leads to resentment.

I would say my ex was mostly a nice guy, however I all ways felt I had to take care of him and everything else. He would do whatever I told him to do, and while I never "deprived" him of sex, I did find it very hard to find him attractive. If he had taken care of certain things because he was a responsible adult male and I felt like he would do what needed to be done, then I would have had a lot less resentment and worry and far more attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

I haven't read the entire thread, and there have been a ton of great posts, but I thought I'd add this:

No, I do not believe that a man should have to jump through hoops to get sex. I vowed to love, honor, and cherish my husband for better _or_ worse, so just because things aren't golden and sparkly in the relationship doesn't mean I have the right to stop meeting my husband's needs. 

On the flip side, _I_ shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get my emotional needs met, either. 

_Neither_ is helpful. I believe that all relational needs should be expected in marriage, and I believe they should all be given full effort for the benefit of the spouse and the marriage. Emotional fulfillment is just as important and sexual fulfillment, and I know that no one said it wasn't...I just felt it needed to be said.


----------



## gbrad

Well said C2W


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> _Neither_ is helpful. I believe that all relational needs should be expected in marriage, and I believe they should all be given full effort for the benefit of the spouse and the marriage. *Emotional fulfillment is just as important and sexual fulfillment, and I know that no one said it wasn't...I just felt it needed to be said.*


:iagree: X 100 %

Pity all of us missed that important part on the thread.
Any I think its understood, but like you said,
It needed to be said!:smthumbup:


----------



## donny64

I don't work for sex. 

I will work, daily, to be the best guy I can for her and show her she's appreciated. She does the same for me. Great and frequent sex is a bi-product of that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

It seems like we are confused as to what we're working for. I work at keeping my relationship in a good place where we love each other and feel closer to each other than to anyone else and I think having intimate time is one important aspect that's part of that so.

The purpose : Keep the love for each other.
One of the many actions : Be intimate on a regular basis.

So no one should have to work for sex for the sake of having sex. If they are working to keep their relationship healty and happy then working for sex happens whenever it's needed and generally it just happens without having to work at all.


----------



## Catherine602

What does jumping through hoops mean? What activities are considered JTH? Itn't it a catch all term that really has no meaning? It has as many meanings as the people who use it?

Might these hoops be equal to sexual needs to maintain an intimate attachment? 

I see a satisfying relationship as meeting each persons intertwined needs. 

The only requisite for a satifying mutually satifying relationship is the desire to meet your partners needs because you love them and want them to be happy. 

It is possible that designationing certain activities as hoops stunts the process of a mutuality. 

If one person is free to decide what is important based on their needs, the other can do the same right? Whose to say that sex is not another hoop. Why not? Needs are seldom congruent.


----------



## DTO

east2west said:


> The problem is that you have to be ready to leave her to pull such a stunt, and most of the men in this position are not. Otherwise she just calls your bluff and wants you even less.
> 
> It's almost always better to try to alpha up, with the last and final step being an ultimatum as you described. If it doesn't attract your wife, it will prepare you for being single and dating again.


Yes! Or, she might decide you are serious and she does not like you enough to improve herself. Or, resentment becomes an insurmountable hurdle. Etc.

Whichever way, you are far better off working on yourself and demonstrating your ability and willingness to be without her and build a happy, separate life. Success in attracting her back is far from guaranteed, and having a new life and support system in place puts you an important step ahead of where you would have been otherwise.


----------



## DTO

Catherine602 said:


> If one person is free to decide what is important based on their needs, the other can do the same right? Whose to say that sex is not another hoop. Why not? Needs are seldom congruent.


I do see your point. That's why I've striven to explain precisely what my needs are when discussing on TAM and IRL - to avoid miscommunication as much as possible.

That being said, I think these discussions have (and need) an assumption of reasonableness. Our needs are known to be incongruent and we take that into account. By that standard, the OP is right in that jumping through hoops in inappropriate. 

Otherwise, let's say I assert that I must have regular anal sex as part of my relationship. I assert that my needs are as important as hers, even if different. What response would I get here?


----------



## Catherine602

DTO said:


> I do see your point. That's why I've striven to explain precisely what my needs are when discussing on TAM and IRL - to avoid miscommunication as much as possible.
> 
> That being said, I think these discussions have (and need) an assumption of reasonableness. Our needs are known to be incongruent and we take that into account. By that standard, the OP is right in that jumping through hoops in inappropriate.
> 
> Otherwise, let's say I assert that I must have regular anal sex as part of my relationship. I assert that my needs are as important as hers, even if different. What response would I get here?


I was really not being totally thoughtful in my responses. 

This is so complicated to me. I can only say that I notice the difference between my husband and I, he can have sex when he seems exhausted, or within 30 mins of a fight, or every day. I cannot do these things. 

That means he has to do the compromising - exhausted sex for me would mean that I would go through the motions not really be fully aware. 
- after a fight I don't want him to touch me, having sex at that time would make me very resentful even angry.
- every day, I could do it if I don't mind being a passive observer. 

Is it fair? If you are counting beans no. If you have a long view at the full scope of our relation then yes. 

We avoid resentment by not doing things that greatly push against the limits of the other person. I do the same for him in other areas. 

How do we deal with any frustration that may arrise? We are grown up. Also, we make sure we have enough things that make us happy and greatful to offset what we don't get. 

An example- I like being affectionate but not always leading to sex. He cannot do that because he becomes arroused and it is too uncomfortable. So we comprimise by being affectionate in small ways when we are in public. 

That not exactly what I want but I am satisfied because I don't make him uncomfortable. I would get no pleasure out of making him uncomfortable. 

A LTR follows the laws of human interactions in general. We accept that in other areas of life but somehow sex is thought to be different. It's not, in my opinion. 

Maybe that is where we get into trouble.


----------



## Catherine602

Anal sex. If a man cannot get along with out anal sex he needs to find a woman who likes anal sex. 

He could try to convince a partner to have anal sex because he needs it. If the answer is no he can leave her and find a woman who likes it. 

I have a question - be honest. How many men would agree to be penetrated by a dildo the size of his penis every time he wants anal sex. She gives him he gives her. 

If woman used that stategy, there would be less of a desire to have anal sex. In fact i advise women who are pestered for anal sex to purchase a dildo.

Grease it up and put it on the night stand and say "You first darling". How many men would jump out of the bed. 

The problem is that many men believe that women should push their limits sexually out of love but they can't do the same. 

That hypocrisy may make women less likely to sexually sacrifice out of love. They don't get the same from men so why should they. 

The laws of human interactions that is common to both genders. Why are women expected to violate their human nature for sex?


----------



## jaquen

Catherine602 said:


> Anal sex. If a man cannot get along with out anal sex he needs to find a woman who likes anal sex.
> 
> He could try to convince a partner to have anal sex because he needs it. If the answer is no he can leave her and find a woman who likes it.
> 
> I have a question - be honest. How many men would agree to be penetrated by a dildo the size of his penis every time he wants anal sex. She gives him he gives her.
> 
> If woman used that stategy, there would be less of a desire to have anal sex. In fact i advise women who are pestered for anal sex to purchase a dildo.
> 
> Grease it up and put it on the night stand and say "You first darling". How many men would jump out of the bed.
> 
> The problem is that many men believe that women should push their limits sexually out of love but they can't do the same.
> 
> That hypocrisy may make women less likely to sexually sacrifice out of love. They don't get the same from men so why should they.
> 
> The laws of human interactions that is common to both genders. Why are women expected to violate their human nature for sex?


This, of course, supposes that all men and women want equally beneficial sex acts.

My wife loves to have her nipples sucked. I derive no pleasure from having mine. Is it then hypocritical for her to always want her nipples sucked, though she doesn't return the favor? Should I, completely out of a sense of checks and balances, regardless of whether I get pleasure out of nipple sucking, start saying to her "you first darling"?

I encourage all men to at least be open to anal play. It's where our g-spot is, and if more men would relax on the homophobic stigmas (which more men are doing thankfully), many would be open to discovering a potentially mindblowing sexual experience. But to suggest that those who are not open, or who have tried and didn't like it, should therefore not pursue anal sex with their wives/girlfriends is does not make a lick of sense to me.

What is with all the tit for tat? On this very board I've seen lots of people suggest that there is something wrong with men who don't enjoy going down on a woman. But regardless, plenty of men don't find eating a vagina to be pleasurable. But they many will suck it up just because it's such a common avenue for women to orgasm. Yet there are women being eaten out all over the world who won't perform a BJ to save their lives. 

Sex isn't "equal" for most people. There will always be activities that one partner gains great pleasure from that the other might not find much joy, or pleasure, in doing. You compromise, you try and keep things as balanced, and enjoyable, as possible for both parties. Hopefully the two people are sexually compatible enough that they have similar levels of openness. That's the best you can hope for.

But the tit-4-tat is incredibly annoying, and goes nowhere. If a woman doesn't want anal, isn't open to it, and has no desire to try and be open to it, she need just state so and let him sort out the rest. But he shouldn't be told that something is wrong with him for desiring anal sex, or made to feel that because he isn't open to having dildo shoved up his butt that he's being unfair. Because how would the woman then feel about him pulling her cards, and highlighting some of activities that he does for her that are more for her enjoyment than his own?


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> Interesting. I wanted to try this with my wife because she's never done it so it would be our thing even if it only happened once. She said no way when periodically mentioned.
> A year or so ago she whispered in my ear that she would like to try it for me. I guess we men must do **** test too because I lost all desire to try it once I knew she would do it purely for me. I now know to police myself and not ask for something I don't really want.


Come on T . That is all wrong. 

First why did you assume a negative? 

Second, why didnt you ask her what concerns her and allay her fear whatever they are. Maybe say that you understand her trepidation and let her know you would never hurt her. 

The first time my husband mentioned I said no way. I read that it hurts terribly and that you eventually have to wear a diaper. Is it not normal and reasonable to question the possibility of injury? Saying "no" means she is sh!t testing you? I dont think so. It is so simple, acknowledge the real negatives , if you agree that there are some, and reassure her that you would never hurt her. 

Men don't like having an anal exam (can't spell worth a [email protected]) so there must be some element of truth that it is painful and tgat must be cknsidered. Does it not make you cringe to think of such a large object fitting to such a small hole? 

Getting angry could be interpreted as "all you think about is yourself". Short term goals and a myopic view of sex. Viewing Sex is just a series of acts that you get your wife to do may remind her of promiscuous men who are working on getting high numbers. She may think that she if the only person that can confirm his manhood by the number of acts he can gets her to perform. You don't want her to think that. . 

I think you will be more sucessful if you show your wife that you want she can trust you. That means she is safe with You. Being safe with a man means that he thinks of his partner in every thing he /she does.

If it is not good for your partner, it should not be good for you. Women who feels safe will attempt things that are out of their comfort zone. they know there husband first concern is that he do no harm and that she enjoy as much as him. 

You may take this as a criticism or blaming you buy please don't. . I am not. Wouldn't you share info if you knew something that you think would help. That is what I am doing. I am telling you how I feel and that may be how your wife feels although she may not be explicite.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

Catherine602 said:


> Men don't like having a prorate exam so there must be some element of truth that it is painful and tgat must be cknsidered. Does it not make you cringe to think of such a large object fitting to such a small hole?


Faulty logic. Most men like their penises to be touched, but few enjoy a genital examination at the doctors.

Lots of men, regardless of sexual orientation, enjoy anal play. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that most HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of sex, are uncomfortable with an anal probe at the doctors' office.


----------



## Catherine602

J You vaulted to some assumptions that I fail to follow. I don't think I said men are wrong to want anal sex. I suggested that anger was counterproductive and that exploration of the negative aspects of of anal sex should be acknowledged and explored. 

I also talked about safety and trust two elements that may help some men. I don't know how you veered off on the fork in the road to tic tac. 

First what does anal sex have to do with foreplay? For some women nipple stimulation is essential for arousal. How does anal sex equate to the process of desire and arousal? If two people are having sex are they not both being stimulated? . If it takes nipple stimulation for a woman to become aroused and it takes other things to get a man aroused who thinks about it? It's an essential part of the whole. 

The thought of dissecting sex into distinct acts never occured to me. Nothing I do seems to be for him or me when I am worked up. It's is all good. I never think that about who something out of distinct practices when i an in the heat of the moment. It all seems to merge into one intense experience with a beginning and an end. 

When I am in the middle of it, I am in the moment I ain't counting up nothing. As long as he is happy and I am happy. He does not have to touch any body part if he does not want. 

I never thought of sex in terms of something I do for him either. Call me selfish but I don't want to risk becoming bored, it is too important. I do it for us. 

I don't think I need to do anal sex for my husband. It is not an essential part of the whole sexual experience like PIV, oral sex and fireplay. 

If it is then men should be invited to enjoy it too. That is one body part men and woman share so why not. What does that have to do with tic tat? It is mutually enjoyable and men should not be denied the pleasure. 

In fact, I hear that it is actually more enjoyable for men because the prostate is stimulation. I read that men can get an intense orgasm.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

jaquen said:


> Faulty logic. Most men like their penises to be touched, but few enjoy a genital examination at the doctors.
> 
> Lots of men, regardless of sexual orientation, enjoy anal play. That has nothing to do whatsoever with the fact that most HUMAN BEINGS, regardless of sex, are uncomfortable with an anal probe at the doctors' office.


Failure to think logically. How did you get to penises and genital exams? 

Let me try again. 

Men experience pain during digital exam that usually takes place in a physicians office where the physician uses a finger in anus = women fear pain when completing their partner putting something larger than a finger into their anus = man must resolve this dilemma to get his partner to consider the positives. . 

Or get angry at his wife's flighty female thinking that juxtaposes the two completely unrelated things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

Oh most human being are afraid of anal probes in and outside of the dr office. The location of the penetration has nothing to do with it. 

Pain on a warm soft bed with your lover or on a a hard examining table with your dr is still pain, period.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

Catherine602 said:


> Oh most human being are afraid of anal probes in and outside of the dr office. The location of the penetration has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Pain on a warm soft bed with your lover or on a a hard examining table with your dr is still pain, period.


Wrong. You continue to demonstrate, with each post, a total lack of knowledge, and understanding, of anal sexual pleasure for both men and women.

That you can't see the difference between a prostate/anal exam in a doctor's office, and sexually motivated anal pleasuring in the bedroom, speaks volumes.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jaquen said:


> Wrong. You continue to demonstrate, with each post, a total lack of knowledge, and understanding, of anal sexual pleasure for both men and women.
> 
> That you can't see the difference between a prostate/anal exam in a doctor's office, and sexually motivated anal pleasuring in the bedroom, speaks volumes.


There's an enormous difference! Lol

I'd much prefer having my SO pull a little finger action back there than to have my gyn's finger back there.night and day. When SO tries it I'm shocked,tense,turned on, and a little curious. When the gyn does it I feel violated,uncomfortable,nauseated.


----------



## GetTough

jaquen said:


> As to not hijack any of the other many threads that are about helping guys do all they can do to "get" their wives to sleep with them, I created this one.
> 
> I have to know...
> 
> Are there any guys here who just don't believe in jumping through hoops, doing makeovers, consulting books, magazines, tarot cards, what have you, in an attempt to sleep with the very women who asked you to forsake all others with the understanding that they'd be equally as involved in playing their role in a sexually fulfilling, mutually beneficial, monogamous relationship?
> 
> Anybody ever just take a look at your woman's chronic refusing and said flat out "If you're not interested in actually wanting to sleep with me, we can end this now"?
> 
> I'm still floored by the amount of people who are flying to the moon, and back, just to warm up coldfish. It's not in my DNA to think that way at all. If you don't want to be here as much as I do, if we're not in this thing together as mutually attracted, sexually excited people, then bye bye.
> 
> Am I the only one?


Hell, I've even seen posts on this forum where the guy is being asked for favors before she'll even go for a WALK with him.


----------



## jaquen

FrenchFry said:


> I think why the "let your wife lube up a dildo and go at it first" is such a common suggestion is because the men who feel "entitled" for whatever reason to have anal sex seem to have the position that because women are made to be penetrated, anal sex shouldn't be that big of a deal. This is said without acknowledging that men can also be penetrated and the same hesitation that men have to having anything up their anus is the same hesitation many women feel, if not even worse because women don't have a prostate to gain pleasure from.


Absolutely. I think the "dildo" argument is perfect for men who feel like they're entitled to anal sex, regardless of how their wife feels. A recent thread where the OP flat out said he wouldn't let his wife penetrate him because he felt it was going to hurt, but didn't extend the same understanding this wife demonstrates this perfectly.

I just think this should be the first line of conversation when a man starts to ask about anal sex with his wife. 



FrenchFry said:


> Yup, it's about finding that compatibility early on so that surprises don't happen later. People change of course and we need to be flexible but if you don't lay out in the beginning of a relationship that you *need* anal sex or you don't like oral sex, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it later.


Yes. If anal sex is a "need", it needs to be laid out from day one.

Of course most know this won't fly.


----------



## Thundarr

Catherine602 said:


> I have a question - be honest. How many men would agree to be penetrated by a dildo the size of his penis every time he wants anal sex. She gives him he gives her.
> 
> If woman used that stategy, there would be less of a desire to have anal sex. In fact i advise women who are pestered for anal sex to purchase a dildo.
> 
> Grease it up and put it on the night stand and say *"You first darling".* How many men would jump out of the bed.


I would advise you to NOT try that. Men are quite good at rationalizing doing something they don't like to get something they do like. Once you make this offer and he does it then the deal is made.


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> I would advise you to NOT try that. Men are quite good at rationalizing doing something they don't like to get something they do like. Once you make this offer and he does it then the deal is made.


Right. Be careful what you ask for...


----------



## DTO

Catherine602 said:


> Anal sex. If a man cannot get along with out anal sex he needs to find a woman who likes anal sex.
> 
> He could try to convince a partner to have anal sex because he needs it. If the answer is no he can leave her and find a woman who likes it.
> 
> I have a question - be honest. How many men would agree to be penetrated by a dildo the size of his penis every time he wants anal sex. She gives him he gives her.
> 
> If woman used that stategy, there would be less of a desire to have anal sex. In fact i advise women who are pestered for anal sex to purchase a dildo.
> 
> Grease it up and put it on the night stand and say "You first darling". How many men would jump out of the bed.
> 
> The problem is that many men believe that women should push their limits sexually out of love but they can't do the same.
> 
> That hypocrisy may make women less likely to sexually sacrifice out of love. They don't get the same from men so why should they.
> 
> The laws of human interactions that is common to both genders. Why are women expected to violate their human nature for sex?


Hi again,

A couple of points:

1) My point was not anal sex per se. I was describing a bias in the approach to unmet expectations. Specifically, you posted how one's "jumping through hoops" may be another's "meeting my need" and how setting the bar for is an unreasonable demand is at odds with the mutuality needed to maintain a satisfying relationship.

I posted an admittedly extreme example of anal sex, and you shifted positions and said a guy who wants anal needs to find a lady into anal (IOW, that _can_ be deemed unreasonable). You've proved that it makes no sense to tell someone "well, it's jumping through hoops _to you_" when we have the same biases (and they tend to align).

2) Your assertion that guys expect women to push themselves sexually while unwilling to do the same themselves is debatable. Also, I think it's more appropriate to describe this in broader terms and note that men and women both push their spouses for their own benefit. Men do push for better sex. Women push for what matters to them (non-sexual attention, increased exclusivity, increased financial security / affluence). The question is not "why do men push for more sex" but rather "why do men not get their way, or get their way conditionally when women's entitlement to their preferences is a given".

3) AS on a guy is definitely not the same as AS on a woman. You are completely ignoring the homosexuality component of this.


----------



## that_girl

But a man doing a woman in the ass isn't homosexually undertoned?

Hm. Interesting.


----------



## lilith23

Nice thread.  Glad to see many good perspectives about this issue... I'm still new to TAM, and there were a few threads that kind of scared me... I've never thought about doing house chores or nice stuffs just to get sex, nor how sex should be a duty or anything.

It's important that a relationship is satisfying for both, I don't believe in unconditional love. And any side that disregards the other's satisfaction is not only unselfish, but also uncaring, or smply too clueless.
On the other hand, it's important to find a partner that with whom we are compatible enough for both sides to be satisfied. Why would I pick up a conservative, LD partner, if I need physical intimacy and excitement so much? Expecting someone to change into something he/she is not, or expecting someone to do something he/she is not really into it for the sake of satisfying myself is not really a good thing. Can I really pick a man who is clueless about romance and emotional bonding and being emotionally sensitive, and then entirely blame him for not satisfying me emotionally at all?
Also, when it comes to sex or emotions, I can't really bring myself to accept duty or service from my partner if he is not realy into it. I've always believed that those things must be given and received willingly, they are demonstrations of affection as well as desire for each other after all. Good thing is, I've found someone who shares similar feelings towards this.  It is really important to find someone with whom we have a minimum compatibility that satisfies both's needs.

Lastly, being able to communicate with each other is also very important. Maybe we are not 100% compatible in our communication styles with our partners, but both needs to figure out how to communicate with each other, ad never let issues pent up.


----------



## Runs like Dog

I already have a job.


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> I would advise you to NOT try that. Men are quite good at rationalizing doing something they don't like to get something they do like. Once you make this offer and he does it then the deal is made.


No I think that teens and men of low quality are good at deception to get sex. Mature men and mature women, strive for transparentcy. 

They at lest try and feel that deception is wrong. There are more adaptive ways of getting what you want. 

I told my husband when he first brought up anal sex "you first" in a joking way. He looked me with a slight smile and said "that's just not me baby". 

I really love him so much, he is almost always himself. He never mentioned anal again. 

We ended up trying and liking anal occasionally. I researched, felt comfortable and curious and I approached him. 

I know the tread is not about anal. It's about how people of each gender negotiate a satisfying physical and emotional relationship. 

We don't want or need the same things. It takes a tremendous amount of maturity, empathy, commitment and common sense from two people to make it work. It is a wonder that it ever works.


----------



## Catherine602

The thread is interesting becaise we all think that we are right. It goes largely along gender lines. 

The thing is that each gender is wrong. We are wrong in what we think and have no basis for grievances against our partner just for being the opposite gender. 

Men dont have to work for sex, they have to be present in the relationship, all in, the whole relationship, integrating all the roles. 

The challenge for men is integration - they have a tendency to compartmentalize. There is a sex silo, work silo, family silo..... That's why they have a difficult time seeing that sex is part of a whole.

That makes it seem like they are working to have sex. Actually they are being challenged to make the connections and to live them. 

The challenge for women is to shut down some of the connections. We are much better at connecting disparate thoughts, remembering the past and integrating roles. 

We have a tendency to hold onto the past and not put old hurts into a silo where they belong. They interfere with being present and accepting of the man who has committed. 

I think successful relationships are those where at lest one person is knows and more importantly accepts the differences. 

Or we can keep fighting. That is more fun actually and probably more uniting than if we agreed.


----------



## Catherine602

DTO said:


> Hi again,
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
> 1) My point was not anal sex per se. I was describing a bias in the approach to unmet expectations. Specifically, you posted how one's "jumping through hoops" may be another's "meeting my need" and how setting the bar for is an unreasonable demand is at odds with the mutuality needed to maintain a satisfying relationship.
> 
> I posted an admittedly extreme example of anal sex, and you shifted positions and said a guy who wants anal needs to find a lady into anal (IOW, that _can_ be deemed unreasonable). You've proved that it makes no sense to tell someone "well, it's jumping through hoops _to you_" when we have the same biases (and they tend to align).
> 
> 2) Your assertion that guys expect women to push themselves sexually while unwilling to do the same themselves is debatable. Also, I think it's more appropriate to describe this in broader terms and note that men and women both push their spouses for their own benefit. Men do push for better sex. Women push for what matters to them (non-sexual attention, increased exclusivity, increased financial security / affluence). The question is not "why do men push for more sex" but rather "why do men not get their way, or get their way conditionally when women's entitlement to their preferences is a given".
> 
> 3) AS on a guy is definitely not the same as AS on a woman. You are completely ignoring the homosexuality component of this.


Wow, did I say that! 

That is what I meant but I did not state it so eloquently. 

Thanks for making what I meant very clear. 

Your absolutely right, we are the same about different things. It is important to explore the differences and to vent. 

The trick is to go back and read our post and recognize that it reveals more about the poster than they think. 

It is much easier for me to pick apart others than to look at myself. I notice that my faults are reflected in the faults that I notice in others. 

It can be a tool for improvement. as in "removing the cinder from my brothers eye ....."

Looking though this thread is a case in point.


----------



## Catherine602

3) AS on a guy is definitely not the same as AS on a woman. You are completely ignoring the homosexuality component of this.

This is interesting. We are the same about different things. 

You and many men can empathize with the association of homosexuality with anal penetration. It seems to be a vertebral reaction. 

Can you take that same empathy and apply it to a wife or gf that is being manuvered into unpalatable (to them) sex acts? 

Using anal sex as an example - Women, at lest some, may feel the same verceral reaction for a totally different reason, pain. We experience the pain of childbirth - a large baby through a small space. 

Having children is a natural part of life but contemplating pain for so frivolous a reason from a loving partner is difficult to understand.

It may change the way you see your partner and their priorities. You may become more wary, less trusting and less likely to make sacrifices. 

These are the connections that may be missed by men and is far more likely to be responsible for tanking the spontaneity and expression of their partners sexuality. 

That is why jumping through reasonable hoop is worth the effort. It takes into account male and female sensibilities. 

Maintaining trust and safety is essential for me. If I did not feel safe, I would have missionary sex a few times a month until my husband got fed up and left. Luckily I feel safe. .


----------



## jaquen

Catherine602 said:


> Men dont have to work for sex, they have to be present in the relationship, all in, the whole relationship, integrating all the roles.
> 
> The challenge for men is integration - they have a tendency to compartmentalize. There is a sex silo, work silo, family silo..... That's why they have a difficult time seeing that sex is part of a whole.


This thread wasn't created in context of men who don't handle basic relationship responsibilities well. It's in reference to the many, many TAM men who do everything "right", are fine husbands, and still face chronic, endless sexual rejection from sexually dead wives. The ones reading every book, on top of trying to understand her needs, taking care of their families, working overtime to unlock the secrets to her panties, and failing miserably.

There are a lot of men "working" for sex. I don't care how women justify it, but at the end of the day if you're refusing sex with a decent husband, you are dead wrong.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> This thread wasn't created in context of men who don't handle basic relationship responsibilities well. It's in reference to the many, many TAM men who do everything "right", are fine husbands, and still face chronic, endless sexual rejection from sexually dead wives. The ones reading every book, on top of trying to understand her needs, taking care of their families, working overtime to unlock the secrets to her panties, and failing miserably.


Hmm I guess that Catherine602 meant that women usually are not able to separate issues, so that if there's something that is not ok in the family department for example, then it might affect her affectionate/sexual department? While men are usually able to separate each thing? (Catherine602 correct me if I'm wrong)



jaquen said:


> There are a lot of men "working" for sex. I don't care how women justify it, but at the end of the day if you're refusing sex with a decent husband, you are dead wrong.


Why is it dead wrong? I think that it depends on the reason behind the rejection. Also, by what definitions can we say that a husband is a decent one? There are some guys here at TAM that has the good guy syndrome, and think that just coz they do housework or some other stuffs, then they should get sex. And then there are also women who are clueless of why nothing they did seem to make their sexually dead husbands more into sex.
Things aren't that simply, it's not fair to simply say "I don't care how women justify it, but at the end of the day if you're refusing sex with a decent husband, you are dead wrong" or say this in reversed genders (men refusing sex from decent wives).

IMO, if the LD partner does not really care if the HD partner is not satisfied, then it's selfishness as well as not really caring about the partner (I believe that if you love someone, you would care about the other person). While the HD should try to figure out the reasons behind, and give it some time, instead of jumping right to the "my partner is not fulfilling his/her duty and is being unfair to me". Both needs to make efforts for things to work out. LD partner should try to figure why he/she has LD, and what might help to have higher drive, while the HD partner should help him/her figure it out instead of just assuming what the partner might like and then get frustrated just coz it was a wrong guess (like assuming that house chores are what maks the other more into sex, while the LD is due to something else that needs to be addressed).
Although many couples also chose to be together even if both sides knew that there was a big mismatch of drives since the very beginning and still chose to be married. In these cases, maybe compromissing from both sides can help, although they should have known that there were consequences to this choice.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> Why is it dead wrong? Why is it dead wrong? I think that it depends on the reason behind the rejection. Also, by what definitions can we say that a husband is a decent one? There are some guys here at TAM that has the good guy syndrome, and think that just coz they do housework or some other stuffs, then they should get sex. And then there are also women who are clueless of why nothing they did seem to make their sexually dead husbands more into sex.
> 
> Things aren't that simply, it's not fair to simply say "I don't care how women justify it, but at the end of the day if you're refusing sex with a decent husband, you are dead wrong" or say this in reversed genders (men refusing sex from decent wives)..


It's dead wrong...to me. I believe that when you marry, you enter a sexual contract. I believe it is the responsibility of both married partners to remain sexually active, and open, and willing to satisfy the other. It is a reciprocal relationship that should be upheld by both parties, and under most circumstances.

I do not believe in sexless marriages for _any_ reason (sans abuse/injury/adultery). I do not see a point in being married to somebody who feels sex a few times a year is OK for _any _reasons. I do not believe marital sex should be largely contingent on issues outside of the bedroom. Naturally they will have an effect, but I do not believe the effect should ever lead to a sexless, or even close to a sexless, marriage. I believe that whatever level of sex is happening in a marriage, both parties should be at least somewhat fulfilled. 

I believe going sexless, even if you feel you have "good" reason, is only going to exacerbate the problem. Keeping the sex life open, and satisfying, can actually be a powerful salve for many of the non-sexual issues in a marriage.

This view has to be mutually shared by husband and wife. It will not work if one person holds it, while the other person thinks there are legit reasons to withhold (again, obviously outside of extreme examples). This is how my wife and I view marriage.

I simply made this thread to see if there were other like minded people out there, who believe marriage is a sexual contract, and that sex in marriage is utter importance, and must be maintained in the face of nearly all obstacles. 

I believe chronically withholding sex is abandonment, violates the marriage vows, and is grounds for divorce. To me, it is in the same ballpark as adultery.

If you believe that there are a plethora of legitimate reasons to withhold sex from a spouse, more power to you; there are plenty of others who feel the same. I do not.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen, what I believe is that while marriage should be mutually satisfying, when marriage become sexless, we can't simply blame on the LD partner and assume that it's wrong for him/her to just withhold sex. What I'm trying to say is that both should take resonsibility to analyze the problem and then figure out how to solve the situation, making things satisfying for both again.

So while it is also my belief that marriage should be mutually satisfying, I still disagree with the logic that simply assumes that the one who is withholding sex or whatever is the wrong one.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> jaquen, what I believe is that while marriage should be mutually satisfying, when marriage become sexless, we can't simply blame on the LD partner and assume that it's wrong for him/her to just withhold sex. What I'm trying to say is that both should take resonsibility to analyze the problem and then figure out how to solve the situation, making things satisfying for both again.
> 
> So while it is also my belief that marriage should be mutually satisfying, I still disagree with the logic that simply assumes that the one who is withholding sex or whatever is the wrong one.


Sexuality is not a shared commodity. We all are sexual beings in, and of, ourselves. We were sexual beings before our spouses, and if the marriage should end, we will be sexual beings after our spouses. We vow to share that sexuality with our spouses, but they are not _responsible _for it. People who care about, and cherish, their own sexuality work to keep it preserved, and available, not only for the sake of their spouse, but for their _own sake_. Major problems arise when you come to think of your own sexuality as being completely contingent on your sexual partner. 

If you find yourself withholding your sexuality from a person you vowed to sexually satisfy, than the onus for correction is on you. The person who is experiencing the drop in libido, or who has made the choice to withhold, should be the person who spear heads the work it takes to regain that lost sexuality.

Unless you are dealing with a serious illness, injury, or abuse, than the other reasons behind feeling justified in withholding are not legitimate to me. It is NOT your right as a married person to unilaterally turn your marriage sexless, just as it is NOT in your marital right to sleep around with other people. 

Why is it that, when people have an affair, the "excuses" don't seem to matter? They are almost universally strung up. You can have a person come on TAM and say that they had an affair because their spouse stopped having sex with them decades ago, didn't try to correct this issue, and sexually abandoned them. And they will STILL be strung up for stepping out. There does not seem to be too many widely accepted legitimate reasons to cheat, no matter how bad the marriage is. The wayward spouse is almost always cast in the role of villain. 

Monogamy has two equal sides; it is the forsaking of all others for the benefit of one. Monogamy only works if you actually abandon all sexual prospects with others, for the sake of sexual fulfillment with a single person. If one side of that coin is negated, be it cheating with others, or cheating your partner out of sex, monogamy fails. Adultery and withholding are two sides of the same coin.

So why is it that chronic withholders are not held to the same standard as adulterers?


----------



## Deejo

lilith23 said:


> jaquen, what I believe is that while marriage should be mutually satisfying, when marriage become sexless, we can't simply blame on the LD partner and assume that it's wrong for him/her to just withhold sex. What I'm trying to say is that both should take resonsibility to analyze the problem and then figure out how to solve the situation, making things satisfying for both again.
> 
> So while it is also my belief that marriage should be mutually satisfying, I still disagree with the logic that simply assumes that the one who is withholding sex or whatever is the wrong one.


The premise of the thread was a partner that IS doing the right things; being attentive, being present, a good provider, etc. in other words, a partner focused on the task of meeting their spouses needs. And in terms of intimacy that attentiveness is simply blown off, minimized, or ignored.

'Fault' may not be the correct word, but if they value their marriage, it is most certainly their responsibility. But they simply don't see it as a factor ... and at that point the entire relationship has been put at risk. It's no different than if the man stopped providing emotional or financial support and just shrugged his shoulders when his spouse voiced concern,

And yes, this issue can certainly cut across genders, but the most common recipe, is decent man gets consistently shut down by his otherwise decent spouse.

Listen up Ladies: Could you be ruining your own sex life? | About Love


----------



## lilith23

jaquen, I myself see sex as one of the most important things in marriage, along with emotional bond and respect. For me, it is the most intimate form of affection, something natural and essential in an intimate marriage. I'm stating this, as I want to make it clear that I'm not defending that it's ok for a marriage to be sexless. I'm just defending that we should not blame it all on one side, when marriage becomes sexless.

Deejo, this thread has been about not believing in working for sex, and many others also talked about how many spouses are just doing things that are not necessarily the right ones to fix the issues.

Both sides needs to take responsibility to make a relationship satisfying for both. But we can't simply blame the withholding one without first analyzing each case. There are cases in which the withholding one tried to communicate the problem, but the other spouse was just not listening, 'till sex disappears and then they desperate. I think that a few people here already posted examples of this.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> jaquen, I myself see sex as one of the most important things in marriage, along with emotional bond and respect. For me, it is the most intimate form of affection, something natural and essential in an intimate marriage. I'm stating this, as I want to make it clear that I'm not defending that it's ok for a marriage to be sexless. I'm just defending that we should not blame it all on one side, when marriage becomes sexless.
> 
> Deejo, this thread has been about not believing in working for sex, and many others also talked about how many spouses are just doing things that are not necessarily the right ones to fix the issues.
> 
> Both sides needs to take responsibility to make a relationship satisfying for both. But we can't simply blame the withholding one without first analyzing each case. There are cases in which the withholding one tried to communicate the problem, but the other spouse was just not listening, 'till sex disappears and then they desperate. I think that a few people here already posted examples of this.



So, using this criteria, would it be perfectly fine for a person to express their issues with their spouse, and if not heard, eventually seek sexual gratification outside of the marriage? And if they do that, are they likewise no longer to blame?


----------



## Deejo

I have no issue with doing the work required to maintain a relationship, never have; but ... I will never 'jump through hoops' again. Nor will I stay with a partner that expects it, or believes that shaming and rejection are appropriate means for managing ones sex life.

The core problem inevitably is defined by the fact that one partner doesn't 'see' the problem, let alone want to discuss or address it.


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> And then there are also women who are clueless of why nothing they did seem to make their sexually dead husbands more into sex.


Yes, and everybody feels for them. No woman should have to work for sex; no woman should have to lay awake night after night trying to figure out what's wrong while her husband contentedly sleeps like a baby; no woman should have to run out and buy an armload of self-help books just so her husband will love her again. A sexually attentive husband is something every woman has a right to expect when a man says, "I do."

There is no ambiguity or inconsistency here.


----------



## jaquen

ocotillo said:


> Yes, and everybody feels for them. No woman should have to work for sex; no woman should have to lay awake night after night trying to figure out what's wrong while her husband contentedly sleeps like a baby; no woman should have to run out and buy an armload of self-help books just so her husband will love her again. A sexually attentive husband is something every woman has a right to expect when a man says, "I do."
> 
> There is no ambiguity or inconsistency here.


----------



## Catherine602

jaquen said:


> This thread wasn't created in context of men who don't handle basic relationship responsibilities well. It's in reference to the many, many TAM men who do everything "right", are fine husbands, and still face chronic, endless sexual rejection from sexually dead wives. The ones reading every book, on top of trying to understand her needs, taking care of their families, working overtime to unlock the secrets to her panties, and failing miserably.
> 
> There are a lot of men "working" for sex. I don't care how women justify it, but at the end of the day if you're refusing sex with a decent husband, you are dead wrong.


I agree. I hope that what I wrote did not appear to support abuse of good men through sexual starvation. Also, I do not support the notion that sex is contractural in marriage. It is an essential part of the emotional connection between two people. 

Don't know why the contract thing bothers me so much. Probably because it seems regressive and an impingment on personal freedoms and a vehical to avoid personal reponsibility.

I dont think personal relationships in our culture work by fiat, it is uninforcable. There are societies where it is culturally acceptable and inforceable. 

There are moral obligations and personal freedoms. That leaves it up to each individual to take personal responsibility for the success or failure of their choice. 

I dont see that the locus of control goes to some authority. Rather, it is the people in the union. Pick the right person for the right reasons, work hard at it and do right by them.


----------



## Thundarr

Most things special take work to create or maintain. We have to work relationships ( marriage, family, friends ). Sometimes it feels more natural than other and sometimes the effort is not returned which is the real problem.

I found TAM because due to restlessness (maybe empty nest and a little mid life creeping up). Point is, *effort was put forth to find TAM* and try to understand what was going on. That was work.

Anyone would have said our marriage was solid including my wife. We had settled into sex once a week, separate hobbies, and that kind of stuff. Upon *finding TAM and reading His Needs/Her Needs and my wife also reading it because I asked her to, it's like a new marriage.* Researching and learning was work. It was well worth it because we both want the same thing. So a little effort (work) and now we're not just content. We're reconnected.


----------



## jaquen

Catherine602 said:


> I agree. I hope that what I wrote did not appear to support abuse of good men through sexual starvation. Also, I do not support the notion that sex is contractural in marriage. It is an essential part of the emotional connection between two people.
> 
> Don't know why the contract thing bothers me so much. Probably because it seems regressive and an impingment on personal freedoms and a vehical to avoid personal reponsibility.



Marriage is a legally, morally, and spiritually binding contract. In the basic vows that seal that contract are promises to forsake all others, which creates a contract of sexual fidelity. The inferences is forsaking all others, for the sake of one, which makes it partially a sexual contract of exclusivity.

If one, or both parties, believe that the expectation of sexual fulfillment is not apart of the marriage contract, than that should be discussed upfront, before marriage. The expectation of sexual fidelity should then not be included in the vows. At that point an open marriage might need to be discussed, as there is no point in expecting sexual fidelity without the inverse promise of sexual gratification.


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> I have no issue with doing the work required to maintain a relationship, never have; but ... I will never 'jump through hoops' again. Nor will I stay with a partner that expects it, or believes that shaming and rejection are appropriate means for managing ones sex life.
> 
> The core problem inevitably is defined by the fact that one partner doesn't 'see' the problem, let alone want to discuss or address it.


I've asked this before but still dont have a good idea. What exactly is considered jumping through hoops? Wouldn't you need to discuss with you prospective partnr what you consider jumping Vs. working? 

Completly sexless marriages aside, the majority of problems is low quality sex between emotionally healthy persons. 

In these situations, could it be that both people are not seeing the problems and are working but at cross-purposes?

Ie, working on issues that are important to them while not decerning what is important to their partner. 

It is easy to get into a mindset that the other person is broken because no amount of work improves things. Actually, no amount of work on the wrong issues are effective.


----------



## Catherine602

Thundarr said:


> Most things special take work to create or maintain. We have to work relationships ( marriage, family, friends ). Sometimes it feels more natural than other and sometimes the effort is not returned which is the real problem.
> 
> I found TAM because due to restlessness (maybe empty nest and a little mid life creeping up). Point is, *effort was put forth to find TAM* and try to understand what was going on. That was work.
> 
> Anyone would have said our marriage was solid including my wife but we have settled into sex once a week (no big deal). Upon *finding TAM and reading His Needs/Her Needs and my wife also reading it because I asked her to, it's like a new marriage.* Researching and learning was work. It was well worth it because we both want the same thing.


 :iagree: Same here, our efforts paid off big time. it started with me identifying my thinking as a basic problem and also my lack of understanding of my husband as a man.


----------



## MEM2020

Cat,
To a large degree this comes down to the 'ld' partners 'default setting'. That default can be either: 

I understand sex is important to you, and as long as you are making a good faith effort to be a good partner, I will make the effort to keep you happy in bed.
Or
If anything external to the marriage happens that makes me stressed, angry or upset, or if my partner doesn't do what I want, sex ain't happening. 






QUOTE=Catherine602;1317918]What does jumping through hoops mean? What activities are considered JTH? Itn't it a catch all term that really has no meaning? It has as many meanings as the people who use it?

Might these hoops be equal to sexual needs to maintain an intimate attachment? 

I see a satisfying relationship as meeting each persons intertwined needs. 

The only requisite for a satifying mutually satifying relationship is the desire to meet your partners needs because you love them and want them to be happy. 

It is possible that designationing certain activities as hoops stunts the process of a mutuality. 

If one person is free to decide what is important based on their needs, the other can do the same right? Whose to say that sex is not another hoop. Why not? Needs are seldom congruent.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> If one, or both parties, believe that the expectation of sexual fulfillment is not apart of the marriage contract, than that should be discussed upfront, before marriage. The expectation of sexual fidelity should then not be included in the vows. At that point an open marriage might need to be discussed, as there is no point in expecting sexual fidelity without the inverse promise of sexual gratification.


This is but one symptom of not knowing each other's needs and expectations up front.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> So, using this criteria, would it be perfectly fine for a person to express their issues with their spouse, and if not heard, eventually seek sexual gratification outside of the marriage? And if they do that, are they likewise no longer to blame?


How is my criteria implying that it's ok to cheat if the partner is not heard? I've said that the couple has to try to solve things together, and not simply blame the withholding one for sexless marriage.

IMO, if one is not satisfied with a relationship, then he/she should end it and not cheat. This has a lot to do with one's moral codes and principles. Although I would not make absolute judgment on any case, specially without understanding the situation well.



ocotillo said:


> Yes, and everybody feels for them. No woman should have to work for sex; no woman should have to lay awake night after night trying to figure out what's wrong while her husband contentedly sleeps like a baby; no woman should have to run out and buy an armload of self-help books just so her husband will love her again. A sexually attentive husband is something every woman has a right to expect when a man says, "I do."
> 
> There is no ambiguity or inconsistency here.


No man or woman should find it ok for his/her needs to be ignored and left to figure out what's wrong by himself/herself. That's why I have said that the LD would be selfish if he/she does not care and only the HD partner is putting effort to solve the situation. But then what I was disagreeing was the logic of simply blaming the LD one for the sexless marriage.

Also, a person can put tons of efforts to try to solve something, yet he/she might not be doing the right things and really targetting the issue. Just like how the LD person can be clueless to how to solve the situation. Any side that disregards any effort made by the other is being inconsiderate and uncaring.
In the end, both has to be understanding of each other and trying to reach a compromise, as well as continue trying, instead of just assuming that one of the sides is wrong.


Lastly, I've thought that this thread is about general cases in which the wives withhold sex and how a husband mopping around the house is not going to help him get a better sex life. If this thread was just about wives dismissing any effort made by husbands as well as not caring about doing much for the marriage, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding it. Although if this is the case, then I don't see a point in debating much, since if you have an uncaring partner, then it's pretty obvious that you would always fail no matter what anyways.


----------



## Catherine602

MEM11363 said:


> Cat,
> To a large degree this comes down to the 'ld' partners 'default setting'. That default can be either:
> 
> I understand sex is important to you, and as long as you are making a good faith effort to be a good partner, I will make the effort to keep you happy in bed.
> Or
> If anything external to the marriage happens that makes me stressed, angry or upset, or if my partner doesn't do what I want, sex ain't happening.


That's what I was trying to say. The difference between a loving, mature and relatively emotionally healthy man or woman Vs. a mentally challenged (especially victim of abuse and PD's), immature or simply misinformed man or woman.


----------



## techmom

I love this thread, it brings up lots of issues between LD & HD partners. I am an LD partner, so my default sex setting is lower than my husband's. Things that my husband does which piss me off affect my sex drive. Things that I do to piss my husband off (outside of sex) SOMETIMES affect his sex drive. In other words, I will have less of a drive than him regardless. I do try to give him sex even though I'm not in the mood, he does not like it though because he wants passion.

My question is this, is the "jumping through hoops" done to get passionate sex? Because there are numerous threads where the HD partner is still dissatisfied with "duty sex". I see that we gave this a negative connotation. I choose to call it "loving sex", sex given out of love for their partner rather than pure lust of a HD person.

I feel that LD people work for sex too, we work to make our partners satisfied with sex given out of love rather than lustful feelings. I feel that there is no in between, and our partners want to change us from the LD person they knew from the beginning of the relationship to the "swinging from the chandeliers" person because they are bored with what we offer.


----------



## Runs like Dog

If you're forced to work for it than getting you to work for it was the only goal. You're just missing what the real objective was.


----------



## Deejo

"Jumping through hoops"

"Moving the goal posts"

Although I think my circumstances can easily be made a generalization pertaining to many others, I'll keep them personal for the example.

I have had two long term relationships. One lasting six years. The other, my marriage, lasting a total of 14; four unmarried, 10 married.

In both cases, my partners developed full-blown aversions to having sex ... with me. Decent fellow. Smart, fit, attentive, passionate, high emotional IQ. I generally read people well.

So, needless to say when the two women whom I loved dearly, and I thoroughly believed loved me back went from being VERY sexual, to looking like they smelled something funny at the mention of the word, I found it puzzling.

It wasn't overnight, and it wasn't drastic. It was a slow progression, that tragically I think many, I certainly did, misinterpret as the normal arc of a relationship, particularly as a young twenty, or thirty-something.

Example? There was a point where virtually every single time I was on the phone (these were pre-cell phone days) my partner would give me this impish look ... come over undo my pants and go down on me. It was like a game to her to try and get me off while I was talking on the phone to anyone ... at almost any time. She _enjoyed_ it.
Fast forward three years. Mention the word 'blow job' and she responds with "Gross ..."
Did I want to go back to fellatio during phone calls? No.

Am I curious how the hell we got from that to "Gross."? Yes, and I wanted to bridge the gap.

So the point is, for me, while I was jumping through hoops to try and determine what I, we, could do to address the sexual issues ... I didn't think I was jumping through hoops. I thought WE were working towards a resolution. Fact is, any of the 'work' I was doing was simply a counter-measure on her part. 

She didn't want to have sex with me. And why in the world would any rational person presume that to be the case of the person that tells you that they love you?

So the conversation starts shifting. It no longer becomes about recovering sex as a couple. It becomes about why 'I' am solely focused on sex. Why am I preoccupied with sex? Why does everything have to be about sex? Why is sex all I want her for? 

At that point, it most certainly IS bait and switch. We weren't working towards a common goal. I was focused on one result, and she was completely focused on AVOIDING that result.

But ... it can take a very long time to see that dynamic for what it is when you love your partner deeply, and they are telling you that they love you deeply.

My point is, you don't know that it is dysfunctional or that your partner may in fact have significant issues surrounding sex, until you are already up to your eyeballs in it, for the simple fact that it wasn't always that way.

Both of these women were EXTREMELY sexual for the first 3 years of our respective relationships. In one case, the more uncertain our relationship was, the more intense the sex was. I later found out both were abused. Both sexual relationships seemed to utterly nose-dive after I proposed marriage. And at that point, I was all in.

So no, jumping through hoops isn't about 'if you do this for me, I might do this for you.'
It was more sinister. It was about thinking that we were in it together ... making progress, connecting, talking, non-sexual contact, doing everything that you believe you are supposed to be doing ... or that she explicitly asked you to do in order to create circumstances where she would feel comfortable having sex ... only to then discover that she isn't comfortable, and she doesn't want to have sex.

It's an insidious process, and unless you have crystal clear boundaries and consequences regarding expectations within a relationship about what will or will not happen if your intimate needs aren't met, it's a pitifully easy trap to fall into.

I don't believe that most men stay in sexless relationships because they are stupid or gutless.

Many men stay because they love their partner, they don't want to appear childish and selfish, and they both remember, and desire to recover intimacy that they at one point shared with the person they love.

So even when I was 'working for sex', it wasn't the sex I was working for. It was that deep intimate, physical and emotional connection that we built that I desired ... and felt it was worth working for.
Until one day you wake up and realize you're the only one that sees it that way. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Deejo, you posted that horrific article on two threads?! What's up with that man?!?!
> 
> Runs_like_dog...saw your calf in another thread...Hot Leg!


I saw it as something very different prior to reading your reaction to it. 

You might see where I was coming from after reading my response above.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I may be wrong, and this may be too blunt, but I think that for some reason you're attracted to women who are in need of fixing. You're attracted to the chaotic passion and intensity of it. Problem being that in both relationships you were with two women who were intense but, for whatever reason, weren't able to continue. Nothing you can do at that point. The connection was there but temporary because neither were capable of comfortably connected, long lasting relationships. Either they didn't believe they deserved them or chaos is what they needed and it can't endure within the expected (which is where you ended up with both).
> 
> I don't see them selling something that they know doesn't exist but rather wishing for something they aren't capable of accepting. If you're with someone who doesn't believe they are worthy of what you're offering, no matter what you do, they will walk away and if they choose to stay they will be gone anyway.
> 
> You're not "working" for sex. You're working to maintain a connection that can't sustain.


I never have a problem with blunt. I like what you said.
I think women that were in need of fixing were attracted to me, not necessarily the other way around. 

Ex just cratered her on again, off again relationship with boyfriend/affair partner after 4 years. MO was pretty much our relationship but in a shorter timeframe. She has previously dumped him something like 8 times.

Prior to her involvement with me at the age of 26, her longest relationship had been one year. 

The other 'love' to whom I was engaged, dumped me for a guy that apparently enjoyed exposing himself in public (she came to find out), and when she insisted on a 'direction' for the relationship, he cheated on her. She then turned around and married a man addicted to pornography. Very, very, bad pornography. Oh, and her boyfriend prior to me required a restraining order ... so yeah, something to be said about attraction radar.

Sadly ... I am tragically stable, self-aware, gainfully employed, monogamous, and sex offense free ... and I shower daily to boot.

No more fixer-uppers. No more hoops. Bad knees, can't jump through'em any more. Nope. Maybe a little bit of crazy though ... just a little ... I do REQUIRE passion. Can't argue with you there.


----------



## morituri

Sexual attraction IS an ALWAYS be primal in nature. A woman can love her husband with all her heart and soul and yet not be sexually attracted to him.

Gentlemen, the more you chase after someting, the less you are going to get it. Stop chasing after the sex you crave and sex will eventually chase you. I personally can vouch for this.

And finally, *You CANNOT contract sexual desire*.


----------



## heartsbeating

...because I hit "like" and wanted to say (for what it's worth), Deejo's thoughts around his relationships and his perspective of them showed good/healthy insight. I guess the like was because it was straight from personal experience. To an extent, even on a forum, that's being vulnerable and open. Deejo doesn't need the props, I know that, but I'll give them regardless. 

As for patterns in relationships, as Trenton mentioned (and you know I also dig when you post from your own experiences), I'm sure we all have those to an extent. I know when hubs and I were on rocky ground, I've certainly considered what mine would be. 

And I'm fully aware I'm not contributing anything worthwhile to this thread but there ya have it.


----------



## morituri

heartsbeating said:


> And I'm fully aware I'm not contributing anything worthwhile to this thread but there ya have it.


I beg to differ dear lady.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> I hate the term "marriage contract". No wonder so many of these contracts fail.
> 
> For me it was like the joining of two persons as one and was this beautiful, meaningful event that was symbolic. Of course, I was young and the idea of getting health benefits, alimony, child support, life insurance, inheritance was non existent in my puny little brain. Then again it still is. I could care less about that and more about the care and keeping of the one that used to be two.


None of this negates the fact that marriage is, quite literally, a contract. 

I personally see marriage exactly as you describe. And yet still, marriage is a contract. You make it seem as if the concepts are mutually exclusive, when they are not.



Trenton said:


> Are there any women here who don't believe that men are working for sex but confusing themselves into believing that?


Are you serious? Is it that easy for you to just wish away a glaring, common fact of a lot of marriages? A lack of marital sex is so common, and in the majority of cases, that is because a woman has decided that sex isn't going to happen all that often. Some men are dead beat husbands, but a lot of those men are not, and STILL are deprived of sex. They are providing, treating their wives well, trying to unlock the key to her part time panties, and yet you seriously think men are "confused"?

No. More women need to grow the hell up, act like adults, and take responsibility for their OWN sexuality. It is not a man's job to guide you into acceptance of your sexuality. It is not a man's job to make you feel sexually free, and open; that comes from within. Too many women are utterly passive, disconnected, and terrified of their own sexuality, as they wander around in the dark, waiting for men to do the "right" things to get them revved up. All women are not like this, but plenty are. 

This line of thinking just gets under my skin. What of the women who come on here and are heartbroken that their men no longer have sex with them? They go to bed night, after night, crying themselves to sleep because the husband is refusing sex. No matter how much work they put in, being kind, understanding, wearing lingerie, being ever available, asking, even begging, for sex, these men barely touch them. Does _anyone_ on TAM _*ever*_ say that these women are "confused"? That they really aren't "working" for sex, but are just lost in confusion?

I would pity the fool who actually stepped to one of these hurting women and dared say something like you did above. The poor soul would be eviscerated.


----------



## Holland

techmom said:


> I love this thread, it brings up lots of issues between LD & HD partners. I am an LD partner, so my default sex setting is lower than my husband's. Things that my husband does which piss me off affect my sex drive. Things that I do to piss my husband off (outside of sex) SOMETIMES affect his sex drive. In other words, I will have less of a drive than him regardless. I do try to give him sex even though I'm not in the mood, he does not like it though because he wants passion.
> 
> My question is this, is the "jumping through hoops" done to get passionate sex? Because there are numerous threads where the HD partner is still dissatisfied with "duty sex". I see that we gave this a negative connotation. I choose to call it "loving sex", sex given out of love for their partner rather than pure lust of a HD person.
> 
> I feel that LD people work for sex too, we work to make our partners satisfied with sex given out of love rather than lustful feelings. I feel that there is no in between, and our partners want to change us from the LD person they knew from the beginning of the relationship to the "swinging from the chandeliers" person because they are bored with what we offer.


I have read this a few times and can't quite articulate what I mean. But here goes, I think you should do some serious thinking about your attitude to sex, love and intimacy for the sake of your marriage. This is not an accusation.

You say your duty sex is loving sex, maybe so and I can see your point.
You say your HD partner is coming from a place of lust.

So in effect you are saying your action is loving but your partners desire is not. You are good, he is bad. You are caring and giving, he is uncaring and using you for his own gratification.

I don't think HD partners want their LD spouse to hang from the chandeliers, what they want is a better connection. For the LD spouse to show some understanding of the HD spouses needs and to not look at them as a bad, lustful person.

.


----------



## lilith23

Where's the "like" button for mobile version?? 



Deejo said:


> "Jumping through hoops"
> 
> "Moving the goal posts"
> 
> Although I think my circumstances can easily be made a generalization pertaining to many others, I'll keep them personal for the example.
> 
> I have had two long term relationships. One lasting six years. The other, my marriage, lasting a total of 14; four unmarried, 10 married.
> 
> In both cases, my partners developed full-blown aversions to having sex ... with me. Decent fellow. Smart, fit, attentive, passionate, high emotional IQ. I generally read people well.
> 
> So, needless to say when the two women whom I loved dearly, and I thoroughly believed loved me back went from being VERY sexual, to looking like they smelled something funny at the mention of the word, I found it puzzling.
> 
> It wasn't overnight, and it wasn't drastic. It was a slow progression, that tragically I think many, I certainly did, misinterpret as the normal arc of a relationship, particularly as a young twenty, or thirty-something.
> 
> Example? There was a point where virtually every single time I was on the phone (these were pre-cell phone days) my partner would give me this impish look ... come over undo my pants and go down on me. It was like a game to her to try and get me off while I was talking on the phone to anyone ... at almost any time. She _enjoyed_ it.
> Fast forward three years. Mention the word 'blow job' and she responds with "Gross ..."
> Did I want to go back to fellatio during phone calls? No.
> 
> Am I curious how the hell we got from that to "Gross."? Yes, and I wanted to bridge the gap.
> 
> So the point is, for me, while I was jumping through hoops to try and determine what I, we, could do to address the sexual issues ... I didn't think I was jumping through hoops. I thought WE were working towards a resolution. Fact is, any of the 'work' I was doing was simply a counter-measure on her part.
> 
> She didn't want to have sex with me. And why in the world would any rational person presume that to be the case of the person that tells you that they love you?
> 
> So the conversation starts shifting. It no longer becomes about recovering sex as a couple. It becomes about why 'I' am solely focused on sex. Why am I preoccupied with sex? Why does everything have to be about sex? Why is sex all I want her for?
> 
> At that point, it most certainly IS bait and switch. We weren't working towards a common goal. I was focused on one result, and she was completely focused on AVOIDING that result.
> 
> But ... it can take a very long time to see that dynamic for what it is when you love your partner deeply, and they are telling you that they love you deeply.
> 
> My point is, you don't know that it is dysfunctional or that your partner may in fact have significant issues surrounding sex, until you are already up to your eyeballs in it, for the simple fact that it wasn't always that way.
> 
> Both of these women were EXTREMELY sexual for the first 3 years of our respective relationships. In one case, the more uncertain our relationship was, the more intense the sex was. I later found out both were abused. Both sexual relationships seemed to utterly nose-dive after I proposed marriage. And at that point, I was all in.
> 
> So no, jumping through hoops isn't about 'if you do this for me, I might do this for you.'
> It was more sinister. It was about thinking that we were in it together ... making progress, connecting, talking, non-sexual contact, doing everything that you believe you are supposed to be doing ... or that she explicitly asked you to do in order to create circumstances where she would feel comfortable having sex ... only to then discover that she isn't comfortable, and she doesn't want to have sex.
> 
> It's an insidious process, and unless you have crystal clear boundaries and consequences regarding expectations within a relationship about what will or will not happen if your intimate needs aren't met, it's a pitifully easy trap to fall into.
> 
> I don't believe that most men stay in sexless relationships because they are stupid or gutless.
> 
> Many men stay because they love their partner, they don't want to appear childish and selfish, and they both remember, and desire to recover intimacy that they at one point shared with the person they love.
> 
> So even when I was 'working for sex', it wasn't the sex I was working for. It was that deep intimate, physical and emotional connection that we built that I desired ... and felt it was worth working for.
> Until one day you wake up and realize you're the only one that sees it that way.
> 
> Hope that helps.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lilith23

The words "contract" and "obligation" linked to sex and affection, I also can't agree with. I won't say that those who think that way are wrong - each has their own way of thinking and beliefs. But while I believe that marriage should be mutually satisfying, and that there are duties like taking care of home together, for me, sex and affection as well as emotional bonding are things that I don't see it as obligations. It has to be genuine, and if a partner doesn't really care anymore (which is different from having put effort to solve things together), no amount of reminding him/her how sex and affection as obligation would I get genuine love, care, respect and affections back. So if my partner ever stops caring, I would prefer to walk away, rather than trying to get what isn't there anymore.

Again, not saying that people who link sex as obligation as wrong, everyone is entitled to see things their own way. We need to find partners that agrees with us thought, and cannot simply assume that our own views are the right ones.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I Notice The Details

Holland said:


> I don't think HD partners want their LD spouse to hang from the chandeliers, what they want is a better connection. For the LD spouse to show some understanding of the HD spouses needs and to not look at them as a bad, lustful person.
> 
> .


:iagree:

Holland, you hit the nail on the head perfectly with that statement. That is one of the truest statements I have ever read on this site! Very, very insightful...I feel lucky that my wife does show some understanding of my HD needs...but it has taken more than 10 years to get to this point. For years, I was the "bad, lustful person" for wanting sex more. 

For the past 5 years things have been much better in the bedroom, and it happened when SHE embraced her own sexuality more and accepted/understood my HD needs. It started to change with my "3 panty gift" to her and lots of frank communication. I am very lucky and thankful for us to be where we are now. We do have a strong and loving connection....and that is what we both wanted all along. Thank you for posting that insightful statement!


----------



## Caribbean Man

morituri said:


> Sexual attraction IS an ALWAYS be primal in nature. A woman can love her husband with all her heart and soul and yet not be sexually attracted to him.
> 
> *Gentlemen, the more you chase after someting, the less you are going to get it. Stop chasing after the sex you crave and sex will eventually chase you. I personally can vouch for this.
> *
> And finally, *You CANNOT contract sexual desire*.


My goodness!
I wondered how it took so long for someone to say that^^?
There is something really banal, and stupid about this whole concept of a married man " working for sex ."
Who are we really fooling with all this " intricate psych stuff?"

We are overthinking this.

Man loves his wife he wants to have sex with her.
Wife in love with her husband she wants to have sex with him.
The only work needs to be done is WORKING ON IMPROVING and KEEPING THE INTIMATE CONNECTION IN THE RELATIONSHIP.


----------



## jaquen

Too many people looking at this emotionally.

Marriage is a legal contract. If it were not a legal contract, there would be no need to file legal papers in order to make it binding. You would simple say you're married, and skip the state papers.

Here is the legal definition of "marriage":

_The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship_


marriage legal definition of marriage. marriage synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Marriage is a spiritual contract (if you are a believer in spiritual matters). If it were not a spiritual contract, you would not stand up and make vows before a spiritual figure. In most religions the world over marriage is presented as a spiritually binding, lifetime contract.

Marriage is an emotional contract. You make vows to support one another, uphold one another's needs, in sickness, or in health, for better, and for worse. If it were not an emotional contract, you would simply say you'll provide emotional support whenever you feel like it, if you feel like it at all.

Marriage is a sexual contract. You vow to forsake all other parties sexually, for the sake of devoting your sexuality to one person. Monogamy is a two way street; you cease to have sex with others, with the understanding that you are entitled to sex with one. You do not wed with the hope of sex with your singular sex partner, but the expectation, and yes, the right. If marriage is not a sexually binding contract, than the expectation of sexual faithfulness is pointless, and void. If you do not believe your spouse is entitled to sex, than you are not entitled to faithfulness.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> No. More women need to grow the hell up, act like adults, and take responsibility for their OWN sexuality. It is not a man's job to guide you into acceptance of your sexuality. *It is not a man's job to make you feel sexually free, and open; that comes from within.* Too many women are utterly passive, disconnected, and terrified of their own sexuality, as they wander around in the dark, waiting for men to do the "right" things to get them revved up. All women are not like this, but plenty are.
> .


:iagree:

As I posted before, in my wife's case I accepted part of the responsibility. The difference with her was her _willingness to work on it._ We had other problems but she never allowed these problems to overlap and affect our sex lives, or her libido.
Sex is/was way too important to her and us.


----------



## jaquen

morituri said:


> If other women don't won't to f**k your brains out, why should your wife want to do so as well?


If a man's wife doesn't want to "f**k his brains out", then why the hell is she is wife?

The answer to why a lot of women stay, despite losing attraction to their husband, assuming they ever found him sexually appealing to begin with, produces potentially ugly answers that few seem to want to confront.


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> Lastly, I've thought that this thread is about general cases in which the wives withhold sex and how a husband mopping around the house is not going to help him get a better sex life. If this thread was just about wives dismissing any effort made by husbands as well as not caring about doing much for the marriage, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding it. Although if this is the case, then I don't see a point in debating much, since if you have an uncaring partner, then it's pretty obvious that you would always fail no matter what anyways.


I think that from a distance, not caring and not understanding might look exactly the same, but there's a difference in people's hearts.

A recurring theme in the HD/LD drama is that the LD partner truly in the depths of their soul has no idea how important sex is to their significant other. Sometimes it's simply ignorance, but more often then not, it seems like they can't wrap their mind around the idea even when it's explained most eloquently.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

jaquen said:


> If a man's wife doesn't want to "f**k his brains out", then why the hell is she is wife?
> 
> The answer to why a lot of women stay, despite losing attraction to their husband, assuming they ever found him sexually appealing to begin with, produces potentially ugly answers that few seem to want to confront.


traitor to my gender,I agree with this...adding the normal disclaimers:this doesn't include women with medical problems that are being treated and times of illness.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> I think that from a distance, not caring and not understanding might look exactly the same, but there's a difference in people's hearts.
> 
> A recurring theme in the HD/LD drama is that the LD partner truly in the depths of their soul has no idea how important sex is to their significant other. Sometimes it's simply ignorance, but more often then not, it seems like they can't wrap their mind around the idea even when it's explained most eloquently.


That is true, there's a difference between trying but not able to understand, and not caring to try at all, although unfortunately, both would not help the situation.

Just as some men said here, I also believe that a man's sexual needs is more than just sexual. It's also about feeling loved, cared for and desired. Unfortunately, some people do not really understand it, and then they would also feel hurt, misunderstanding that the partner is only into sex. The problem here is miscmmunication, so it's important to find someone with similar ideals or at least understands the nature of our needs (and we understanding theirs) and can satisfy each other. We might not find perfect partners, but it makes a difference between choosing someone who is similar so that we won't have too much difficulty understanding each other, and having a partner that not only does not understand what we are trying to say, but also belittles what matters to us (big difference in priorities and beliefs).


----------



## ScarletBegonias

lilith23 said:


> Unfortunately, some people do not really understand it


It was a struggle to understand it after being raised with the idea that "boys" only want sex from you.

THAT'S how many girls are raised.With the belief that all males want is a piece of a$$.Some of us learn a new way after living a bit and some of us can't forget those lessons therefore the HD husband is only after sex.


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23 said:


> jaquen, what I believe is that while marriage should be mutually satisfying, when marriage become sexless, we can't simply blame on the LD partner and assume that it's wrong for him/her to just withhold sex. What I'm trying to say is that both should take resonsibility to analyze the problem and then figure out how to solve the situation, making things satisfying for both again.
> 
> So while it is also my belief that marriage should be mutually satisfying, I still disagree with the logic that simply assumes that the one who is withholding sex or whatever is the wrong one.


I think for marriages to be healthly, you generally shouldn't go around assigning blame. But a spouse should be able to acknowledge when they are lacking in an area, in this case sexually.

However, looking from the outside in, if, as many posters have stated, that we are talking about good husbands who are taking care of responsibilities and being attentive but still not getting sex, then whose fault is it really? If the husband is still taking care of his wife's needs, but her needs have changed in someway, then it is her responsibility to make that known instead of withholding.

I don't think it's ever okay to withhold, just like I don't think it's okay to use sex as a bargaining tool. However, if I started to withhold from my H because my needs aren't being met, then it would be harder for him to "hear" me.


----------



## TrustInUs

techmom said:


> I love this thread, it brings up lots of issues between LD & HD partners. I am an LD partner, so my default sex setting is lower than my husband's. Things that my husband does which piss me off affect my sex drive. Things that I do to piss my husband off (outside of sex) SOMETIMES affect his sex drive. In other words, I will have less of a drive than him regardless. I do try to give him sex even though I'm not in the mood, he does not like it though because he wants passion.
> 
> My question is this, is the "jumping through hoops" done to get passionate sex? Because there are numerous threads where the HD partner is still dissatisfied with "duty sex". I see that we gave this a negative connotation. I choose to call it "loving sex", sex given out of love for their partner rather than pure lust of a HD person.
> 
> I feel that LD people work for sex too, we work to make our partners satisfied with sex given out of love rather than lustful feelings. I feel that there is no in between, and our partners want to change us from the LD person they knew from the beginning of the relationship to the "swinging from the chandeliers" person because they are bored with what we offer.


I see where you are coming from. I don't identify with being LD, but my drive is a little lower than my H. But occansionally, even with how attracted i am to my H, there are times when he does have to do a little extra kissing and touching than normal to get me warmed up. We don't consider it duty sex, rather he doesnt call it that.


In a marriage though, I believe lust is a good thing. I want him lust after me, but we are still emotionally connected, so lust does not ale away from that in the slightest.


----------



## jaquen

I think the bottom line is that LD and HD people should, under most circumstances, not marry.

We've got to stop being such damn prudes about discussing sex. Sexual discussions between people who are planning to wed should be frank, open, and brutally honest.

Most people have sex before marrying, and many LD partners will put their best foot forward prior to slipping the ring on. While it might not feel like deception, if you know you're giving more sex than you actually want to participate in, but do so under the pretense of wanting to appear like a shinier penny than you are, you are being deceptive and manipulative. 

If you are HD and know that your partner's sexual appetite is significantly lower than yours, or their ideas about sex are radically out of step with your own, and you marry them anyway, you're being stupid. If you're HD but hiding, or diminishing your need for sex, all in the name of love, or with under the delusion that things will change after marriage, you're being dumber than Helen Keller. 

Don't marry a person who is completely disconnected from their sexuality, unless you are too. Beware of people who don't have a sexual identity if their own, but rather rely on you to "inspire" them sexually. People who actually enjoy sex, and sexuality, for their _own sake_ are going to be far less likely to give it up, even during the natural ebbs and flows of a relationship.

If your potential spouse never drove you wild before marriage, don't marry them. 

The only people who should ever run into HD/LD incompatibility should be two people who entered into marriage of like mind, and temperament, but something happened after marriage to cause a shift in one, or both.


----------



## CharlieParker

jaquen said:


> I think the bottom line is that LD and HD people should, under most circumstances, not marry.
> 
> We've got to stop being such damn prudes about discussing sex. Sexual discussions between people who are planning to wed should be frank, open, and brutally honest.


I agree with you. 

If my niece or nephews ever asked me about getting married I would definitely advise them to have that discussion.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> Jaquen, do you really think a man can reason his way into a woman's legs?


No, I think a man should reason his way out of a marriage with a woman who believes he is responsible for unlocking her sexuality. 

A woman can't reason attraction to her husband anymore than a man can reason his way into bed with her.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Trenton said:


> So if they're not being treated for an illness or are unaware of what that illness is or that they even have one, do you still agree with this?
> 
> There are too many variables for this issue to be black and white which is why a singular solution will never apply.


there are a lot of variables and it's up to the couple to decide which one applies to why they're not having sex.I will be the first one to say it's not cool to tell people you KNOW what their issue is...they've gotta figure it out and be mature enough to talk about it openly.

I still stand by saying why be married to someone if you have no interest in making love to them frequently.


----------



## CharlieParker

jaquen said:


> The only people who should ever run into HD/LD incompatibility should be two people who entered into marriage of like mind, and temperament, but something happened after marriage to cause a shift in one, or both.


Very broad and vague question, and hopefully still on topic, then what?


----------



## techmom

Holland said:


> I have read this a few times and can't quite articulate what I mean. But here goes, I think you should do some serious thinking about your attitude to sex, love and intimacy for the sake of your marriage. This is not an accusation.
> 
> You say your duty sex is loving sex, maybe so and I can see your point.
> You say your HD partner is coming from a place of lust.
> 
> So in effect you are saying your action is loving but your partners desire is not. You are good, he is bad. You are caring and giving, he is uncaring and using you for his own gratification.
> 
> I don't think HD partners want their LD spouse to hang from the chandeliers, what they want is a better connection. For the LD spouse to show some understanding of the HD spouses needs and to not look at them as a bad, lustful person.
> 
> .


I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I am not saying that lustful feelings from my H were wrong. I am saying this, just because an LD person has sex with their spouse even though they may not be in the mood does not make it any less valuable than lustful sex. The LD person does not have as much lust as the HD partner. Therefore, they do not have that to provide the HD partner.

So when people go on about how they don't want sex given out of duty, or even worse "pity sex", they are making it difficult for the LD partner to show love to the HD partner through the sex. Then the "hoop jumping " begins. I do offer to have sex with my H even though I'm not in the mood to show my love for him. I don't want to be one of those wives who deny sex constantly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> I wonder how often applying your solution of having women grow the hell up works in a healthy way.


Trenton it's the same advice commonly given to men here. "Man up", own your needs, your desires, be responsible for knowing yourself, and making your true self known, unapologetically.

Women can not have it both ways; you can't fight for gender equality, and then continue to be voluntarily victimized. You can not fight to be treated more like men, but then not take on the responsibility of what that means.

There is a victimized mentality that often clouds these discussions about women's sexuality. Women are painted as sexually incomplete, in need of the right man to press their buttons in order to activate their dormant sexuality. This is why there are countless books aimed at changing men in order to "awaken" the female libido, and very little material telling a woman to shut up, get up, woman up, and own her own sexuality.

We poorly educate females about their sexuality, while simultaneously creating a culture of enablement that offers very little consequence for not pursuing, or totally giving up, on their sexuality. 

We need to teach women to ring the alarm the moment they discover that they feel disconnected from their sexual selves. It is never alright, if you're partnered with a sexually driven being, to fake, lie, ignore, or dismiss your sexuality.

We need to teach women that if they are not ready to be sexually open, then they're not ready to marry, unless they're marrying a sexually closed man.

It's time to get frank, and it's time to get real. These issues seldom magically appear after marriage. They almost always exist long before.

The majority of sexless marriages are that way because a woman is refusing sex. There might be, in her mind, lots of legitimate reasons to refuse, but the end result is that she is still refusing.

When are we, as a society, going to start telling women that it is NOT OK to chronically refuse husbands?

Men dropped the ball here. The last couple of generations of us have bought into a whole lot of bull****, including the notion that we are responsible for awakening women's sexuality, and that it's OK to expect women to abuse their power as sexual gatekeepers.

Something has gone wrong for both women, AND men, to get us in a situation where sex is becoming a rarer, and rarer, marital commodity.


----------



## jaquen

CharlieParker said:


> Very broad and vague question, and hopefully still on topic, then what?


Find out what happened, what changed, and correct it if at all possible. It's like Trenton said, the issues are varied. 

There is a difference between running into a problem during marriage that helped shift the sex drives, and entering into marriage knowing full well your are incompatible from day one.

If two people can not find their way back, it's time to refine what those two people consider a successful marriage, or navigate toward divorce if they can not agree.

A successful marriage just can't be "we stayed together". Who cares? There is nothing noble about "staying together" just because. There is nothing to applaud in two miserable people wasting their God given lives, just so they can wear the badge of "I lived through hell with this person, and I stubbornly held on".

Marriage, in the west at least, is now something you don't need. It's something we want, under most circumstances. And while it's not always easy, it should still be marriage. NOT roommates living together.



techmom said:


> I think you misinterpreted what I meant. I am not saying that lustful feelings from my H were wrong. I am saying this, just because an LD person has sex with their spouse even though they may not be in the mood does not make it any less valuable than lustful sex. The LD person does not have as much lust as the HD partner. Therefore, they do not have that to provide the HD partner.
> 
> So when people go on about how they don't want sex given out of duty, or even worse "pity sex", they are making it difficult for the LD partner to show love to the HD partner through the sex. Then the "hoop jumping " begins. I do offer to have sex with my H even though I'm not in the mood to show my love for him. I don't want to be one of those wives who deny sex constantly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But does the LD person understand that the_ quality of sex_ matters to most people? It's not about just opening up your body to allow a spouse to get off. Sex is not just physical, but it's about emotional, and spiritual, connection.

I venture to say that most men, and women, want sex to be mutually beneficial, whenever possible.

If you're a LD spouse who is married to a person who doesn't mind pity or duty sex, and you are fine giving it, that's all good. But know that a lot of HD people would rather not have that kind of sex at all.


----------



## CharlieParker

jaquen said:


> Women can not have it both ways; you can't fight for gender equality, and then continue to be voluntarily victimized. You can not fight to be treated more like men, but then not take on the responsibility of what that means.


I'm going to quote Nicole Daedone one more time, her emphasis. 

"*If you want him to treat you like an equal, then be his equal.* Something I hear often from women is that they withhold sex because sex is the only card they have. They must play it wisely. If they give it away too quickly, or too frequently, they’ll have nothing left. He’ll have all the cards and what will they do then? 

The problem with this strategy is simple. Men do not actually have all the cards. [...] The problem is, you _appear_ to be broken a lot of the time. If someone has to fill the “alpha” position, it’s going to have to be him."


----------



## Deejo

Taken from this thread, posted over 2 years ago.
http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/16221-how-about-them-apples.html

Don't want to derail this very good discussion, but I have been over this ground before. Jacquen's post about women taking responsibility for themselves reminded me of it ... and I still absolutely agree.

I want to foster a great relationship. I am still single after 4+ years because I insist on having a partner that also wants to foster a great relationship, rather than just being the recipient of one.




Deejo said:


> For those of us that have already lived this ... the information comes as no surprise and far too little, far too late.
> 
> Infidelity, Cheating Wives - Women's Infidelity
> 
> My gripe about this stuff is that it's all post-mortem. Nobody feels much like reflecting on "What the hell happened?" until the bomb has already gone off and the field is strewn with body parts.
> 
> There are a number of excellent contributors to the male side of the equation on this board that provide input and insight about keeping your woman from looking elsewhere. It is valuable information.
> 
> *However, invariably it will always still come down to having two people that desire to serve the relationship and/or marriage. If one of them simply surrenders - it needn't and shouldn't be incumbent upon the devoted spouse to figure it all out, nor take responsibility for their partner's infidelity.*
> 
> I know exactly why my wife cheated - and it is absolutely in alignment with the stages that Ms. Langley points out. Had I adopted more of the traits to maintain an equilibrium of attraction and balance in our relationship at the outset - this is what I know ... we would never have gotten married. Can't say that I would have been ok with that outcome either.
> 
> *Don't think I'd buy the book, but I found it somewhat gratifying that a woman was interested enough in the factors behind her own infidelity to look for reasons deeper than 'my husband made me do it.'.*
> 
> I have been doing a great deal of research on this topic. My own post mortem. I'm still in the process of cleaning up the body parts.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> No, I think a man should reason his way out of a marriage with a woman who believes he is responsible for unlocking her sexuality.
> 
> *A woman can't reason attraction to her husband anymore than a man can reason his way into bed with her*.


There's a word for that....
I think its called " _incompatibility_.."


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> I think you're making this about something it's not. It's about relationship equality, not gender equality. Men and women are different. We can either try to bend to one another's will or celebrate & understand our differences. You can't do this without open communication and so that is always the starting point.


Of course men and women are radically different. The only person in this debate who seems to believe other people think otherwise is you. 

I'm married to a woman. I was raised primarily by a woman. My best friend use to be a woman before she became my wife. I have female friends. I am exceptionally close to my sister. Trust me when I say, I am well aware that women and men are very different. 

You just have a tendency to associate low sex drives, and innately passive sexuality, with females, and I do not believe that to be the case. I believe that is a very antiquated, out dated, and incorrect assumption.

Women want sex. We just socialize women to have these really ugly, dysfunctional, disconnected, shameful relationships with their sexuality. 



Trenton said:


> I don't believe men are responsible for awakening a woman's sexuality. It was a frustration I personally had to deal with but I feel it's very short sighted and ignorant of you to believe that you can understand it.


I would say we both could lobby claims of ignorance equally across the fence, if tit-for-tat is what you're looking for.



Trenton said:


> Your advice and criticism leads me to believe that you really don't care to in the first place. Which is fine because you're not my husband, but what a gross injustice to couples in general, regardless of gender, to say, "Place blame here!"


Blame isn't a four letter word. How can you get to the heart if any matter of two people don't explore what went wrong, who is responsible, and how that can be corrected.

Or are we to live in a Pollyanna world where personal responsibility, and chastisement, don't exist?



Trenton said:


> You want to find solutions, get people to be real and share their very private experiences. The stuff they think but don't dare speak/talk about and listen with care. Then you can offer some real advice. People don't want to do that. Why? Ah me, it all comes down to vulnerability.


Yes, a perspective that I preach, ad nausem, on this board.

You think I don't care? You're wrong, but you're entitled to think whatever you like. But I do believe, and always have believed, that the key is openness, even when being open is exposing, difficult, and uncomfortable. Perhaps being brutally honest would save a ton of marriages, and prevent a ton more that should never have happened in the first place.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> You care about helping in general but you don't care about the actual circumstances. If you did, you wouldn't say things like, women should just wake the hell up. It's offensive and counter productive.


Interesting how few seem to be offended by telling men to "wake the hell up" and "man up". If a man comes here and has no job, or has trouble providing, he's told to "grow up and get off your ass!". If a man looks at porn, to the detriment of his sex life with his wife, he's told to "stop with the damn porn!". If he's considered too nice, or too beta, he's told to stop being a little girl, and "man up!". 

Only when it comes to calling women on their own personal responsibility to their own problems is it suddenly "offensive" and "counter productive". Suddenly we need to walk on egg shells, take into account every single exception, and slip on kid gloves.

So which is it? Should I, and everyone else, start using a nicer, less bold language for women? Or should I, and everyone else, address the problem head on, like we do with the men on this board?


----------



## lilith23

TrustInUs said:


> I think for marriages to be healthly, you generally shouldn't go around assigning blame. But a spouse should be able to acknowledge when they are lacking in an area, in this case sexually.
> 
> However, looking from the outside in, if, as many posters have stated, that we are talking about good husbands who are taking care of responsibilities and being attentive but still not getting sex, then whose fault is it really? If the husband is still taking care of his wife's needs, but her needs have changed in someway, then it is her responsibility to make that known instead of withholding.
> 
> I don't think it's ever okay to withhold, just like I don't think it's okay to use sex as a bargaining tool. However, if I started to withhold from my H because my needs aren't being met, then it would be harder for him to "hear" me.


I guess that most of us actually agree on the basic things, like how both sides of a couple should put some effort to solve the sexless marriage situation, and that it's not ok to withhold for the sake of manipulation or simply coz the LD partner does not need sex but does not care if the HD partner needs it. It seems that most of us are rather arguing about who is to blame or the possible reasons behind LD person withholding, as well as what the HD person really feels as well as his/her efforts going into waste.

IMO, as others said, there are just too many variables. Of course that we all know that if the LD partner does not care for the HD partner at all, or uses withholding for sex is wrong. But then there are just other cases.

For example, there's a typical case that I wouldn't jump into judgments so soon. Imagine the following scenario:

A couple makes love like rabbits and is genuinely attracted to each other. But as time passes, the woman feels that she is not understood emotionally. Often, whenever she is having some life issue and seeks support from husband, husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words that his constructive criticisms rather made her feel worse. She often tried to explain it to him, but he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance. Over time, wife got tired of arguing and simply allowed disappointment and resentment to build. Also, wife was also not too satisfied on bed that she tried to explain her husband what she likes, but unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her. Wife started to feel less and less into having sex with husband, 'till husband finally find it not of and then started to try to figure out what's wrong. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find. He even did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed. Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex. In the end, husband gets frustrated and feels that wife does not care nor love him anymore.

In this example, there are serious miscommunications as well as not really understanding each other's needs. Both sides tried to solve things, but they could not communicate each of their thinking and nature of their needs effectively. And after trying for some time, each side might just give up and feel too tired and frustrated to deal with it. So are any of them to blame? Maybe yes, maybe not. But IMO, the real issue here is about lack of compatiblity (which caused both of them to not understand the nature of the other side's needs) and miscommunication (each side getting the wrong idea and misunderstanding the other). If the husband understood his wife emotional side, and the wife understood how her husbad unwanted and unloved, things might have been better. If the wife understood that her husband's criticism meant good and that he was just not good at comforting others, and if she understood that sex was more than just getting it off so that she could see how her husband cared for her when doing all those house chores and other things to win her back, instead of feeling hurt for misunderstanding her husband only wanting sex; and if her husband did not simply dismiss her wife's emotional reactions and tired to improve on his choice of words, or if he was more sexually compatible with his wife that he was able to do things better on bed when she asked...


----------



## ocotillo

My experience is admittedly extremely limited (Relationship/Marriage to one woman for forty years) but having raised three daughters, I wonder if it is even in the average young woman's nature to be pragmatic about sex in marriage.

I could go off on a long winded rant on how popular entertainment depicts romance as entirely the courtship phase of the relationship, and how sex is depicted as an earthshaking crescendo in the music rather than the music itself.

But realistically, this stuff wouldn't exist if it wasn't appealing to the intended audience.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> A couple makes love like rabbits and is genuinely attracted to each other. But as time passes, the woman feels that she is not understood emotionally. Often, whenever she is having some life issue and seeks support from husband, husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words that his constructive criticisms rather made her feel worse. She often tried to explain it to him, but he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance. Over time, wife got tired of arguing and simply allowed disappointment and resentment to build. Also, wife was also not too satisfied on bed that she tried to explain her husband what she likes, but unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her. Wife started to feel less and less into having sex with husband, 'till husband finally find it not of and then started to try to figure out what's wrong. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find. He even did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed. Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex. In the end, husband gets frustrated and feels that wife does not care nor love him anymore.


And what she doesn't realize is that taking sex off the table is going to put even further distance between them, create a brand new problem, and not do anything to solve their original issues.

She's got problems, and she's failing to communicate what those problems are. But the sex should continue, even as they are working through their difficulties.

Sex is connection. It also can cover up a multitude of sins. It can be a powerful shorthand that helps a couple stay glued together emotionally, enough to actually create feelings of well being strong enough to let petty grievances go, or deal with their issues from a more pleasant place.

Taking sex off the table in this instant should not be seen as a viable, condonable action. She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better, but they still need to continue connecting sexually.

I also find it odd that this hypothetical woman is apparently "genuinely attracted" to this man, and they make love like rabbits, yet suddenly she's unhappy with him in bed.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> And what she doesn't realize is that taking sex off the table is going to put even further distance between them, create a brand new problem, and not do anything to solve their original issues.
> 
> She's got problems, and she's failing to communicate what those problems are. But the sex should continue, even as they are working through their difficulties.
> 
> Sex is connection. It also can cover up a multitude of sins. It can be a powerful shorthand that helps a couple stay glued together emotionally, enough to actually create feelings of well being strong enough to let petty grievances go, or deal with their issues from a more pleasant place.
> 
> Taking sex off the table in this instant should not be seen as a viable, condonable action. She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better, but they still need to continue connecting sexually.
> 
> I also find it odd that this hypothetical woman is apparently "genuinely attracted" to this man, and they make love like rabbits, yet suddenly she's unhappy with him in bed.


You do realize that for some people (maybe more true for women then men), they need to feel emotionally connected to desire/allow physical intimacy? Just coz you don't see/feel it that way, doesn't mean that others also must continue having sex even if they are emotionally detached.

Also, it was not "suddenly", it was "by time". It gradually decreased.

But yeah, agree with the "She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better, but they still need to continue connecting sexually."


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> And what she doesn't realize is that taking sex off the table is going to put even further distance between them, create a brand new problem, and not do anything to solve their original issues.
> 
> She's got problems, and she's failing to communicate what those problems are. But the sex should continue, even as they are working through their difficulties.
> 
> Sex is connection. It also can cover up a multitude of sins. It can be a powerful shorthand that helps a couple stay glued together emotionally, enough to actually create feelings of well being strong enough to let petty grievances go, or deal with their issues from a more pleasant place.
> 
> Taking sex off the table in this instant should not be seen as a viable, condonable action. She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better, but they still need to continue connecting sexually.
> 
> I also find it odd that this hypothetical woman is apparently "genuinely attracted" to this man, and they make love like rabbits, yet suddenly she's unhappy with him in bed.


Lilith did a good job of pointing out *both sides* of this and took time to write down a real world example that happens a lot with thought as to what's going on with both parties. Your response just attacks the woman in her story and everything she should have done better. What should the man do better? Obviously he wasn't perfect either.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> You do realize that for some people (maybe more true for women then men), they need to feel emotionally connected to desire/allow physical intimacy?


I'm well aware. Because...



lilith23 said:


> Just coz you don't see/feel it that way, doesn't mean that others also must continue having sex even if they are emotionally detached.


You have no idea what I "see/feel". Just to educate you for a moment, I don't have "emotionally detached" sex.

However I married a woman who, even if things aren't perfect in our relationship, sex, and sexual-emotional connection is so important, that we don't allow those issues to murder our sex life. Even if they do have an effect, it's never to the point of sexlessness. That is unacceptable for us both.

And there in lies the greater issue of "compatibility". I married a like minded person, a woman who agreed with me that taking sex off the table was simply unacceptable, regardless of the reasons. That was understood long before marriage, and it was a stipulation going in.

If you know that emotional changes, upset, and turmoil are enough to knock your libido out, and careen your marriage into sexlessness, then being upfront about that from day one will go a long way toward preparing your spouse for the reality to come.

Perhaps if more people were honest, especially women, about how fragile their sexuality was, their SO can decide if they want to marry them.

Because it's very, very strange that this emotionally driven sexlessness has a tendency to only show up AFTER the rings have been slipped on, and the marriage license signed.


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> A couple makes love like rabbits and is genuinely attracted to each other. But as time passes, the woman feels that she is not understood emotionally. Often, whenever she is having some life issue and seeks support from husband, husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words that his constructive criticisms rather made her feel worse. She often tried to explain it to him, but he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance. Over time, wife got tired of arguing and simply allowed disappointment and resentment to build. Also, wife was also not too satisfied on bed that she tried to explain her husband what she likes, but unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her. Wife started to feel less and less into having sex with husband, 'till husband finally find it not of and then started to try to figure out what's wrong. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find. He even did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed. Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex. In the end, husband gets frustrated and feels that wife does not care nor love him anymore.


I appreciate your perspective, but do you realize how utterly one sided it is for the husband to be punished for faults whose root cause is ignorance and inexperience as opposed to a real lack of love? 

Isn't it just a little over the top that a wife who has fallen into a pattern of punishing her husband for his faults would feel angry and hurt that he wants her to stop?

Believe it or not, women do not understand men any better than men understand women and both parties feel misunderstood emotionally over the course of a marriage.


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23 said:


> I guess that most of us actually agree on the basic things, like how both sides of a couple should put some effort to solve the sexless marriage situation, and that it's not ok to withhold for the sake of manipulation or simply coz the LD partner does not need sex but does not care if the HD partner needs it. It seems that most of us are rather arguing about who is to blame or the possible reasons behind LD person withholding, as well as what the HD person really feels as well as his/her efforts going into waste.
> 
> IMO, as others said, there are just too many variables. Of course that we all know that if the LD partner does not care for the HD partner at all, or uses withholding for sex is wrong. But then there are just other cases.
> 
> For example, there's a typical case that I wouldn't jump into judgments so soon. Imagine the following scenario:
> 
> A couple makes love like rabbits and is genuinely attracted to each other. But as time passes, the woman feels that she is not understood emotionally. Often, whenever she is having some life issue and seeks support from husband, husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words that his constructive criticisms rather made her feel worse. She often tried to explain it to him, but he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance. Over time, wife got tired of arguing and simply allowed disappointment and resentment to build. Also, wife was also not too satisfied on bed that she tried to explain her husband what she likes, but unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her. Wife started to feel less and less into having sex with husband, 'till husband finally find it not of and then started to try to figure out what's wrong. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find. He did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed. Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex. In the end, husband gets frustrated and feels that wife does not care nor love him anymore.
> 
> In this example, there are serious miscommunications as well as not really understanding each other's needs. Both sides tried to solve things, but they could not communicate each of their thinking and nature of their needs effectively. And after trying for some time, each side might just give up and feel too tired and frustrated to deal with it. So are any of them to blame? Maybe yes, maybe not. But IMO, the real issue here is about lack of compatiblity (which caused both of them to not understand the nature of the other side's needs) and miscommunication (each side getting the wrong idea and misunderstanding the other). If the husband understood his wife emotional side, and the wife understood how her husbad unwanted and unloved, things might have been better. If the wife understood that her husband's criticism meant good and that he was just not good at comforting others, and if she understood that sex was more than just getting it off so that she could see how her husband cared for her when doing all those house chores and other things to win her back, instead of feeling hurt for misunderstanding her husband only wanting sex; and if her husband did not simply dismiss her wife's emotional reactions and tired to improve on his choice of words, or if he was more sexually compatible with his wife that he was able to do things better on bed when she asked...


Actually jaquen beat me to the punch. I agree with his post but will add that by removing sex is like saying since one of my needs aren't being met, then I will not meet yours. Or because I'm hurting then I'm going to hurt you.

Once the sex goes, then goes the non sexual affection goes, and everyone is miserable.

If I were the wife, I would go to my husband and tell him that I was not happy and that is was starting to affect my sexual attraction to him. If we were still having communication issues, counseling is an option. If that still didn't work then we'd have to seriously reevaluate our marriage.

The issue for me is [withholding/U], which means the wife is rejecting her husband consistantly. Rejection is hurtful, nobody wants to go through that.


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> Lilith did a good job of pointing out *both sides* of this and took time to write down a real world example that happens a lot with thought as to what's going on with both parties. Your response just attacks the woman in her story and everything she should have done better. What should the man do better? Obviously he wasn't perfect either.


Because in the example Lilith gave the woman had the problem, and the woman stopped the sex. She said the man was trying, but was failing solve the problems in the way she needed. Lilith actually painted a picture of a man who does care about his wife, but was ineffective at doing it the way she wanted, and she got frustrated and stopped. 


Also did you not read this portion:

"Taking sex off the table in this instant should not be seen as a viable, condonable action. She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, *he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better*, but they still need to continue connecting sexually."


----------



## Lyris

We're fighting biology here. It's hard to keep being sexually interested in the same person, exclusively, for decades.

It's also not something that has been expected ouside of the last 100 years of mostly western culture.

There's also some interesting research that has been done into the natural waning of female sexual interest at about 4-7 years into a relationship. It might be related to the best time to go and get pregnant with someone else's baby. 

So add that to the societal pressure on women to not have sexual 
feelings at all except in very particular circumstances (one man,
marriage, etc) and you have a pretty potent ****tail to deaden the
libido. 

Actually, it's ironic really in that those tight restrictions around female sexuality were designed to control the natural tendency 
females have to seek genetic variety for their offspring. They may have helped men feel more confident that their offspring were theirs alone, but it has also put an effective dampener on women's sexual response over the long-term.

And now that men are expected to be sexually monotonous as well...it's much more of an issue for them.


----------



## Holland

Caribbean Man said:


> There's a word for that....
> I think its called " _incompatibility_.."


Bingo. So simple but yet it speaks volumes.

OK here is something radical, marriage and love is *not *always for life. 
We are setting ourselves up for failure to think that it is for life, for some it may be but for others it isn't.

Some of us stared in marriages where the compatibility was there but for whatever reason, over time things shifted. It is not always possible to keep this sort of marriage alive or to fix what apparently has been broken. The sex goes but there can still be love, caring, the desire to live a family life with this person. 

The real problems set in when the rejection starts to really sting. It was not the lack of sex that tortured me but the emotional pain from rejection.
At this point in time I should have called it quits but then there are the kids, the splitting of the finances, the fear of facing such a painful thing as divorce.

If it were more socially acceptable to say that marriages can come to a natural end and people can move on, then a lot of the pain and torment of an unhappy or sexless marriage could be avoided.

My sister divorced from an abusive man, she had plenty of support. I divorced from a man that no longer cared about my needs, I got very little in the way of support.

Instead of partners feeling like they have to give their soul to the devil just to get sex, would it not be better if as a society we more readily accepted that marriages do not have to be for all eternity. 



> I want to foster a great relationship. I am still single after 4+ years because I insist on having a partner that also wants to foster a great relationship, rather than just being the recipient of one.


I am blessed to have now found this. I have no regrets in life, not even being and staying in a sexless marriage because I took away many lessons from it.
I am certain about what I want in life, love and a partner.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> This is not a gender issue for me as it seems to be for you.


Yes, it is a gender based issue for me, as the OP is gender based, addressed specially to men, in the Men's Clubhouse section of the board.

I am also not saying that you agree with the "man up" philosophy. I am saying that I am not going to change the timber of my tone, or the bluntness of my responses, which fall in line with the general tone afforded men on TAM, just because women are the primary recipients of my ere on this particular topic.



Trenton said:


> Jaquen, is it your suggestion that women have sex even if they don't want to (for whatever reasons) as part of a binding marriage contract that they entered into together?


I am suggesting that men and women continue to have sex with each other in a binding marital contract. And if a person doesn't believe that sex is an entitlement in marriage, than they should make that perfectly clear up front, or ask that sexual faithfulness be removed from the marriage vows.


----------



## Lyris

Hee, autocorrect changed 'monogomous' to 'monotonous'. I think I'll leave it.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> You have no idea what I "see/feel". Just to educate you for a moment, I don't have "emotionally detached" sex.


I'm basing on how you disagree someone for not having sex, emotionally disconnected or not.



jaquen said:


> However I married a woman who, even if things aren't perfect in our relationship, sex, and sexual-emotional connection is so important, that we don't allow those issues to murder our sex life. Even if they do have an effect, it's never to the point of sexlessness. That is unacceptable for us both.
> 
> And there in lies the greater issue of "compatibility". I married a like minded person, a woman who agreed with me that taking sex off the table was simply unacceptable, regardless of the reasons. That was understood long before marriage, and it was a stipulation going in.
> 
> If you know that emotional changes, upset, and turmoil are enough to knock your libido out, and careen your marriage into sexlessness, then being upfront about that from day one will go a long way toward preparing your spouse for the reality to come.
> 
> Perhaps if more people were honest, especially women, about how fragile their sexuality was, their SO can decide if they want to marry them.
> 
> Because it's very, very strange that this emotionally driven sexlessness has a tendency to only show up AFTER the rings have been slipped on, and the marriage license signed.


You see, people are different and what's ok and not ok differs form person to person. That is why we need to find someone with a minimum compatibility for things to work. Yet disagreeing with someone doesn't mean what you think is more correct and that it can be applied to all cases.


----------



## jaquen

TrustInUs said:


> Actually jaquen beat me to the punch. I agree with his post but will add that by removing sex is like saying since one of my needs aren't being met, then I will not meet yours. Or because I'm hurting then I'm going to hurt you.
> 
> Once the sex goes, then goes the non sexual affection goes, and everyone is miserable.
> 
> If I were the wife, I would go to my husband and tell him that I was not happy and that is was starting to affect my sexual attraction to him. If we were still having communication issues, counseling is an option. If that still didn't work then we'd have to seriously reevaluate our marriage.
> 
> The issue for me is [withholding/U], which means the wife is rejecting her husband consistantly. Rejection is hurtful, nobody wants to go through that.




Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is what I find incredibly baffling about those who are vehemently opposing this line of thought.

The withholding *does not work*. Look across TAM, and even in your own real lives, and see how many people are hurting because they added sexlessness on top of an already ailing marriage.

Chronologically withholding is a cancer to any marriage, under any circumstances. And no, all women do NOT withhold sex, let's make that clear. There are couples who decide to make their sex life a _necessity_. 

Because this comes down to priority. It's whether two people chose to look at sex as vital, and necessary, to their marriage, or as optional.

How would people feel if their spouse came to them and said "I cheated on you because you weren't meeting my needs?". Is that alright? Because if it's not, you're saying that faithfulness and fidelity are vital to your marriage _no matter what_.

Is it alright for your husband or wife to stop paying the bills because their needs aren't being met to their satisfaction?

Is it alright for your spouse to just stop talking to you, or treating your kindly, just because of some miscommunication?

If not, then why, oh why, is sex suddenly optional?

If you believe that marital sex is conditional, than say so before you get married. Don't marry another person who views sex as unconditional, and necessary, while you view it as conditional, and optional.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> I appreciate your perspective, but do you realize how utterly one sided it is for the husband to be punished for faults whose root cause is ignorance and inexperience as opposed to a real lack of love?
> 
> Isn't it just a little over the top that a wife who has fallen into a pattern of punishing her husband for his faults would feel angry and hurt that he wants her to stop?
> 
> Believe it or not, women do not understand men any better than men understand women and both parties feel misunderstood emotionally over the course of a marriage.


Who is defending the wife here? Please pay more attention before accusing me of such.


----------



## lilith23

TrustInUs said:


> Actually jaquen beat me to the punch. I agree with his post but will add that by removing sex is like saying since one of my needs aren't being met, then I will not meet yours. Or because I'm hurting then I'm going to hurt you.
> 
> Once the sex goes, then goes the non sexual affection goes, and everyone is miserable.
> 
> If I were the wife, I would go to my husband and tell him that I was not happy and that is was starting to affect my sexual attraction to him. If we were still having communication issues, counseling is an option. If that still didn't work then we'd have to seriously reevaluate our marriage.
> 
> The issue for me is [withholding/U], which means the wife is rejecting her husband consistantly. Rejection is hurtful, nobody wants to go through that.




I can't understand why some people can't understand that for some people, sex is demonstration of their feelings and affection, so that ifthey feel emotionally disconnected then they simply cannot bring themselves to have sex. Stop just categorizing everyone into some sort of vengful, manipulating spouse who is stopping sex for the sole purpose of punishing their partners.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> I'm not asking you to change anything. I am simply responding to what you type. If you would like to make it so women can't comment on threads posted in the Men's Clubhouse that are directed towards men then by all means petition for this.
> 
> Your continued need for segregation of the genders is what I see as a problem and you can't seem to address it directly nor come up with very good arguments as to why your points are more applicable than mine.
> 
> Off to a New Year's party and have to get ready but I always look forward to communication and am open to learning from it so please don't think I'm asking you to stop typing anything that might be on your mind, ever.


My "continued need for segregation"? Are you serious right now? When you come back you'll have to explain that conclusion to me Trenton, because it's beyond my comprehension at the moment how you arrived to the notion that I am advocating the segregation of the sexes, or suggesting that women not post in the Men's clubhouse.


----------



## ocotillo

Lyris said:


> And now that men are expected to be sexually monotonous as well...it's much more of an issue for them.


Freudian slip?


----------



## Lyris

lilith23 said:


> I can't understand why some people can't understand that for some people, sex is demonstration of their feelings and affection, so that ifthey feel emotionally disconnected then they simply cannot bring themselves to have sex. Stop just categorizing everyone into some sort of vengful, manipulating spouse who is stopping sex for the sole purpose of punishing their partners.


I get what you're saying here, and I agree with you especially as in my marriage it's pretty gender neutral in this regard. If were not in harmony, my husband doesn't want to have sex with me and vice versa.

I think the point is, that if you find yourself feeling that way over a long period you make huge efforts to resolve the core issues, or you divorce. You don't go on, year after year, sexless.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> I'm basing on how you disagree someone for not having sex, emotionally disconnected or not.


That's not what I said, that's how you interpreted what I said. There is a difference.





lilith23 said:


> You see, people are different and what's ok and not ok differs form person to person. That is why we need to find someone with a minimum compatibility for things to work. Yet disagreeing with someone doesn't mean what you think is more correct and that it can be applied to all cases.


When I say that I believe compatible people should only get married, to avoid a lot of the problems that arise from severe incompatibility, I do believe I am "more correct".

That's not PC, but that's exactly how I feel. When I start seeing examples of how withholding, sexual blackmail, and incompatibility add to the marriage, instead of detracting, then I will be open to believing I am no more correct than those who are making excuses.


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> I can't understand why some people can't understand that for some people, sex is demonstration of their feelings and affection, so that ifthey feel emotionally disconnected then they simply cannot bring themselves to have sex. Stop just categorizing everyone into some sort of vengful, manipulating spouse who is stopping sex for the sole purpose of punishing their partners.


But Lilith....

Isn't withholding affection over resentment a punishing behavior? Isn't "Inflicting a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense" the very definition of the word?


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> I can't understand why some people can't understand that for some people, sex is demonstration of their feelings and affection, so that ifthey feel emotionally disconnected then they simply cannot bring themselves to have sex. Stop just categorizing everyone into some sort of vengful, manipulating spouse who is stopping sex for the sole purpose of punishing their partners.


And some people feel that sex is a necessity to their life, and marriage. So is it then understandable if the partner of the sexual withdrawer seek out their sexual needs elsewhere?

And if so, does that mean we should condone them, or at the very least, provide them with the same sympathy as the emotionally disconnected withholder?

Because this conversation is making me believe that sexually open marriages are indeed the answer. If you move into a "withholding" phase, and that's alright because you can't separate your emotions enough to keep the sexual connection going, than perhaps spouses on the receiving end should then be allowed to seek out sexual-emotinal needs elsewhere until the problem is solved.


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23 said:


> I can't understand why some people can't understand that for some people, sex is demonstration of their feelings and affection, so that ifthey feel emotionally disconnected then they simply cannot bring themselves to have sex. Stop just categorizing everyone into some sort of vengful, manipulating spouse who is stopping sex for the sole purpose of punishing their partners.


I never said any of that, but I do consider it to be selfish of a spouse to deny sex for whatever reason excluding medical reasons. What I'm saying is that removing sex has a domino effect on the rest of the marriage. I too need to have an emotional connection for sex, however, my H NEEDS sex from ME to keep his connection to me going. As many men do, so now what happens?

Once I educated myself on what rejection does to a man, what sex means to him, is when I vowed to not withhold.


I'm not saying the wife needs to continue to jump his bones, and mate like rabbits, but completely removing sex is not the answer IMO.

ETA sex is important to me as well, although I am speaking here as if it all for my H, I would be crushed if he started rejecting me


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> But Lilith....
> 
> Isn't withholding affection over resentment a punishing behavior? Isn't "Inflicting a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense" the very definition of the word?


Is husband offering constructive criticism a punishing behavior? And is wife not wanting to do it anymore necessarily trying to "Inflicting a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense"?



jaquen said:


> And some people feel that sex is a necessity to their life, and marriage. So is it then understandable if the partner of the sexual withdrawer seek out their sexual needs elsewhere?
> 
> And if so, does that mean we should condone them, or at the very least, provide them with the same sympathy as the emotionally disconnected withholder?
> 
> Because this conversation is making me believe that sexually open marriages are indeed the answer. If you move into a "withholding" phase, and that's alright because you can't separate your emotions enough to keep the sexual connection going, than perhaps spouses on the receiving end should then be allowed to seek out sexual-emotinal needs elsewhere until the problem is solved.


Is it ok to cheat whenever we are not satisfied with a relationship? Guess it depends on one's principals and moral codes. I myself would have preferred to walk away rather than cheating thought.



TrustInUs said:


> I never said any of that, but I do consider it to be selfish of a spouse to deny sex for whatever reason excluding medical reasons. What I'm saying is that removing sex has a domino effect on the rest of the marriage. I too need to have an emotional connection for sex, however, my H NEEDS sex from ME to keep his connection to me going. As many men do, so now what happens?
> 
> Once I educated myself on what rejection does to a man, what sex means to him, is when I vowed to not withhold.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying the wife needs to continue to jump his bones, and mate like rabbits, but completely removing sex is not the answer IMO.
> 
> ETA sex is important to me as well, although I am speaking here as if it all for my H, I would be crushed if he started rejecting me


Is it not selfish to expect someone to continue fulfilling the other person's sexual needs, however he emotional state is, when for this person, emotional state is important for him/her to have physical intimacy?

Also, have it not crossed you guys' mind if the woman in that case could be suffering a lot too? Of how she could be suffering more and more, as the emotional bond disappears bit by bit? That even if she tried to talk about it over and over again, it still continues to fail? That she is clueless to what to do anymore?

I presented an example in which both sides had put efforts to solve the situation, that both sides suffers, and that they were not able to solve the situation easily coz of lack of compatibility and miscommunication. Yet you guys continue pointing fingers on the woman, of how selfish she is and how she should have continued providing sex for her husband, however her emotional state is.


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23
I was not trying to imply that the husband had no fault in the marriage, however I still disagree with allowing a marriage to become sexless. I think we may have different views on sex in general, so I'm not sure we will come to a compromise in this discussion.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> Is it ok to cheat whenever we are not satisfied with a relationship? Guess it depends on one's principals and moral codes. I myself would have preferred to walk away rather than cheating thought.


So sexual refusal is understandable, depending on the emotional stimulus, but sexual fidelity is an entitlement, regardless of the emotional stimulus.

What's good for the goose, is not good for the gander. Double standards are in full force.

Got it.


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> Because in the example Lilith gave the woman had the problem, and the woman stopped the sex. She said the man was trying, but was failing solve the problems in the way she needed. Lilith actually painted a picture of a man who does care about his wife, but was ineffective at doing it the way she wanted, and she got frustrated and stopped.
> 
> 
> Also did you not read this portion:
> 
> "Taking sex off the table in this instant should not be seen as a viable, condonable action. She needs to keep working at ways to communicate her needs effectively, *he needs to work at hearing, understanding, and catering to her needs better*, but they still need to continue connecting sexually."


They both had problems. He wasn't ineffective at doing it the way she wanted. *No they both were ineffective at communicating*. Men get frustrated and stop asking for sex quite often. There are a couple of thread on TAM now where men are complaining about duty sex and they are the ones taking of off the table so it works both ways.

In one of your later posts, you mentioned compatibility and that you and your wife both know sex does not come off the table. To that I say congratulations because you guys did better than most do by knowing this in advance. I'd strongly suspect most sexless marriages are a result of them not knowing each other's needs and not talking about things early on. They just assumed the lust sex would continue.


----------



## lilith23

TrustInUs said:


> lilith23
> I was not trying to imply that the husband had no fault in the marriage, however I still disagree with allowing a marriage to become sexless. I think we may have different views on sex in general, so I'm not sure we will come to a compromise in this discussion.


But my point was not about sexless marriage being ok, but rather presenting a situation that shows that the one refusing sex is not necessarily the selfish partner. Also, I've used this case to show how sometimes, it's about lack of compatibility and miscommunication instead of who is selfish and who is to blame.


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23 said:


> But my point was not about sexless marriage being ok, but rather presenting a situation that shows that the one refusing sex is not necessarily the selfish partner. Also, I've used this case to show how sometimes, it's about lack of compatibility and miscommunication instead of who is selfish and who is to blame.


Point noted, however my statement still stands, I disagree with refusing or rejecting a spouse. Yes they are both at fault in different areas of the marriage.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> But my point was not about sexless marriage being ok, but rather presenting a situation that shows that the one refusing sex is not necessarily the selfish partner. Also, I've used this case to show how sometimes, it's about lack of compatibility and miscommunication instead of who is selfish and who is to blame.


Which still makes me utterly confused that a spouse who decides to react to a sexless marriage by seeking their needs elsewhere is considered selfish and immoral.


----------



## Lyris

jaquen said:


> Which still makes me utterly confused that a spouse who decides to react to a sexless marriage by seeking their needs elsewhere is considered selfish and immoral.


Not by me. I think it's fair enough. But I don't agree with secrecy and cheating. Opening the relationship on whatever terms the couple decide is fine.


----------



## ocotillo

Lilith:



lilith23 said:


> Is husband offering constructive criticism a punishing behavior?


Not as you described it in the scenario. His constructive criticism may be unhelpful or even downright stupid and his choice of words may be insensitive or even obtuse, but his behavior was not retaliatory.



lilith23 said:


> And is wife not wanting to do it anymore necessarily trying to "Inflicting a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense"?


It depends on the reasons. In the scenario you described, sex was withheld because of resentment. Consciously or unconsciously, that is certainly retaliatory. Even worse, the resentment was not because of deliberate meanness or a lack of love on the part of the husband. It was over her husband's honest failure to understand.


----------



## techmom

lilith23 said:


> Is it not selfish to expect someone to continue fulfilling the other person's sexual needs, however he emotional state is, when for this person, emotional state is important for him/her to have physical intimacy?
> 
> Also, have it not crossed you guys' mind if the woman in that case could be suffering a lot too? Of how she could be suffering more and more, as the emotional bond disappears bit by bit? That even if she tried to talk about it over and over again, it still continues to fail? That she is clueless to what to do anymore?
> 
> I presented an example in which both sides had put efforts to solve the situation, that both sides suffers, and that they were not able to solve the situation easily coz of lack of compatibility and miscommunication. Yet you guys continue pointing fingers on the woman, of how selfish she is and how she should have continued providing sex for her husband, however her emotional state is.


Girl, don't you know that on TAM you just don't refuse sex. Just don't. On penalty of death. Emotional needs be damned, you just DO NOT REFUSE SEX!!!!

/rant.


----------



## Holland

jaquen said:


> Which still makes me utterly confused that a spouse who decides to react to a sexless marriage by seeking their needs elsewhere is considered selfish and immoral.


Because two wrongs don't make a right.

The denier does wrong, yes. The denied has options: live with it, try to fix it or end it.

I did all three at various times and found that ending it was the best solution because a sexless marriage very rarely becomes healthy again. Too much resentment sets in.

So cheating is not the answer. You finish one before you start the next. Cheating is immoral and there is no justification for it, it is a cowards act.

If a marriage is not working then end it.


----------



## techmom

Okies, so I guess that all of the guys here would be happy with the duty sex I mentioned in my previous post. If the wife is not having her emotional needs met, and the option of refusing sex is taken off of the table, then what is left?


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> So cheating is not the answer. You finish one before you start the next. Cheating is immoral and there is no justification for it, it is a cowards act.
> 
> If a marriage is not working then end it.


Hopefully *we all* agree on this.


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> Okies, so I guess that all of the guys here would be happy with the duty sex I mentioned in my previous post. If the wife is not having her emotional needs met, and the option of refusing sex is taken off of the table, then what is left?


The option is the have sex AND LIKE IT OR ELSE. It's not like emotions are important.


----------



## jaquen

Holland said:


> Because two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> The denier does wrong, yes. The denied has options: live with it, try to fix it or end it.
> 
> I did all three at various times and found that ending it was the best solution because a sexless marriage very rarely becomes healthy again. Too much resentment sets in.
> 
> So cheating is not the answer. You finish one before you start the next. Cheating is immoral and there is no justification for it, it is a cowards act.
> 
> If a marriage is not working then end it.


Of course cheating is not the answer.

My point being that we like to throw around words like "selfish", "wrong", and "immoral" when somebody breaks the bounds of marital monogamy with an affair...

Yet the inverse, withholding, which likewise shatters the entire purpose of marital monogamy, is seldom met with such strong ere.

Perhaps if we started treating sexual abandonment with the same outrage that we do adultery, people might be less likely to walk down that equally as destructive road.


----------



## jaquen

techmom said:


> Okies, so I guess that all of the guys here would be happy with the duty sex I mentioned in my previous post. If the wife is not having her emotional needs met, and the option of refusing sex is taken off of the table, then what is left?


No, the option is marrying somebody who, from day one, is fine with you holding your sex life hostage when things don't go your way. 

Marry a like minded person, and there is no such thing as "duty sex", because a healthy, mutually beneficial sex life is important to both parties.

"Duty sex" only makes sense to people who are sexually stunted, low drive, or who aren't in the marriage for their own sexual gain. People who actually enjoy sex, and make their own sexual fulfillment a priority, don't fall into "duty sex" for the sake of their spouse because, shocking as this might sound, they actually want sex..._for themselves_.


----------



## Holland

jaquen said:


> Of course cheating is not the answer.
> 
> My point being that we like to throw around words like "selfish", "wrong", and "immoral" when somebody breaks the bounds of marital monogamy with an affair...
> 
> Yet the inverse, withholding, which likewise shatters the entire purpose of marital monogamy, is seldom met with such strong ere.
> 
> Perhaps if we started treating sexual abandonment with the same outrage that we do adultery, people might be less likely to walk down that equally as destructive road.


Ok I see what you mean. The problem is that while logically what you are saying is correct the reality is a bit different.

With sexual abandonment it can happen over time, there are all sorts of dynamics at play. There is hope things will improve and there is also the fact that often there are subtle lessons for each person to need to learn. Strangely is can be a growing experience, something that those that have not endured this pain will understand.
Basically it is not B&W.

Cheating is B&W it is a cowardly act and one that deserves contempt.

Sexual issues in a marriage, while destructive and in my opinion enough to end a marriage, are not necessarily pre meditated or deserving of contempt. I don't even hold my ex in contempt for his inaction in our marriage.

It is complicated.


----------



## TrustInUs

Thundarr said:


> The option is the have sex AND LIKE IT OR ELSE. It's not like emotions are important.


If this is a dig at my posts, I have never tried to imply that the wife's emotional state did not matter, only that taking away sex would make the marriage worse. So either I am not articulating my point clearly, or I'm going to become repetitive

If I know that men have a biological need for release, that rejection starts to mess with their esteem, and self worth, by being rejected by their spouse consistantly, then I couldnt continue to reject my H and cause that kind of pain, if my main goal is to fix my marriage.

Also, oxytocin, the "love" hormone, is at its highest in men after orgasm, and bonds my H to me, so removing sex will eventually remove that bond.
Making it even harder to fix the issues in the marriage by adding to the problems.

I'm also not saying the wife should act as if everything is peachy either, imo they both are not communicating in an effective manner


----------



## Thundarr

It was a dig at posts that paint it black and white. Your post below is not that at all. I think holding out on sex is wrong but I also don't think it's as simple and black/white as Jaq seems to think it is. I mean if reduced sex is not an option and duty sex is also not an option then what's left. Oh happy healthy fun connected relationships just happen when sex is frequent I guess. That's not realistic. It would be a shame to divorce when something like His Needs / Her Needs would provide insight to fix it. At least a lot of the time. So someone comes to TAM and reads zero tolerance for duty sex. It's not responsible.



TrustInUs said:


> If this is a dig at my posts, I have never tried to imply that the wife's emotional state did not matter, only that taking away sex would make the marriage worse. So either I am not articulating my point clearly, or I'm going to become repeative.
> 
> If I know that men have a biological need for release, that rejection starts to mess with their esteem, and self worth, by being rejected by their spouse consistantly, then I couldnt continue to reject my H and cause that kind of pain, if my main goal is to fix my marriage.
> 
> Also, oxytocin, the "love" hormone, is at its highest in men after orgasm, and bonds my H to me, so removing sex will eventually remove that bond.
> Making it even harder to fix the issues in the marriage by adding to the problems.
> 
> I'm also not saying the wife should act as if everything is peachy either, imo they both are not communicating in an effective manner


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> It was a dig at posts that paint it black and white. Your post below is not that at all. I think holding out on sex is wrong but I also don't think it's as simple and black/white as Jaq seems to think it is. I mean if reduced sex is not an option and duty sex is also not an option then what's left. Oh happy healthy fun connected relationships just happen when sex is frequent I guess. That's not realistic. It would be a shame to divorce when something like His Needs / Her Needs would provide insight to fix it. At least a lot of the time. So someone comes to TAM and reads zero tolerance for duty sex. It's not responsible.


What's left is a commitment to not take out our issues in the bedroom. No different than our commitment to not cheat, regardless of our issues. No different than our choice to provide emotional support, no matter how we "feel" in any given moment.

You find it unrealistic? Well than I have never been more grateful for an "unrealistic" marriage in all my life. I'll take the dig, and I'll celebrate it. Happy New Year!

:smthumbup:


----------



## I Notice The Details

jaquen said:


> People who actually enjoy sex, and make their own sexual fulfillment a priority, don't fall into "duty sex" for the sake of their spouse because, shocking as this might sound, they actually want sex..._for themselves_.


:iagree: That is how I think and what I truly believe. Well said!

Happy New Year to everyone. May your 2013 orgasms be the best you have ever had!!!! :smthumbup:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Holland said:


> *Cheating is B&W it is a cowardly act and one that deserves contempt.*


:iagree:

There are many shades of grey in this issue, but we _must _draw a line at cheating.


----------



## ocotillo

techmom said:


> Girl, don't you know that on TAM you just don't refuse sex. Just don't. On penalty of death. Emotional needs be damned, you just DO NOT REFUSE SEX!!!!


*Of course* there are reasons to refuse sex

The premise of this thread is that the man is doing his very best by his wife and sex is still a rare luxury requiring extraordinary circumstances and herculean efforts.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> No, the option is marrying somebody who, from day one, is fine with you holding your sex life hostage when things don't go your way.
> 
> Marry a like minded person, and there is no such thing as "duty sex", because a healthy, mutually beneficial sex life is important to both parties.
> 
> "Duty sex" only makes sense to people who are sexually stunted, low drive, or who aren't in the marriage for their own sexual gain. People who actually enjoy sex, and make their own sexual fulfillment a priority, don't fall into "duty sex" for the sake of their spouse because, shocking as this might sound, they actually want sex..._for themselves_.


Is that all you can see in the example I gave? That the woman withholds sex for hostage?

Did it not cross your mind the possibility that the woman also enjoyed sex, but could not bring herself to do it anymore, as she was suffering from the lack of emotional bond that waned by time due to misunderstandings? Did it not cross your mind that she wanted to have their great sex life back again, but she is shutting down and not sure what to do anymore, just like the man who is not sure how to solve the situation?

Are the words "hostage", "selfish", "punishment" all you can see, whatever reason someone has to have stopped interesting in sex?



TrustInUs said:


> If this is a dig at my posts, I have never tried to imply that the wife's emotional state did not matter, only that taking away sex would make the marriage worse. So either I am not articulating my point clearly, or I'm going to become repetitive
> 
> If I know that men have a biological need for release, that rejection starts to mess with their esteem, and self worth, by being rejected by their spouse consistantly, then I couldnt continue to reject my H and cause that kind of pain, if my main goal is to fix my marriage.
> 
> Also, oxytocin, the "love" hormone, is at its highest in men after orgasm, and bonds my H to me, so removing sex will eventually remove that bond.
> Making it even harder to fix the issues in the marriage by adding to the problems.
> 
> I'm also not saying the wife should act as if everything is peachy either, imo they both are not communicating in an effective manner


It is true, they are not communicating in an effective manner, and that's where the problem truly lies.

True, if not only the emotional side of a relationship wanes but also the sex life, things would get even worse. But for a person that needs emotional bond in order to have sex, trying to maintain the sex frequency for the sake of not making things even worse, can actually make things worse. Maybe this woman can still have sex with the husband. She could lie there, half if not completely disconnected, while the husband gets off on the "dead meat". But this can aggravate the woman's negative feelings, like thinking how her man is ok to enjoy his part whether she enjoys it or not, which aggravates the misunderstanding that she thought he is only needing her for sex.
On the other hand, if the man sees lack of sex as not feeling wanted or loved, then such duty sex would only worsen this feeling, as many cannot accept the fact that their partner is not really desiring them anymore (and seeing wife laying there as a "dead meat" is only showing the obvious - lack of connection that he also needed).


----------



## Deejo

jaquen said:


> Of course cheating is not the answer.
> 
> My point being that we like to throw around words like "selfish", "wrong", and "immoral" when somebody breaks the bounds of marital monogamy with an affair...
> 
> Yet the inverse, withholding, which likewise shatters the entire purpose of marital monogamy, is seldom met with such strong ere.
> 
> Perhaps if we started treating sexual abandonment with the same outrage that we do adultery, people might be less likely to walk down that equally as destructive road.


My position is crystal clear, and not very popular therefore I don't discuss it much.

I make no distinction between the betrayal of sexual rejection, or the betrayal of sexual infidelity.

They are both a betrayal nonetheless.
One form society finds palatable, acceptable, makes plenty of excuses for, and uses as comic relief.
The other, is demonized, emotionally charged, universally considered bad behavior and focuses blame.

They are both bad behavior.

They both result in the same thing. Relationship death.

Both are often manifestations of issues other than the behavior itself, that if the parties involved would take ownership of, would avoid the behaviors in the first place.


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> *What's left is a commitment to not take out our issues in the bedroom*. No different than our commitment to not cheat, regardless of our issues. No different than our choice to provide emotional support, no matter how we "feel" in any given moment.
> 
> You find it unrealistic? Well than I have never been more grateful for an "unrealistic" marriage in all my life. I'll take the dig, and I'll celebrate it. Happy New Year!
> 
> :smthumbup:


*Dude you just echoed my point and acted like it was yours.* Maybe I have the wrong definition of "Duty Sex". If a woman is trying to want sex and she loves hubby and therefore they are having sex frequently then that's effort. Her commitment to not cut her hubby off leave *Duty sex* and it has to be an option for a couple going through marrital problems.

So no I don't find that unrealistic since I said it first.


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> "Duty sex" only makes sense to people who are sexually stunted, low drive, or who aren't in the marriage for their own sexual gain. People who actually enjoy sex, and make their own sexual fulfillment a priority, don't fall into "duty sex" for the sake of their spouse because, shocking as this might sound, they actually want sex..._for themselves_.


Narrow observation. There are countless reasons why someone honestly trying to make things work has to go through the motions on occasion. They know sex is needed and they do their best to want it but life can be stressful. Depression, death in family, loss of income, child having problems like drugs prison, past abuse, past infidelity, feeling unloved to name a few. 

We can grunt like cavemen "ugh Duty sex BAD". Of course that leave no room to communicate since there's nothing to communicate about. Again, why should emotions matter.


----------



## Thundarr

Holland said:


> Ok I see what you mean. The problem is that while* logically what you are saying is correct the reality is a bit different*.
> 
> With sexual abandonment it can happen over time, there are all sorts of dynamics at play. There is hope things will improve and there is also the fact that often there are *subtle lessons for each person to need to learn*. Strangely is can be a growing experience, something that those that have not endured this pain will understand.
> Basically it is not B&W.
> 
> Cheating is B&W it is a cowardly act and one that deserves contempt.
> 
> *Sexual issues in a marriage, while destructive and in my opinion enough to end a marriage, are not necessarily pre meditated or deserving of contempt. I don't even hold my ex in contempt for his inaction in our marriage.*
> 
> It is complicated.


:iagree: Nicely put Holland.


----------



## jaquen

ocotillo said:


> *Of course* there are reasons to refuse sex
> 
> *The premise of this thread is that the man is doing his very best by his wife and sex is still a rare luxury requiring extraordinary circumstances and herculean efforts.*


Thank you for getting that. Many seem to have missed the point.


----------



## gbrad

I guess I am glad in this regard. I don't have to work really hard to get sex from the wife. The only problem is that we don't often want to do it at the same time.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> True, if not only the emotional side of a relationship wanes but also the sex life, things would get even worse. But for a person that needs emotional bond in order to have sex, trying to maintain the sex frequency for the sake of not making things even worse, can actually make things worse. Maybe this woman can still have sex with the husband. She could lie there, half if not completely disconnected, while the husband gets off on the "dead meat". But this can aggravate the woman's negative feelings, like thinking how her man is ok to enjoy his part whether she enjoys it or not, which aggravates the misunderstanding that she thought he is only needing her for sex.



You keep making emotional dissonance synonymous with total emotional disconnection. This is your hang up, but I don't believe a single person in this thread has made this connection.

There are human beings, men and women alike, who are able to stay connected, attracted, and sexually excited by partners, even when the relationship is not in perfect harmony. Every woman does not require a perfect emotional environment before she decides to open her legs. There are plenty of spaces between "emotional harmony" and "dead meat sex". 

Are there women like this? Sure, plenty. And what should the woman do who can not enjoy sex unless the emotional temperature is just right? 

She should be brutally upfront about that before marriage, and let a man decide if he truly wants to handle that burden. However good luck getting most women like this to be honest about their sexuality.

She could marry a LD man who is fine with long stretches of time where sex isn't presented, and there is no pressure to sexually connect often.

She could stay single.

She could hook up with another, liked minded woman, who will totally "get" her.

She, however, she likely avoid actually marrying any man who has an expectation, and a need, for regular sexual interaction. It'll save her heartache, and him.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> Thank you for getting that. Many seem to have missed the point.


So accusing the one withholding sex being wrong is alright in this thread, but disagreeing with this logic is missing the point of this thread.
So pointing out that the wife might also have made efforts for the relationship, or how the efforts from any sides not working can be due to incompatibility is missing the point of this thread.


But is this thread just about "the man is doing his very best by his wife and sex is still a rare luxury requiring extraordinary circumstances and herculean efforts.", without taking the woman's efforts into consideration, or are we talking about this in cases in which the woman does not care at all? Coz if it's the first case, then I don't see how many of us are missing the point. And if it's about the second one... is there any point in discussing it at all, since it is just doomed situation anyways?


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> *Dude you just echoed my point and acted like it was yours.*


No dude, I did not. I've made that comment about my own marriage since the top of my time on TAM.




Thundarr said:


> Maybe I have the wrong definition of "Duty Sex". If a woman is trying to want sex and she loves hubby and therefore they are having sex frequently then that's effort. Her commitment to not cut her hubby off leave *Duty sex* and it has to be an option for a couple going through marrital problems.
> 
> So no I don't find that unrealistic since I said it first.


This is not what I am saying, at all. I don't want to have sex with any woman who is "trying to want sex", even out of love.

I am talking about women who do not cut sex off because they *want sex for themselves*. They aren't doing it "for" their husband alone, they are also doing it for their own sexual needs.

THAT is the commitment I made to the woman I love. We don't do "duty sex", as you define it, and we never have. Even if we're at a rougher patch, or things aren't perfectly lined up, it would be beyond stupid for my wife to deny me sex because she, being a human being who actually enjoys frequent sex, would be denying herself as well.

I am talking about the fact that some women do, in fact, see their sexuality as something viable, and necessary, outside of their husband.

These women aren't spoken of enough. There are a couple of them here on TAM, thankfully, who give the alternate perspective.



Thundarr said:


> Narrow observation. There are countless reasons why someone honestly trying to make things work has to go through the motions on occasion. They know sex is needed and they do their best to want it but life can be stressful. Depression, death in family, loss of income, child having problems like drugs prison, past abuse, past infidelity, feeling unloved to name a few.


And I've said, in this thread, and others, that there are obviously extenuating circumstances.

Why you're trying to paint me as a man who believes there are zero reasons for sex to wane is beyond me, considering we've posted side by side many times, and I've been understanding plenty of times for people facing REAL issues.

And no, I do not believe in "going through the motions". If you have a legit season where loss, or grief, or mental illness, blocks sex, it's best to wait it out, or deal with the problem, instead of forcing sex.

I disagree with you, and some others, but my basic human understanding, and common sense, didn't fly out the window just because I don't believe withholding is excusable in the vast majority of cases.

At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. What exactly is your stance?


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> You keep making emotional dissonance synonymous with total emotional disconnection. This is your hang up, but I don't believe a single person in this thread has made this connection.
> 
> There are human beings, men and women alike, who are able to stay connected, attracted, and sexually excited by partners, even when the relationship is not in perfect harmony. Every woman does not require a perfect emotional environment before she decides to open her legs. There are plenty of spaces between "emotional harmony" and "dead meat sex".
> 
> Are there women like this? Sure, plenty. And what should the woman do who can not enjoy sex unless the emotional temperature is just right?
> 
> She should be brutally upfront about that before marriage, and let a man decide if he truly wants to handle that burden. However good luck getting most women like this to be honest about their sexuality.
> 
> She could marry a LD man who is fine with long stretches of time where sex isn't presented, and there is no pressure to sexually connect often.
> 
> She could stay single.
> 
> She could hook up with another, liked minded woman, who will totally "get" her.
> 
> She, however, she likely avoid actually marrying any man who has an expectation, and a need, for regular sexual interaction. It'll save her heartache, and him.


You missed my point. You either is missing my point since it does not go with the black and white beliefs you have, or you simply can't understand how people that links emotional and physical intimacy in a stronger level works.

In the example I gave, the sex did not disappear over night. It decreased along with the emotional bond by time. The woman in that example did not need perfect emotional temperature or whatever to feel ok to have sex, butshe needs a minimum level of emotional bond required for her to bring herself to physical intimacy.

The best thing she could have done is to have divorced when she is too unhappy with the relationship and her efforts to solve it through communication did not work at all. Or that they shouldn't have married too soon, that they could have had time to see if they were truly compatible.


----------



## techmom

lilith23 said:


> So accusing the one withholding sex being wrong is alright in this thread, but disagreeing with this logic is missing the point of this thread.
> So pointing out that the wife might also have made efforts for the relationship, or how the efforts from any sides not working can be due to incompatibility is missing the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> But is this thread just about "the man is doing his very best by his wife and sex is still a rare luxury requiring extraordinary circumstances and herculean efforts.", without taking the woman's efforts into consideration, or are we talking about this in cases in which the woman does not care at all? Coz if it's the first case, then I don't see how many of us are missing the point. And if it's about the second one... is there any point in discussing it at all, since it is just doomed situation anyways?


Nope, you got it wrong. The whole point of this thread was to badger women for not having sex with their wonderful husbands. Not to reason, not to explore both sides of the story. Legs must fling up in the air regardless of the emotional state of the wife. These same men are not getting it, it isn't about reading books or "jumping through hoops". It is about listening to your wife to what she is actually saying, not to what you are interpreting through your "manspeak".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## techmom

Also, men can also influence women's libidoes negatively by constantly being narrow-minded and ignoring her emotional needs. Women who start off HD with their hubby and he starts acting entitled to sex regardless of her needs, over time she will start to resent him and what was once passonate sex will turn into duty sex. If he keeps ignoring her needs and focusing on the sexual aspect of the marriage, what was once a HD wifey will turn into a refusing LD partner.

The men who don't understand this have lots to learn about women....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> This is not what I am saying, at all. I don't want to have sex with any woman who is "trying to want sex", even out of love.
> 
> I am talking about women who do not cut sex off because they *want sex for themselves*. They aren't doing it "for" their husband alone, they are also doing it for their own sexual needs.
> 
> THAT is the commitment I made to the woman I love. We don't do "duty sex", as you define it, and we never have. Even if we're at a rougher patch, or things aren't perfectly lined up, it would be beyond stupid for my wife to deny me sex because she, being a human being who actually enjoys frequent sex, would be denying herself as well.
> 
> I am talking about the fact that some women do, in fact, see their sexuality as something viable, and necessary, outside of their husband.


You don't mix sex with any other part of your relationship. You prefer partners that share this preference. That is your preference. But it doesn't make others who are not like this wrong. It doesn't make those who has their sex life affected by emotional health of the relationship wrong. It is just your preference.


----------



## jaquen

techmom said:


> Nope, you got it wrong. The whole point of this thread was to badger women for not having sex with their wonderful husbands.



You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're new here, and barely have a dozen posts. 

This thread was created in reaction to the many, many, many posts here from ailing men who have been working like hell to have even a semi-decent sex life with chronically refusing women. Take a look around here, the stories are heartbreaking. Plenty of men with women who expect them to provide, financially, and emotionally, who just don't think sex is that big of a deal. Plenty of men who are being villainized for just wanting sex more than once or twice a month. Plenty of men who worked to be great husbands, only to find out that their refusing wife was giving it up on the side.

And many men here still believe that a refusing, even a cheating, spouse should be met with more, and more focused effort on helping the man to unlock the secret code to turning his wife back on.

I had enough, and wanted to know if there were other like minded men who didn't believe marital sex should require so much damn work and effort. Plenty restored my faith in that perspective, including some great posts by some great female TAMers.

That is why I created this thread. Your assumptions are laughably off base.


----------



## Deejo

I'd like to understand if you are suggesting that withholding sex _isn't_ wrong? It seems that you are framing it as bad behavior ... but is the result of bad behavior on the part of the other spouse, which makes it, like it or not, retaliatory and equally harmful.

For all of the emphasis that the fairer sex puts on open and honest communication, I have found in my personal experience overwhelmingly, it's what they want ... but they aren't very good at it themselves when it requires self-introspection. And that ... is usually a result of their own issues or hang-ups completely outside of the scope of whatever issue is manifesting with their partner or spouse.

This may sound like blame on my part, and that isn't my intention or goal. I don't blame women. I do blame anyone who would prefer to deflect, avoid, or blame shift, rather than take ownership of, confront, and work at resolving the issue. 

Let's face it, ignoring it and hoping it will go away NEVER works, and if anything, only leads to far worse behavior on the part of one, or both spouses.

MEM coined a phrase back in that thread I referenced in an earlier post. He called it 'Emotional Symmetry'. I love the phrase. It succinctly sums up where couples should be, or should strive to be. It just sounds beautiful to me. It encompasses everything that both parties in a loving relationship should be, and importantly shouldn't be doing to maintain that loving connection.
It is also unfortunately, exceedingly rare.



lilith23 said:


> So accusing the one withholding sex being wrong is alright in this thread, but disagreeing with this logic is missing the point of this thread.
> So pointing out that the wife might also have made efforts for the relationship, or how the efforts from any sides not working can be due to incompatibility is missing the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> But is this thread just about "the man is doing his very best by his wife and sex is still a rare luxury requiring extraordinary circumstances and herculean efforts.", without taking the woman's efforts into consideration, or are we talking about this in cases in which the woman does not care at all? Coz if it's the first case, then I don't see how many of us are missing the point. And if it's about the second one... is there any point in discussing it at all, since it is just doomed situation anyways?


----------



## jaquen

techmom said:


> Also, men can also influence women's libidoes negatively by constantly being narrow-minded and ignoring her emotional needs. Women who start off HD with their hubby and he starts acting entitled to sex regardless of her needs, over time she will start to resent him and what was once passonate sex will turn into duty sex. If he keeps ignoring her needs and focusing on the sexual aspect of the marriage, what was once a HD wifey will turn into a refusing LD partner.
> 
> The men who don't understand this have lots to learn about women....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And if you want to start a thread that's all about women whose emotional needs are being constantly ignored, and how their journey to resentful, cold fish refuser is absolutely justified, have at it.

Start your own thread about that topic. Because this one isn't about that at all.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> You don't have a clue what you're talking about. You're new here, and barely have a dozen posts.
> 
> This thread was created in reaction to the many, many, many posts here from ailing men who have been working like hell to have even a semi-decent sex life with chronically refusing women. Take a look around here, the stories are heartbreaking.
> 
> And many men here still believe that a refusing spouse should be met with more, and more focused effort on helping the man to unlock the secret code to turning his wife on.
> 
> I had enough, and wanted to know if there were other like minded men who didn't believe marital sex should require so much damn work and effort.
> 
> That is why I created this thread. Your assumptions are laughably off base.


I don't think that any of us is believing that sex should require crazy moving mountain efforts. And it is ok to get frustrated and comment on how that is not ok. But it is not ok to simply assume that the withholding one is wrong. You have to analyze each case and many factors to truly be able to say who is the wrong one.


But then honestly... why can't some people realize that sometimes, it was mainly coz of lack of compatibility that things went wrong? Why must we always blame someone for the entire situation?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok,
So what if the husband's emotional needs aren't being met.
And his wife is always in the mood, HD.

Would he be justified in witholding sex, especially if he can't get his legs, oops sorry get his d*ck up?
Or is it that only women have these emotional needs that prevents them from wanting sex ?

Look,there are many variables here, and maybe we need to lok at it through gender neutral lenses.
I think the purpose of this thread is to establish that with married couples,
Sex _must _be a priority, put on the front burner , and not on the miscellaneous , unsorted section at the bottom of the grocery list.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> You don't mix sex with any other part of your relationship. You prefer partners that share this preference. That is your preference. But it doesn't make others who are not like this wrong. It doesn't make those who has their sex life affected by emotional health of the relationship wrong. It is just your preference.


DING! DING! DING! 

What I have been saying all along.

Hence my emphasis on compatible, like minding people, marrying.


----------



## lilith23

Deejo said:


> I'd like to understand if you are suggesting that withholding sex _isn't_ wrong? It seems that you are framing it as bad behavior ... but is the result of bad behavior on the part of the other spouse, which makes it, like it or not, retaliatory and equally harmful.
> 
> For all of the emphasis that the fairer sex puts on open and honest communication, I have found in my personal experience overwhelmingly, it's what they want ... but they aren't very good at it themselves when it requires self-introspection. And that ... is usually a result of their own issues or hang-ups completely outside of the scope of whatever issue is manifesting with their partner or spouse.
> 
> This may sound like blame on my part, and that isn't my intention or goal. I don't blame women. I do blame anyone who would prefer to deflect, avoid, or blame shift, rather than take ownership of, confront, and work at resolving the issue.
> 
> Let's face it, ignoring it and hoping it will go away NEVER works, and if anything, only leads to far worse behavior on the part of one, or both spouses.
> 
> MEM coined a phrase back in that thread I referenced in an earlier post. He called it 'Emotional Symmetry'. I love the phrase. It succinctly sums up where couples should be, or should strive to be. It just sounds beautiful to me. It encompasses everything that both parties in a loving relationship should be, and importantly shouldn't be doing to maintain that loving connection.
> It is also unfortunately, exceedingly rare.


I'm suggesting that we should not make black and white assumptions like "the withholding one is the wrong one". That we have to analyze each case deeper.

It is also true that the woman in my example is not communicating well. Imagine that the woman gets crazy emotional and defensive instead of being calm and explain things objectively. Then there are possibilities like the man still not understanding what she is saying even if she tried her best. These are cases in which the couple seriously lacks of communication compatibility.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> I don't think that any of us is believing that sex should require crazy moving mountain efforts. And it is ok to get frustrated and comment on how that is not ok. But it is not ok to simply assume that the withholding one is wrong. You have to analyze each case and many factors to truly be able to say who is the wrong one.
> 
> 
> But then honestly... why can't some people realize that sometimes, it was mainly coz of lack of compatibility that things went wrong? Why must we always blame someone for the entire situation?


Lets please be real here. It's estimated that anywhere between 30-40 million American couples are sexless.

We live in a culture where it is so common for women to shut down sex after marriage that it's a running, regular joke. People actually get married and expect for sex to slow to a crawl not long after the "I Dos". The majority of refusers in marriage are women.

Of all the married couples I know, and know of, in both my life, and my wife's life, the ones whose sex life info we are privy to, we are the only ones who have sex a couple to several times a week. And most of us are young people in our 20's and early 30's. Two of my single best friends have said flat out that our sex life, which is hardly every day, is far more regular, and plentiful, than any married people they know.

You, and a few others, in a quest to sympathize with refusing women, continue to spout on about "case by case". This is a chronic, epidemic that has far superseded the need to believe that dozens of millions of sexless couples are that way because of very unique circumstances.

We live in a culture of accepted refusal. Women are allowed to close up sex for any reason, and millions do. They are NOT all married to dead bead husbands who don't fulfill their emotional needs, not by a long shot.

The sexless crisis is being lead primarily by women, and many of you are working extra hard to not face that harsh reality.

If it makes you feel better to believe that most of these women are victims of big, bad men, enjoy the fantasy. I just can't join you.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> I'm suggesting that we should not make black and white assumptions like "the withholding one is the wrong one". That we have to analyze each case deeper.


It's not about the withholding one being "wrong".

It's about the entire spirit of withholding in this (and many other) nations being totally wrong.

Chronically withholding sex, without a damn good excuse, is as wrong as adultery.

The only difference is you aren't likely to have too many people stepping up to talk about how we need to "analyze each case" of adultery "deeper", and learn to sympathize with the cheaters.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> Lets please be real here. It's estimated that anywhere between 30-40 million American couples are sexless.
> 
> We live in a culture where it is so common for women to shut down sex after marriage that it's a running, regular joke. People actually get married and expect for sex to slow to a crawl not long after the "I Dos". The majority of refusers in marriage are women.
> 
> Of all the married couples I know, and know of, in both my life, and my wife's life, the ones whose sex life info we are privy to, we are the only ones who have sex a couple to several times a week. And most of us are young people in our 20's and early 30's. Two of my single best friends have said flat out that our sex life, which is hardly every day, is far more regular, and plentiful, than any married people they know.
> 
> You, and a few others, in a quest to sympathize with refusing women, continue to spout on about "case by case". This is a chronic, epidemic that has far superseded the need to believe that dozens of millions of sexless couples are that way because of very unique circumstances.
> 
> We live in a culture of accepted refusal. Women are allowed to close up sex for any reason, and millions do. They are NOT all married to dead bead husbands who don't fulfill their emotional needs, not by a long shot.
> 
> The sexless crisis is being lead primarily by women, and many of you are working extra hard to not face that harsh reality.
> 
> If it makes you feel better to believe that most of these women are victims of big, bad men, enjoy the fantasy. I just can't join you.


So we should judge every single case with the judgment based on what's going on in the majority? Of course we have to analyze each case instead of applying one black and white judgment.

And making me feel better to believe that most of these women are victim? What I see here is you blaming the withholding one, which for you is mainly women. So saying that we should be fairer and analyze each case better instead of assuming that the withholding one is wrong, is victimizing them?


----------



## techmom

Jacquen,

You keep making the point that like-minded people should marry. However my question is this, how many people consider the numerous changes that can happen during the course of the marriage while they are dating? You state that you are between 20-30 years old. Did you have children yet? If not, then you and your wife did not experience the "joys" of the many hormonal changes that happen in a woman's body before, during, and after childbirth which have the potential to negatively affect libido. These things should be talked about and considered seriously before marriage as well.

I was a virgin before marriage, my husband thought that since I had no sexual partners before him that I would be available to him always. I thought so too, little did I know what my 2 pregnancies had in store for me. Very difficult for us to deal with, the hormonal changes tanked my drive and made him angry. Dealing with his anger tanked it even more, he complained that I felt no more passion anymore. That I was giving duty sex. Made me withdraw further. Had he been more understanding maybe I would have kept some passion for him during the worst time of my life (miscarriage). Instead it became a negative spiral that affects us until this day, which is why I came to these forums in the first place.

So, yes I read the numerous threads with men desperate for love and affection from their wives. I wonder how it got to that point though because there is always 2 sides to every story.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ManUp

jaquen said:


> The sexless crisis is being lead primarily by women, and many of you are working extra hard to not face that harsh reality.


And there are a lot of men who have fallen for the feminized Man bull****. We also have an entire generation of men, now in their 40's, who were raised to be deferential to women. Who were raised in broken homes and taught by society that women's emotional needs were far more important than men's. That the typically female viewpoint of sex being a physical act instead of an emotional one became dominant.

And society taught an entire generation of boys to roll over and take it because. We forgot to teach boys what it means to stand up for themselves, to be in control of their emotions and feelings, and to not put up with bad and hurtful behaviour. The sexless crisis is followed very closely behind the Nice Guy crisis. We have enabled women to use sex as a tool to get what they want, and instead of men walking away and declaring that behaviour unacceptable, we put up with it because there is some shame for even wanting sex in the first place.


All I'm saying is that it takes two to (not) tango, and we haven't exactly been holding up our end of actually acting like men.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> It's not about the withholding one being "wrong".
> 
> It's about the entire spirit of withholding in this (and many other) nations being totally wrong.
> 
> Chronically withholding sex, without a damn good excuse, is as wrong as adultery.
> 
> The only difference is you aren't likely to have too many people stepping up to talk about how we need to "analyze each case" of adultery "deeper", and learn to sympathize with the cheaters.


If you don't agree with how certain things are perceived culturally, it's not by making another unfair black and white judgment that you can end the unfair judgments you don't agree with.


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> Is that all you can see in the example I gave? That the woman withholds sex for hostage?
> 
> Did it not cross your mind the possibility that the woman also enjoyed sex, but could not bring herself to do it anymore, as she was suffering from the lack of emotional bond that waned by time due to misunderstandings? Did it not cross your mind that she wanted to have their great sex life back again, but she is shutting down and not sure what to do anymore, just like the man who is not sure how to solve the situation?
> 
> Are the words "hostage", "selfish", "punishment" all you can see, whatever reason someone has to have stopped interesting in sex?


Well Lilith your example touched a nerve. 

You described an all too common situation where a man's poorly chosen words and honest mistakes are not weighed in the light of the good things he does and it's therefore impossible for him to ever atone for them. 

If I've misunderstood something here, I'm hoping you will explain. Here is the scenario again as you wrote it:




> A couple makes love like rabbits and is genuinely attracted to each other. But as time passes, the woman feels that she is not understood emotionally. Often, whenever she is having some life issue and seeks support from husband, husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words that his constructive criticisms rather made her feel worse. She often tried to explain it to him, but he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance. Over time, wife got tired of arguing and simply allowed disappointment and resentment to build. Also, wife was also not too satisfied on bed that she tried to explain her husband what she likes, but unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her. Wife started to feel less and less into having sex with husband, 'till husband finally find it not of and then started to try to figure out what's wrong. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find. He even did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed. Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex. In the end, husband gets frustrated and feels that wife does not care nor love him anymore.


Here are the husband's mistakes and failings: 

a. ...husband tries to offer support, but fails to choose the more sensitive words 

b. ...he thought that she was just being overreactive over what he thought was of little importance..

c. ...unfortunately, husband was not able to do things the right way for her.​

And here are the good things that he does: 

a. Husband really puts lots of effort, reading and following every single advice he could find.

b. He even did house chores and prepared romantic dinners that might end up in intimate night on bed.​

What is the wife's role in this marriage? Aside from talking about her needs, what are the good things that she does? You didn't list any. 

Does she understand her husband as well as she expects him to understand her? Does she show the same concern for her husband's emotional needs as she expects him to show for hers? If she does, you didn't say so. 

Is this woman a talented lover in bed herself? Does she possess the same level of sexual expertise that she expects of her husband? Again, we don't know. 

In the crises you describe, what effort is she putting forth? What are her contributions to this relationship? What is she doing to help this marriage succeed? You didn't name a single positive thing that she's doing to help the situation. 

Whose needs in this scenario are more important? I hope you would agree that the woman's needs and the man's needs are of identical and equal importance.

But that's not what you actually wrote: 



> Wife sees the change and feels angry and hurt, thinking that husband started to be more caring coz he just wanted sex.


The wife recognizes that her emotional needs are important, which is certainly true, but his needs are delegitimized as mere selfishness. Consequently, he's stuck on an endless treadmill of appeasement because even good, positive actions on his part are suspect.

This is almost a perfect, textbook example of passive-aggressive behavior and I'm sure that's not the idea you intended to convey. There were probably lots of good things about the wife in this story that didn't make it to the keyboard


----------



## Thundarr

ManUp said:


> And there are a lot of men who have fallen for the feminized Man bull****. We also have an entire generation of men, now in their 40's, who were raised to be deferential to women. Who were raised in broken homes and taught by society that women's emotional needs were far more important than men's. That the typically female viewpoint of sex being a physical act instead of an emotional one became dominant.
> 
> And society taught an entire generation of boys to roll over and take it because. We forgot to teach boys what it means to stand up for themselves, to be in control of their emotions and feelings, and to not put up with bad and hurtful behaviour. The sexless crisis is followed very closely behind the Nice Guy crisis. We have enabled women to use sex as a tool to get what they want, and instead of men walking away and declaring that behaviour unacceptable, we put up with it because there is some shame for even wanting sex in the first place.
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is that it takes two to (not) tango, and we haven't exactly been holding up our end of actually acting like men.


These are generalities and very often true but it's not what this thread has been about yet.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ManUp said:


> We also have an entire generation of men, now in their 40's, who were raised to be deferential to women. Who were raised in broken homes and taught by society that women's emotional needs were far more important than men's. That the typically female viewpoint of sex being a physical act instead of an emotional one became dominant.
> 
> And society taught an entire generation of boys to roll over and take it because. We forgot to teach boys what it means to stand up for themselves, to be in control of their emotions and feelings, and to not put up with bad and hurtful behaviour. *The sexless crisis is followed very closely behind the Nice Guy crisis. We have enabled women to use sex as a tool to get what they want, and instead of men walking away and declaring that behaviour unacceptable, we put up with it because there is some shame for even wanting sex in the first place.*
> 
> 
> All I'm saying is that it takes two to (not) tango, and we haven't exactly been holding up our end of actually acting like men.


Interesting.

Lots of guys, most of them in sexless marriage don't know that , _that's_ exactly what's hitting them.

To make matters worse, they go to the wrong places seeking answers.
So they end up " working harder for sex " , sabotaging themselves.

I am not saying this is always the case, but I believe it is most of the times.
But like I said before, there are many variables. This is just one of them.


----------



## Deejo

ocotillo said:


> This is almost a perfect, textbook example of passive-aggressive behavior and I'm sure that's not the idea you intended to convey. There were probably lots of good things about the wife in this story that didn't make it to the keyboard


Touched the same nerve with me, and why I left that post alone. It's tragically telling.

Even when someone wants to 'address' it, it isn't clear what needs to be addressed.

And Lilith, I'm not pointing fingers, I greatly appreciate your participation. Don't want you to feel ganged up on.

But yeah ... what you wrote, based upon what happened in my own personal experience of ALWAYS trying to do right by my ex-wife, made me wince.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo, the example I gave could have more details/issues or not. The man could be satisfied with the woman's talent on the bed, or he might not be, and equally attempted to have tried to ask wife to improve a few things. And his wife might get it right or not. The man could be emotionally satisfied with wife, or he might not and also attempted to talk about it, and his could get it or not.
This is an example and not a specific case, and we can imagine as much details as we could, as long as it makes sense with the rest.

We can also make examples in which the man is the withholding one. What I intended to, by giving my example with the woman being the withholding one, is not to say who is wrong, but rather showing a case in which lack of compatibility and miscommunication are what truly wrecking the relationship.

You asked what about the wife's efforts in my example. In her case, she tried hard to explain to her husband what she felt and the nature of her needs. In this case scenario, the husband was happy with how things were at the beginning, so the only "obvious" efforts needed from the wife's part is for the wife to communicate what is wrong for her. But of course, there can be some less "obvious" efforts in the story - like she could be trying to be supportive for her man as well, or improving her own sexual skills for the sake of her husband's preferrences, you name it. This depends on the details of this imaginary scenario one can imagine. And of course, the wife could be equally failing in doing those things or not.

Honestly, we can sit here and make many hyphotesis for details that could fit in this example, trying to measure who might be putting slightly more effort so that we can find who is the winner and who is the wrong one.
Point is, I have never stated any side as being selfish. What is happening is a big lack of compatibility and miscommunication, making each side misunderstanding the other and not having their needs met.

Is the husband's need selfish? I don't think so. But due to not understanding the nature of his needs, his wife might see it as such ("so he only wants sex from me!").
Is the wife's need selfish? I don't think so. But due to not understanding the nature of her needs, her husband might see it as such ("why is she so selfish and not appreciate my supports?").

As I've metnioned in that very same post you've quoted:

" If the husband understood his wife emotional side, and the wife understood how her husbad unwanted and unloved, things might have been better. If the wife understood that her husband's criticism meant good and that he was just not good at comforting others, and if she understood that sex was more than just getting it off so that she could see how her husband cared for her when doing all those house chores and other things to win her back, instead of feeling hurt for misunderstanding her husband only wanting sex; and if her husband did not simply dismiss her wife's emotional reactions and tired to improve on his choice of words, or if he was more sexually compatible with his wife that he was able to do things better on bed when she asked..."

Honestly, what I really intended to is for people to be more understanding and analyzing each case better before jumping into conclusions of who is the wrong one. I feel that by just making black and white judgments, we are not only not helping at lessening the usual unfairness that happens surrounding sexless marriages, but only contributing to it.


----------



## fightit01

I believe working for it, if I'm not married. Then it comes as part of the agreement both ways. If not married, work for it. Then once you're done if you're not happy with her it makes forgetting about her that much easier. You didn't take advantage of anything, you worked for everything!So walk if you want too. If you're happy with her after the first sx ncntr then break her in like a wild horse...and teach her some things!


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Adding something about a woman having to have sex with her husband into a marriage contract is futile anyway because at the time the woman will believe that having sex with him all the time is exactly what the two shall do. I mean how many of the marriage vows are later broken already simply because people cannot predict how they will feel and respond as time goes on.


Isn't that the very reason that we make the vows? We make the vow as an acknowledgment that how we feel at any given time doesn't supercede the vow itself. Fidelity is inherent. Along with love, honor and commitment. 



Trenton said:


> So, for me, the only actual solution is to work on understanding and find out if there is a happier place that both in the relationship can get to or a solution to the unhappiness that either/or feel.


Which can only take place if both parties are willing to do the work. And by default, if a partners standard operating dynamic has become 'refuse sex at all costs', then they aren't going to want to do that work. It's duplicitous. It invariably comes down to one party being comfortable with the other parties discomfort. And the expectation that they should just 'shut up' about it.

The few examples where I have seen this turn the corner, a few on this board in particular, is when the rejecting partner realizes one day that they are no longer being pursued and everything seems quite hunky-dory. Then they start wondering why that is ... and eventually come to learn that their now seemingly happy partner is having their sexual needs met elsewhere. 
Cue shock and indignation. But they also accept responsibility and the two miraculously reset their marriage.

I most certainly don't advocate that model. But it has happened. Barring the shock of an affair, or the shock of divorce, there isn't much to change the terms of discussion or desire.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I'm fairly certain what most women want is a man who considers the care and keeping of her being as important, who communicates openly and without judgement or accusations, and who is willing to work directly with her to fix the problem.
> 
> What I still don't have a clear picture of is what a man wants. All I keep reading here is free access to his wife's body whenever he wants.
> 
> What an f'ing turn off I tell you.


And you'd be wrong.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> *So, for me, the only actual solution is to work on understanding and find out if there is a happier place that both in the relationship can get to or a solution to the unhappiness that either/or feel.*


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> What I still don't have a clear picture of is what a man wants. All I keep reading here is free access to his wife's body whenever he wants.


^^^^^^
I disagree.
Every man wants his wife to respect him . That simply means understanding that he should NOT have to work for sex, in this context.

Just like every woman wants her husband to respect her.That means he should understand that she has emotional needs, and with understanding they can both meet each other's needs.
It all comes down to respect.


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> I disagree.
> Rvery man wants his wife to respect him . That simply m,eans understanding that he should NOT have to work for sex, in this context.
> 
> Just like every woman wants her husband to respect her.That means he should understand that she has emotional needs, and with understanding they can both meet each other's needs.
> It all comes down to respect.


I always respect my husband and show him that I love him, but he complains of duty sex. Go figure.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> I disagree.
> Rvery man wants his wife to respect him . That simply m,eans understanding that he should NOT have to work for sex, in this context.
> 
> Just like every woman wants her husband to respect her.That means he should understand that she has emotional needs, and with understanding they can both meet each other's needs.
> It all comes down to respect.


Oh yes, that's the full message but then it unwinds and you're left with the fact that men want sex and feel entitled to it within the confines of a marriage.

It does come down to respect for one another but that is lost, I think, long before the sex stops completely.

So what it really comes down to is communication and a willingness to hear what is being communicated; the care and keeping of one another.


----------



## Thundarr

techmom said:


> I always respect my husband and show him that I love him, but he complains of duty sex. Go figure.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What I've gathered is that Duty Sex does not mean the same thing to everyone. NMMNG defines it differently than you are.


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> Isn't that the very reason that we make the vows? We make the vow as an acknowledgment that how we feel at any given time doesn't supercede the vow itself. Fidelity is inherent. Along with love, honor and commitment.
> 
> 
> 
> Which can only take place if both parties are willing to do the work. And by default, if a partners standard operating dynamic has become 'refuse sex at all costs', then they aren't going to want to do that work. It's duplicitous. It invariably comes down to one party being comfortable with the other parties discomfort. And the expectation that they should just 'shut up' about it.
> 
> The few examples where I have seen this turn the corner, a few on this board in particular, is when the rejecting partner realizes one day that they are no longer being pursued and everything seems quite hunky-dory. Then they start wondering why that is ... and eventually come to learn that their now seemingly happy partner is having their sexual needs met elsewhere.
> Cue shock and indignation. But they also accept responsibility and the two miraculously reset their marriage.
> 
> I most certainly don't advocate that model. But it has happened. Barring the shock of an affair, or the shock of divorce, there isn't much to change the terms of discussion or desire.


Yes that is why we make marriage vows but I think we can see how well that works based upon statistics.

If my husband were to say to me that he wanted to place that in our vows it would be akin to him wanting a prenuptial agreement. It would cheapen the ideal for me and be a turn off. Would I still marry him? Dunno. Never been there and can't exactly go back but I'm willing to place bets that my husband wouldn't do that or my respect for him going into the relationship would have been in the negative. Of course, this has to do with personal choice more than anything else.

My point on a sexless marriage is that once you're a man & woman in a sexless marriage it very well may be to late. Your needs aren't being met any longer and her needs haven't been met for too long. You've missed all the symptoms and you're at a point where the relationship is in ICU...hence all the drastic measures to try to fix it or somehow disconnect from it.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> If Lillith's thread touched nerves I think it's because of the dichotomy of power within the couple. You're reading that a man has to listen and listen well and has to do the right things to the women's standards or he will be eventually shut out from her body entirely.
> 
> But to do this you have to undermine the importance of the woman's needs in the relationship. Why can't we accept that for most women there is a direct correlation between a woman's desire to please and make love with her husband and how he makes her feel.
> 
> It's akin to thinking that an illness where you can't see physical manifestation of symptoms is not relevant when it is actually extremely relevant to the overall health of the person.
> 
> The solution in Lillith's example is better communication and a couple that is willing to work harder to understand one another and express how they feel (it is a two sided problem with both playing a part). The husband assumed that he got it right and was left clueless as to why his sex life with his wife eventually went from lusty and constant to sporadic to non-existent. The wife tried to communicate clearly and share her thoughts and feelings but gave up because the husband wasn't listening to her and was assuming.
> 
> But the truth of the matter is they both gave up and made assumptions and neither worked hard enough but the man didn't start paying attention until his sex life was gone and the woman had already shifted into tolerance of the relationship. I think in general that there is ignorance on both the man and the woman's side. At this point, there's so much resentment that both constantly feel at a loss and the woman is so used to not being sexual, not communicating, not trusting, not feeling connected to her husband that...sigh...it sucks a duck for both.
> 
> It is essentially an unhappy relationship for both the man and the woman. I think this belief that it is less beneficial or satisfying for the man while the woman is eating cake and using the husband is seriously wrong and a big part of the problem.


My issue is that you consistently and admirably, I will add, presume that the rejector WANTS to address the problem, rather than blame-shift.

And I'm telling you, on behalf of my experience and the experiences of dozens of other men that I interact with ... this is not the case.

It requires one of those other qualities that you espouse and I do truly admire; vulnerability. 
And under circumstances of sexual duress, the rejector will not go there.

Not unless something greater than the perception of lack of sex is put on the line.


----------



## techmom

Man-up's post about how society became all about feminizing men is very telling. Every thing is the woman's fault? I'll say this, what happened is that birth control, women's rights, and the feminist movement did a lot to change the relationship dynamics. Women now demand to be listened to instead of always deferring to the man. Her needs became important and now some men can't handle that shift.

Women were once property in a marriage. If she didn't put out sex, he either had an affair or commited marital rape. Both of those options were legal and accepted by society about one hundred years ago. She stayed in the home, raised the kids, and her husband had all of the power.

Now that the rules have changed men are complaining of lack of respect. Even guys who are so-called nice guys are very angry towards women, they suppress that anger deep in their being. After reading NMMNG and MMSL, I got some perspective on the viewpoints of men and what they think of women. Some of it is appauling.

Athol Kay says things like "get laid like tile" and "do it like bunnies". Nothing about respect, except that it is a vehicle to get laid from your wife. The 180 is nothing more than a technique to make wifey scared that you are going to leave and being indifferent to her so she can give you sex. What is never stated is that the only reason she is giving you sex is to maintain the relationship. Duty sex.

So, yes, all of these books and numerous posts from men are complaining about sex. Which used to be given more freely before these b*tches started complaining about their rights and all. Now we have to listen to their needs darnit.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trenton

Deejo said:


> My issue is that you consistently and admirably, I will add, presume that the rejector WANTS to address the problem, rather than blame-shift.
> 
> And I'm telling you, on behalf of my experience and the experiences of dozens of other men that I interact with ... this is not the case.
> 
> It requires one of those other qualities that you espouse and I do truly admire; vulnerability.
> And under circumstances of sexual duress, the rejector will not go there.
> 
> Not unless something greater than the perception of lack of sex is put on the line.


Doesn't that really suck?!?!


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> ocotillo, the example I gave could have more details/issues or not.....


Thank you for the clarification Lilith. You are right. We can sit here and hypothesize endlessly on additional details that would fit the example.

We could also subtract _all_ of the details and distill the scenario down to _only_ cause and consequence:

A: Wife's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is passive and negative. She withdraws sexually from her husband

B: Now husband's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is active and positive. He is kinder and more considerate to his wife.​
If response 'B' can be portrayed as selfish and laced with ulterior motive, what is there to say about response 'A'? 

You've gotten honest, male replies on that and have defended it as a natural and normal consequence. (And perhaps it is) 

I would say that regardless of details, there are two very unequal sets of scales at work in a scenario where the husband's responsibility consists of meeting his wife's emotional needs and the wife's responsibility consists of explaining those needs.

Explaining your needs to your spouse is very important, because it enables your spouse to make positive contributions to the relationship. (Or at least try to.) But the explanation is not your contribution to the relationship 

Perhaps this is an unavoidable consequence of gender differences and there's nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> I always respect my husband and show him that I love him, but he complains of duty sex. Go figure.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Then maybe its time to hit the " reset button."


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Athol Kay says things like "get laid like tile" and "do it like bunnies". Nothing about respect, except that it is a vehicle to get laid from your wife.


Don't women also like " getting laid like tile or doing it like bunnies?"
My wife likes it when we "do it like bunnies."

But I don't think this is essentially just a gender issue, men vs. women.
Its all about compatibility and respect.
If a woman or man doesn't like sex, then marry someone who doesn't like sex.
If somewhere along the marriage , she looses attraction or hormones steps in and threatens the sex frequency,
at leat she should respect her husband ,hit the rest button and be honest enough to work on it together.
The same rule should apply to men.


----------



## Deejo

Whoa! Let's back the bus up ...

Within the context of THIS particular thread, MOST of the contributors, myself included loved their wives, worked very hard at being good husbands and good communicators. I am not trying to give myself a pat on the back, or demonize my ex.

I lament that the entire enterprise went absolutely awry despite what I _thought_ I was doing right.

Without question, I was doing something wrong. May have been 'trying too hard' or 'working at it'. And despite the fact I did things out of love ... ex perceived that I did them to get sex ... therefore invalidating virtually every avenue that I could think of to express love for my spouse. 

Bottom line in my case? My ex has issues with sex that have NOTHING to do with me, and sadly had EVERYTHING to do with me.

As both Trenton and Lilith point out, pretty tragic for both of us, don't you think? 


I get a kick out of women that like to paint Athol as a sonuvab!tch, given that the point of his coming here initially, and then writing the book was to _preserve_ fulfilling marriages for both partners.

It's a red herring. Wanting sex isn't disrespectful. The language he uses is written by a man for an audience of men ... although apparently many of his subscribers and buyers of his book are women.

Everybody is going to rant once in a while. That's cool. I myself have found this thread quite cathartic, while the OP is probably offline 'getting laid like tile'.

I am sorry about what happened between you and your husband, but very glad and encouraged to hear that you guys are working at it.

*Edited following reading another response*



techmom said:


> Man-up's post about how society became all about feminizing men is very telling. Every thing is the woman's fault? I'll say this, what happened is that birth control, women's rights, and the feminist movement did a lot to change the relationship dynamics. Women now demand to be listened to instead of always deferring to the man. Her needs became important and now some men can't handle that shift.
> 
> Women were once property in a marriage. If she didn't put out sex, he either had an affair or commited marital rape. Both of those options were legal and accepted by society about one hundred years ago. She stayed in the home, raised the kids, and her husband had all of the power.
> 
> Now that the rules have changed men are complaining of lack of respect. Even guys who are so-called nice guys are very angry towards women, they suppress that anger deep in their being. After reading NMMNG and MMSL, I got some perspective on the viewpoints of men and what they think of women. Some of it is appauling.
> 
> Athol Kay says things like "get laid like tile" and "do it like bunnies". Nothing about respect, except that it is a vehicle to get laid from your wife. The 180 is nothing more than a technique to make wifey scared that you are going to leave and being indifferent to her so she can give you sex. What is never stated is that the only reason she is giving you sex is to maintain the relationship. Duty sex.
> 
> So, yes, all of these books and numerous posts from men are complaining about sex. Which used to be given more freely before these b*tches started complaining about their rights and all. Now we have to listen to their needs darnit.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Doesn't that really suck?!?!


Yes. Yes it does indeed, suck.


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> Don't women also like " getting laid like tile or doing it like bunnies?"
> My wife likes it when we "do it like bunnies."
> 
> But I don't think this is essentially just a gender issue, men vs. women.
> Its all about compatibility and respect.
> If a woman or man doesn't like sex, then marry someone who doesn't like sex.
> If somewhere along the marriage , she looses attraction or hormones steps in and threatens the sex frequency,
> at leat she should respect her husband ,hit the rest button and be honest enough to work on it together.
> The same rule should apply to men.


I used to love sex too, especially oral for me and him. I keep trying to hit the reset button, the only thing he wants to reset to is before the pregnancies. That is impossible for me, he blamed me for the miscarriage and I can never forgive him for that. I can understand he was experiencing a loss too, but my position was not to blame him and find fault with him. I wanted to get through this as a couple, he compared me with other women who were able to have full term pregancies.

He wonders now that the sex is dropping off, what went wrong?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ManUp

techmom said:


> Man-up's post about how society became all about feminizing men is very telling. Every thing is the woman's fault? I'll say this, what happened is that birth control, women's rights, and the feminist movement did a lot to change the relationship dynamics. Women now demand to be listened to instead of always deferring to the man. Her needs became important and now some men can't handle that shift.


No, you misunderstood. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. There needs to be a mutual respect of needs and desires within any relationship. What we have today are men who have allowed themselves to defer to their woman's desires completely. That is the fault of Men. We stopped being Men because we misunderstood the message about needing to be sensitive.

Here's what I mean. I don't know of a single woman who wouldn't' be all over a guy who was decisive, confident, masculine and respectful to women and to themselves. Men who are wimpy, always defer decisions to their wives, allow themselves to be doormats, lie all the time and hide things are undesirable. Yet, that is exactly what men end up doing in trying to always be the "nice guy".

I don't blame women for standing up for themselves and not accepting the old status quo of abuse and subservance. Clearly those are not healthy behaviours. But, neither are the behaviours men have tried to learn to compensate too far in the other direction. Balance needs to be restored.

The reason why those books say things like "get laid like tile" is not because it's all about getting sex; it's because sex is the ultimate physical and emotional bonding experience for men in a committed relationship.


----------



## Thundarr

ocotillo said:


> A: Wife's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is passive and negative. She withdraws sexually from her husband
> 
> B: Now husband's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is active and positive. He is kinder and more considerate to his wife.​
> If response 'B' can be portrayed as selfish and laced with ulterior motive, what is there to say about response 'A'?


The unfortunate reality is that "B" comes across weak and needy quite often which add a new problem with attraction. Enter NMMNG.


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> What I still don't have a clear picture of is what a man wants. All I keep reading here is free access to his wife's body whenever he wants.


Not true, Trenton.

My wife and I had a happy and active sex life for nine years. 

Then children were born and the happy woman I married died. It wasn't just sex, she was disinterested in, it was every pleasure in life she had ever known.

She was an accomplished pianist (In my amateur bourgeois opinion.) She never touched the piano she got for her first anniversary ever again. It sits, sad and dusty thirty one years later in a spare room.

I feel for it..




Trenton said:


> What an f'ing turn off I tell you.


Yep.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> I used to love sex too, especially oral for me and him.* I keep trying to hit the reset button, the only thing he wants to reset to is before the pregnancies. That is impossible for me, he blamed me for the miscarriage and I can never forgive him for that. I can understand he was experiencing a loss too, but my position was not to blame him and find fault with him. I wanted to get through this as a couple, he compared me with other women who were able to have full term pregancies.*
> 
> He wonders now that the sex is dropping off, what went wrong?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


^^^^^^
I think the answer is in your post.
Seems like both of you haven't really dealt with the miscarriage, and its beginning to affect your sex life. There should be a reasonable approach and compromise on both sides.
Both of you suffered a loss.
Makes no sense one blaming the other and comparing you with other women.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> We could also subtract _all_ of the details and distill the scenario down to _only_ cause and consequence:
> 
> A: Wife's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is passive and negative. She withdraws sexually from her husband
> 
> B: Now husband's emotional needs are unsatisfied: Response is active and positive. He is kinder and more considerate to his wife.​
> If response 'B' can be portrayed as selfish and laced with ulterior motive, what is there to say about response 'A'
> 
> You've gotten honest, male replies on that and have defended it as a natural and normal consequence. (And perhaps it is)
> 
> I would say that regardless of details, there are two very unequal sets of scales at work in a scenario where the husband's responsibility consists of meeting his wife's emotional needs and the wife's responsibility consists of explaining those needs.
> 
> Explaining your needs to your spouse is very important, because it enables your spouse to make positive contributions to the relationship. (Or at least try to.) But the explanation is not your contribution to the relationship
> 
> Perhaps this is an unavoidable consequence of gender differences and there's nothing we can do about it.


Both cases can be portrayed as selfish or not selfish, depending on how we look at it. Wife's gradual detachment can be viewed as taking revenge and punishing, or can be viewed as she not being able to stop the connection with his husband from breaking. Husband's attempts after sex life started to be unacceptable can be viewed as only starting to be more caring for the sake of his own needs, or viewed as trying to save their relationship.

But if you dismiss wife's attempt to solve things with husband through communication, then you might be undervaluing it. As I mentioned, the husband saw wife's concerns or emotions as not very important. Could that be considered selfish? I could choose the right words to make him look selfish here. That he tried to support wife emotionally with the wrong words, and then dismiss her issues as overreacting from her part when it didn't work. This could happen, there are guys who are selfish. But then there are also guys who are really caring but only not knowing the right way to do it. Yet due to lack of compatibility, his way of supporting is not compatible with the way she needs (for example, the husband might not really try to dismiss wife's emotional needs, but they have different beliefs, and so he often finds what she worries about silly at best, which in turn really hurts the wife emotionally).
Having one partner dismissing the other one's emotional issues can be a very thought one. Of course husband's attempt to support wife emotionally counts, but then it does not make the fact that she felt emotionally hurt by the wrong approach go away.


*edit* just wanted to add that wife's initial response is not passive and negative, but rather attempting to fix it. Also, husband's final response can as well be considered as passive and negative, when he also reaches the stage in which he is too tired and frustrated. So that the comparison of A and B is not really valid.


----------



## Holland

Deejo said:


> My position is crystal clear, and not very popular therefore I don't discuss it much.
> 
> I make no distinction between the betrayal of sexual rejection, or the betrayal of sexual infidelity.
> 
> They are both a betrayal nonetheless.
> One form society finds palatable, acceptable, makes plenty of excuses for, and uses as comic relief.
> The other, is demonized, emotionally charged, universally considered bad behavior and focuses blame.
> 
> They are both bad behavior.
> 
> They both result in the same thing. Relationship death.
> 
> Both are often manifestations of issues other than the behavior itself, that if the parties involved would take ownership of, would avoid the behaviors in the first place.


I don't disagree with you or Jaquen on the basics of your premise here however I still say it is not as B&W,

Firstly sexual abandonment is not taken lightly, or is palatable or acceptable as you state. I have never heard or seen it written that society does find it this way.

I don't know your back story, have you lived through a sexless marriage?

Both do and should lead to the end of marriages, neither behaviour should be tolerated. Both bring about extreme heartache and pain.

The difference is that in some cases the if the issues around sexual abandonment are worked on by both parties then change can happen.
What frustrates me reading here on TAM are the ones that allow themselves to suffer this indignity for years on end with no intention of ending the marriage.

Cheating however is an action by one partner that completely destroys any hope. To have gone out and cheated that person knows the marriage is well and truly over but does not have to guts to stand up and end the marriage. It is a gutless action.
Cheating is not done with the intention of fixing the marriage it is a pre meditated course of destruction.


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> I think the answer is in your post.
> Seems like both of you haven't really dealt with the miscarriage, and its beginning to affect your sex life. There should be a reasonable approach and compromise on both sides.
> Both of you suffered a loss.
> Makes no sense one blaming the other and comparing you with other women.


Thanks so much. I don't want to hijack this thread with my issues, I posted just to illustrate that sometimes men don't think that anything is wrong unless the sex drops off. Also there are legitimate reasons why a wife stops feeling passion and starts to give duty sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^^^^
> I think the answer is in your post.
> Seems like both of you haven't really dealt with the miscarriage, and its beginning to affect your sex life. There should be a reasonable approach and compromise on both sides.
> Both of you suffered a loss.
> Makes no sense one blaming the other and comparing you with other women.


It might make no sense, but too late. It's done.

If my husband blamed me for a miscarriage and compared me to other women who could sustain a pregnancy, my feelings for him would be shattered. I would never want to connect with him sexually again.

And it wouldn't be a choice. I wouldn't be witholding sex deliberately as some kind of punishment. As a reasonably HD woman, I'm sure I'd still want to have sex. Just not with him. My sexual feelings towards him would be gone.

That's what is getting missed here I think. Wanting to have sex with someone is not necessarily a deliberate choice or under someone's control. And if duty sex is off the menu, what happens then?


----------



## Holland

jaquen said:


> DING! DING! DING!
> 
> What I have been saying all along.
> 
> Hence my emphasis on compatible, like minding people, marrying.


Agree with you here jaquen, the flaw with this is that many of us thought we were marrying like minded people. Life happens, kids happen, work, financial stuff, moving houses, all all the other daily crap.
Ok none of this is an excuse but life is not perfect. 

I agree that people should make sex a priority, that it doesn't have to be all rolled in emotional fairyfloss and that sexual connection is paramount.
BUT life is not always like that. People can change over time, they get worn down by life and slowly resentments or distances can set it. This is the fault if you like of both partners.

So one day you realise that the like mindedness has waned, This is the time to fix it or end it. 
It is not the time to say yay I have a free pass to cheat.


----------



## ocotillo

Lyris said:


> That's what is getting missed here I think. Wanting to have sex with someone is not necessarily a deliberate choice or under someone's control. And if duty sex is off the menu, what happens then?


--Depends on the definition of 'Duty sex.' And this is another area where men and women seem to polarize at the two opposite ends of what the term can possibly mean.

My definition is, 'I won't consider it duty sex if you don't channel surf or answer the telephone.'


----------



## techmom

Lyris said:


> It might make no sense, but too late. It's done.
> 
> If my husband blamed me for a miscarriage and compared me to other women who could sustain a pregnancy, my feelings for him would be shattered. I would never want to connect with him sexually again.
> 
> And it wouldn't be a choice. I wouldn't be witholding sex deliberately as some kind of punishment. As a reasonably HD woman, I'm sure I'd still want to have sex. Just not with him. My sexual feelings towards him would be gone.
> 
> That's what is getting missed here I think. Wanting to have sex with someone is not necessarily a deliberate choice or under someone's control. And if duty sex is off the menu, what happens then?


But I am still in love with him, he is the only man I've ever been with. Sometimes a wife does not leave and gives duty sex anyway because of those reasons. And I was angry at times and still had sex because I didn't want him to be angry too, because when he was angry he would say horrible things.

Maybe this is why I don't relate to the "jumping through hoops for sex" concept.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

techmom said:


> I always respect my husband and show him that I love him, but he complains of duty sex. Go figure.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But are you having passionate sex, variety in the bedroom, fun?

I get it, you love him and show him that by forcing yourself to have sex even though you are LD but honestly that is a turn off.

Half of what is so good about my sexlife is the passion, the anticipation, the laughter and fun. The all day foreplay of the mind.

I am guessing your husband is feeling empty. I know I sure would feel empty if my partner had sex with me out of duty. I would rather have no sex.


----------



## Lyris

Techmom, I think you should be applauded for still being there at all. Let alone taking the risk of opening up your body to someone who hurt you like that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> It might make no sense, but too late. It's done.
> 
> If my husband blamed me for a miscarriage and compared me to other women who could sustain a pregnancy, my feelings for him would be shattered. I would never want to connect with him sexually again.
> 
> *And it wouldn't be a choice. I wouldn't be witholding sex deliberately as some kind of punishment. As a reasonably HD woman, I'm sure I'd still want to have sex. Just not with him. My sexual feelings towards him would be gone.*
> 
> That's what is getting missed here I think. Wanting to have sex with someone is not necessarily a deliberate choice or under someone's control. And if duty sex is off the menu, what happens then?


Then in a case like this,
The only respectable thing to do is DIVORCE.
I don't believe in duty sex.
I believe in raw, sexual attraction.
I've never had a " pity fvck" from any woman, its a foreign concept t me.
In fact I've turned down lots of offers when I was single because I just wasn't into the girl or I didn't think she was " hot."
I just wasn't sexually attracted to her.

I don't have " duty sex "with my wife either, neither will I accept it.
I treat her with a lot of respect,and life is too short for that.
I was always desired by women when I was single,she knows that. She was and still is desired by men, I know that.

We both desire each other sexually, and the day she feels differently and is unable to get that feeling back,
Then I think if she respects me and herself enough,
She will tell me and we get a divorce.


----------



## Deejo

Holland said:


> I don't disagree with you or Jaquen on the basics of your premise here however I still say it is not as B&W,
> 
> Firstly sexual abandonment is not taken lightly, or is palatable or acceptable as you state. I have never heard or seen it written that society does find it this way.


Really? You have never heard the snickers about sex after marriage, or watched a sitcom where the punch-line is the wife rolling her eyes because she can't believe that her knuckle-head husband wants to have sex, or that he's even desirable? 
Trust me, I'm not imagining it or making it up. I even have a previous post regarding a discussion with a female friend that went for a GNO and that was the biggest topic of conversation and laughs. She was coming out of a marriage where she was rejected in favor of porn by her husband and was horrified at these women's attitudes.

*Edited to add: Given your username, I'm speculating you may not be from the US. If that is the case then it makes sense that you may not be exposed to the 'pitiful sitcom husband' that gets lots of laughs here in the states.
If you are actually from the Netherlands, I've been there, have friends there. Men and women there have very different attitudes about sex than they do here.



Holland said:


> I don't know your back story, have you lived through a sexless marriage?


Yup. Lived through, and ended a sexless marriage. 



Holland said:


> Both do and should lead to the end of marriages, neither behaviour should be tolerated. Both bring about extreme heartache and pain.
> 
> The difference is that in some cases the if the issues around sexual abandonment are worked on by both parties then change can happen.
> What frustrates me reading here on TAM are the ones that allow themselves to suffer this indignity for years on end with no intention of ending the marriage.


I responded to this question for Trenton. At the point of sexual abandonment, the rejector has created a mind-set where working on a change for more sex, is utterly contradictory to the behavior of rejection and blame-shifting they have fostered.




Holland said:


> Cheating however is an action by one partner that completely destroys any hope. To have gone out and cheated that person knows the marriage is well and truly over but does not have to guts to stand up and end the marriage. It is a gutless action.
> Cheating is not done with the intention of fixing the marriage it is a pre meditated course of destruction.


Those that 'suffer this indignity for years' are usually given just enough hope, and just enough 'duty sex' to keep them holding up their end of the bargain as a provider and caretaker to preserve the marriage. In my mind that makes it equally, if not more insidious and gutless. 

Sexual rejection and abandonment is cancer.
A sexual affair is a bullet.
Same outcome ... most of the time.

Both are symptoms of something other than the manifestation. An affair is a symptom of a problem, but the behavior then makes the actual problem easy to ignore or dismiss.
Same dynamic with sexual abandonment. The rejector makes sex THE focus. In my case? It got to the point that ANY display of affection for my partner was seen as a pretext for sex ... simply because that's how bad it got. Did she want us to have a happy fulfilling marriage? I'm sure she did. Did she want to have a happy fulfilling sexual relationship with me? Absolutely not, because that is what she convinced herself of, and couldn't get past it.

Abandonment vs. infidelity are equal forms of betrayal in my eyes. And for the record, we had both in my case.

I'm a long ways out from those circumstances. So if it appears that I'm bitter, please understand I'm not.

I am a whole lot wiser, though ...


----------



## ocotillo

lilith23 said:


> *edit* just wanted to add that wife's initial response is not passive and negative, but rather attempting to fix it. Also, husband's final response can as well be considered as passive and negative, when he also reaches the stage in which he is too tired and frustrated. So that the comparison of A and B is not really valid.



Shifting definitions of semantic descriptors....

---I'd point out that while preaching about your needs is definitely not passive, it is still egocentric in nature and not even remotely comparable to taking an increased interest in your spouse's needs and trying to do a better job at meeting them, which is what I characterized as 'Active' and 'Positive.'

In a similar vein, the cessation of a response after it clearly fails is neither positive nor negative. It's actually not a response at all.


----------



## Holland

Deejo said:


> Really? You have never heard the snickers about sex after marriage, or watched a sitcom where the punch-line is the wife rolling her eyes because she can't believe that her knuckle-head husband wants to have sex, or that he's even desirable?
> Trust me, I'm not imagining it or making it up. I even have a previous post regarding a discussion with a female friend that went for a GNO and that was the biggest topic of conversation and laughs. She was coming out of a marriage where she was rejected in favor of porn by her husband and was horrified at these women's attitudes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Lived through, and ended a sexless marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to this question for Trenton. At the point of sexual abandonment, the rejector has created a mind-set where working on a change for more sex, is utterly contradictory to the behavior of rejection and blame-shifting they have fostered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that 'suffer this indignity for years' are usually given just enough hope, and just enough 'duty sex' to keep them holding up their end of the bargain as a provider and caretaker to preserve the marriage. In my mind that makes it equally, if not more insidious and gutless.
> 
> Sexual rejection and abandonment is cancer.
> A sexual affair is a bullet.
> Same outcome ... most of the time.
> 
> Both are symptoms of something other than the manifestation. An affair is a symptom of a problem, but the behavior then makes the actual problem easy to ignore or dismiss.
> Same dynamic with sexual abandonment. The rejector makes sex THE focus. In my case? It got to the point that ANY display of affection for my partner was seen as a pretext for sex ... simply because that's how bad it got. Did she want us to have a happy fulfilling marriage? I'm sure she did. Did she want to have a happy fulfilling sexual relationship with me? Absolutely not, because that is what she convinced herself of, and couldn't get past it.
> 
> Abandonment vs. infidelity are equal forms of betrayal in my eyes. And for the record, we had both in my case.
> 
> I'm a long ways out from those circumstances. So if it appears that I'm bitter, please understand I'm not.
> 
> I am a whole lot wiser, though ...


Again for me it is hard to articulate however I agree with most of what you are saying. I just cannot get past the point that having an affair should even come into the equation.

I guess we all come into a discussion with our own bias. In my case I endured a sexless marriage for way too long mainly due to the kids and logistics.
I did not and never would have had an affair, it is just something that I find abhorrent.

I ended my marriage and it was the best thing I could have done, it caused some pain for sure but no where near as much pain as having an affair would have caused. 



> Abandonment vs. infidelity are equal forms of betrayal in my eyes. And for the record, we had both in my case.


yes they are but one is not the solution to the other. If in a marriage there was an affair it would not be acceptable to suggest sexual abandonment as the solution.

Oh and I am a whole lot wiser now too


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *Those that 'suffer this indignity for years' are usually given just enough hope, and just enough 'duty sex' to keep them holding up their end of the bargain as a provider and caretaker to preserve the marriage.* In my mind that makes it equally, if not more insidious and gutless.
> .


:iagree:

And this is the part that pisses me off in this whole sad masquerade.
OK,
I'm man enough to bring home the pay check, and upkeep our lifestyle but I'm not man enough to get your panties wet.
I could never bring myself to accept that kind of treatment.
The day sex in our marriage reaches that level, I'll get a divorce ,go purchase a Range Rover and start banging women half my age.
I will not take disrespect.


----------



## Holland

Can I just add to this discussion that men do not hold a monopoly on being the rejected. Have a look around here and you will find that there are as many women that suffer in sexless marriages.

It is an issue that is often hidden because of shame when it is the woman that is the rejected party. That is probably why on TV etc the man not getting any is the butt of the joke.

jaquen you stated earlier that women are the majority of the rejectors, do you have any evidence for this statement? I can tell you through my own journey of discovery and talking to countless women that this is not necessarily the case.


----------



## ocotillo

Holland said:


> jaquen you stated earlier that women are the majority of the rejectors, do you have any evidence for this statement? I can tell you through my own journey of discovery and talking to countless women that this is not necessarily the case.


Not to hijack this thread, but comparative sex drive has been analyzed in every conceivable way and there are hundreds of studies by both male and female clinicians.

This is not exclusively a male problem as you well know, but men who are extremely unhappy with the frequency (Or absence) of sex in a relationship do outnumber women.


----------



## Deejo

Holland said:


> Again for me it is hard to articulate however I agree with most of what you are saying. I just cannot get past the point that having an affair should even come into the equation.
> 
> yes they are but one is not the solution to the other. If in a marriage there was an affair it would not be acceptable to suggest sexual abandonment as the solution.
> 
> Oh and I am a whole lot wiser now too


Unfortunate that the price of wisdom is often great pain and sacrifice.

And to be clear, I was neither the rejector, nor the one that had the affair. Upon discovery however, I forsook my vows as well. I had had enough.
It was quite the tragic mess. Infidelity is not the place to start something healthy and positive.

On the up-side, we get along quite well these days as co-parents to our children.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> Shifting definitions of semantic descriptors....
> 
> ---I'd point out that while preaching about your needs is definitely not passive, it is still egocentric in nature and not even remotely comparable to taking an increased interest in your spouse's needs and trying to do a better job at meeting them, which is what I characterized as 'Active' and 'Positive.'
> 
> In a similar vein, the cessation of a response after it clearly fails is neither positive nor negative. It's actually not a response at all.


So if husband's cessation of response after giving up trying is neither positive nor negative, then how come wife's cessation of response (shutting down and having little to non physical intimacy) is?

Also, the wife in that example was the first person having her needs gone. Husband's needs were satisfied back then. So of course her efforts were focused on communicating with her husband. If this effort sounds egoccentric to you, then it's coz it's only one side's needs needing to be fixed.

So does it make whoever who has their needs starving first the bad guy? Since their efforts has to be mainly about communication in order to fix the issues.

But maybe adding how she might have read books, prepared lovely dinners and so on make it sound less selfish? So are we competing here for who is the one who had put most effort, so that we could conclude who is to blame for the failure of this relationship?

With my example I wanted to show how lots of time it's not about who cares and who doesn't, as both sides of a couple can care a lot, but due to lack of compatibility, the relationship fails. Why should fighting about who is right and who is to blame always matter? Of course it matters sometimes, but then sometimes, there are other things more important to consider.


----------



## Thundarr

Sometimes you just have a selfish, entitled partner but the sad part is the limbo where both partners are decent people and neither side understands the other. Eventually where there's too much resentment. Sometimes they split and both become better partners in future relationships but the kids still have divorced parents.

I've never had to deal with this. Not even in my first marriage when my wife was cheating. We were still having sex 3-4 times a week (yea busy girl). In some ways it makes me naive to the context but in other ways I can see both sides of the issue because I'm not jaded by history. I feel empathy for all of you guys who have history with this topic.

These threads are just so worrying to me because my children could fall into the patterns we see over and over. I also don't want to pry into their sex lives.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> If you don't agree with how certain things are perceived culturally, it's not by making another unfair black and white judgment that you can end the unfair judgments you don't agree with.


I totally disagree. I believe that chronic refusing should be met with comparable moral outrage, and repugnance, that adultery is met with.

Is cheating "black and white"? However you answer that question, chronic refusal is no more, or no less, so.

They are two sides to the exact same coin.


----------



## Halien

Deejo said:


> Really? You have never heard the snickers about sex after marriage, or watched a sitcom where the punch-line is the wife rolling her eyes because she can't believe that her knuckle-head husband wants to have sex, or that he's even desirable?
> Trust me, I'm not imagining it or making it up. I even have a previous post regarding a discussion with a female friend that went for a GNO and that was the biggest topic of conversation and laughs. She was coming out of a marriage where she was rejected in favor of porn by her husband and was horrified at these women's attitudes.


I think it is far more of a cultural paradigm than most realize, but it is probably harder to see from the inside just how deep the assumptions go. Other couples, with a slightly different cultural understanding of the sexual relationship in marriage, can't even really understand some of the assumptions that are made in threads like this. I wouldn't suggest that there is something wrong with the way sex is viewed and discussed in threads like this, but it could be helpful if both partners are willing to look deeper into the assumptions they hold. 

It wasn't because of some foresight that we did so, but my wife and I spent a lot of time trying to understand what marriage would mean to us before we were married. Some may know, but I was of mixed heritage, and lived frequently with my grandmother in a small native american community. My wife was a typical american woman, but had lived internationally before returning. We just wanted to make sure that we understood each other's assumptions about roles in marriage, and spent many hours with a premarital counselor, also a native american in a relationship with similar backgrounds. 

When I say that some of the points discussed seem almost foreign, it is merely an observation that my wife and I talk about it in completely different terms. Not better - not worse - just different. If it helps, we've struggled at times in relationship areas in nearly 26 years of marriage, but even she said to a recent marriage counselor that it never occurred to her that these issues impacted the sexual relationship for 'normal' marriages. To us, "being married" always refers to a deeply spiritual, vital connection, else the couple just wasn't really married. But we rarely talked about the subject in terms of "sex", because, to us, this should be the outcome of something vitally important, which we both 'own'. We always talk about intimacy instead, and the emotional connection. We believe strongly that both have to work for intimacy as our highest priority. Its the language we use. Maybe through luck or whatever, it has worked incredibly well for us. Several eastern native american tribes were like ours, and saw the woman's spirit as the core of the new marriage spirit. 

I won't go into the spiritual detail because this isn't the point - the point is that cultural differences sometimes stress different aspects of the relationship. From my cultural point of view, I think it is far more revealing to ask about what we do to foster intimacy and connection in marriage than to ask about 'having sex'.


----------



## jaquen

techmom said:


> I was a virgin before marriage, my husband thought that since I had no sexual partners before him that I would be available to him always. I thought so too, little did I know what my 2 pregnancies had in store for me. Very difficult for us to deal with, the hormonal changes tanked my drive and made him angry. Dealing with his anger tanked it even more, he complained that I felt no more passion anymore. That I was giving duty sex. Made me withdraw further. Had he been more understanding maybe I would have kept some passion for him during the worst time of my life (miscarriage). Instead it became a negative spiral that affects us until this day, which is why I came to these forums in the first place.


I'm assuming you came late to the conversation and missed where I said I believe medical issues are understandable grounds for a lack of sex.

And I am not the only one in the "sexlessness is horrible" camp who has made this distinction.


----------



## TrustInUs

Thundarr said:


> It was a dig at posts that paint it black and white. Your post below is not that at all. I think holding out on sex is wrong but I also don't think it's as simple and black/white as Jaq seems to think it is. I mean if reduced sex is not an option and duty sex is also not an option then what's left. Oh happy healthy fun connected relationships just happen when sex is frequent I guess. That's not realistic. It would be a shame to divorce when something like His Needs / Her Needs would provide insight to fix it. At least a lot of the time. So someone comes to TAM and reads zero tolerance for duty sex. It's not responsible.


I'm not caught up on the thread yet, but wanted to respond. I agree with and others that it is not always black and white. But I do believe that withholding affection and sexual intimacy in and of itself is a selfish act. I would say the the same thing if it was the husband doing the rejecting.

Maybe seeing others go through this, and then coming to TAM and having my views reinforced by the sad stories here have colored my views on this. My own parents lived a sexless marriage for years, and yes, unfortunately I know this to be true.

With respect to duty sex, I think that is left up to the perception of each couple on what that means, and weither it would be acceptable or not. In this case, it seems since the wife is so emotionally detached, that that is all she can offer while she decides if her marriage is worth saving or not.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> You say you don't buy the Man Up philosophy yet are arguing in favor of Woman Up. So which is it? Do you support Woman Up & Man Up? Do you only support one despite the other?


Nope, you just got it wrong. I have ALWAYS supported the "man up" philosophy. My time on TAM is littered with posts deriding the feminization of men, the doormat phenomenon, and the need for men to get their backbones in check. I was speaking out about these things long before I knew about any of the popular books here on TAM.

What I have had issues with are the stringent, strict, almost cultish adherence to the "roman alphabet" phenomenon, the tendency to lay the responsibility of correcting sexlessness almost totally at the feet of men, and the often narrow definitions of what a "real man" is allowed to be. It's an issue with _some _concepts, not all concepts.

But you will not find a single post from be cheering on men to roll over and allow any woman to use them as a handy doormat. 

You won't find me advocating women do the same either, just in case you're wondering.



Trenton said:


> Adding something about a woman having to have sex with her husband into a marriage contract...


I don't believe anything needs to be "added" to the typical vows. I believe the promise of sexual entitlement are already buried in them, and most people either don't truly get what they're promising, or do not care.



Trenton said:


> So, for me, the only actual solution is to work on understanding and find out if there is a happier place that both in the relationship can get to or a solution to the unhappiness that either/or feel.


Of course that's the solution. I've never said otherwise. If BOTH people are working on the problem fully, heartily, than that's the preferable solution.

Note, however, that THIS thread isn't about both people working toward a mutually satisfying end.

Again, you, and a few others, have insinuated a thousand ideas that were never present in the OP, or in my own mind.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> Talk about mixed messages. Is the only thing a man wants is sex? Sometimes it's very easy to read here on TAM and be overwhelmed with this feeling that sex is all that matters to men. Boy oh boy how I wish the men who long for more than just a sex filled life spoke up on TAM because it is very scary to me.


Yes, the majority of men who ever lived want sex, lots, and lots, and lots of sex.

The majority of men, across history, did not marry thinking sex would be an option. They married expecting sex to be regular, and unending. And in societies where regular sex with wives has not been an expectation, mistresses and hookers abound. Men, the world and history over, have not traditionally entered in marriage with the "hope" of sex. We've entered with the expectation of it.

Is sex "all" that matters to men? No. But the general answer is probably far closer to that than you want to know.




Trenton said:


> All I keep reading here is free access to his wife's body whenever he wants.


I'd love you to produce two threads, on all of TAM, where men are stepping up and saying that they have a right to "free access" to their wife's body "whenever they want".

I am one of the more "radical" TAMers when it comes marriage, and sex, believing it an absolute expectation, right, and entitlement.

And yet my wife still managed to turn me down this morning, and I haven't beaten, or raped, my way in.

But guess what? I turned her down last night.

We both manage to believe that we are entitled to sex, and yet still have the right to refuse anytime we like.

You find these opposing concepts. My real life tells me otherwise.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> I am one of the more "radical" TAMers when it comes marriage, and sex, believing it an absolute expectation, right, and entitlement.
> 
> And yet my wife still managed to turn me down this morning, and I haven't beaten, or raped, my way in.
> 
> But guess what? I turned her down last night.
> 
> We both manage to believe that we are entitled to sex, and yet still have the right to refuse anytime we like.
> 
> You find these opposing concepts. My real life tells me otherwise.


" The Ebb and Flow " of marriage
or what we call down here " the lover's riot."

Then tomorrow , you both kiss and make up and the fireworks begin.
All in the game of love.

However this should not be confused with _constant rejection._


----------



## TrustInUs

lilith23 said:


> It is true, they are not communicating in an effective manner, and that's where the problem truly lies.
> 
> True, if not only the emotional side of a relationship wanes but also the sex life, things would get even worse. But for a person that needs emotional bond in order to have sex, trying to maintain the sex frequency for the sake of not making things even worse, can actually make things worse. Maybe this woman can still have sex with the husband. She could lie there, half if not completely disconnected, while the husband gets off on the "dead meat". But this can aggravate the woman's negative feelings, like thinking how her man is ok to enjoy his part whether she enjoys it or not, which aggravates the misunderstanding that she thought he is only needing her for sex.
> On the other hand, if the man sees lack of sex as not feeling wanted or loved, then such duty sex would only worsen this feeling, as many cannot accept the fact that their partner is not really desiring them anymore (and seeing wife laying there as a "dead meat" is only showing the obvious - lack of connection that he also needed).


I see your point but in this the hypothetical situation you presented I keep wondering if the husband was this way before marriage or not. Maybe it's me being cynical, but this keeps popping into my head every time I re-read the scenario. 

If you are saying that she is completely gone from the marriage, and is unable to try at some level to maintain the one bond that seperates them as a couple from every other relationship they have, then it may be time for counseling or to divorce. And I don't say that lightly as I generally don't advocate for divorce.

On thing I live by in my marriage is that if you want something to change, you first have to look at yourself and what you are doing or can do to inspire that change....

This does not mean that she is wrong in the way she is feeling or that her needs don't matter.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TrustInUs said:


> On thing I live by in my marriage is that if you want something to change, you first have to look at yourself and what you are doing or can do to inspire that change....


^^^^^^
I think I like the sound of this.
Not that it is an axiomatic truth, but I like it.
Maybe I'll adopt it.


----------



## ocotillo

Lilith:



lilith23 said:


> So if husband's cessation of response after giving up trying is neither positive nor negative, then how come wife's cessation of response (shutting down and having little to non physical intimacy) is?


I think you're embroidering after the fact 

In your scenario, sex was *not* a response to an inequity in the relationship. Sex was a feature of the relationship at its inception. The cessation of sex was the response to an inequity in the relationship and can't be characterized as the 'cessation of a response.' 




lilith23 said:


> Also, the wife in that example was the first person having her needs gone. Husband's needs were satisfied back then.


Okay, but the _a priori _assumption here seems to be that sex is only a man's need in a relationship. I think Holland would disagree with you. Do you think men feel the need to be understood too? Do you think women are born with any particular talent at this? 




lilith23 said:


> So of course her efforts were focused on communicating with her husband. If this effort sounds egoccentric to you, then it's coz it's only one side's needs needing to be fixed.


I'm not using the term, 'egocentric' as a pejorative or even as a psychological term. Instructing your spouse about your needs is egocentric by definition. 




lilith23 said:


> So does it make whoever who has their needs starving first the bad guy? Since their efforts has to be mainly about communication in order to fix the issues.


I'm not sure there is a 'good guy' and 'bad guy' in this and in that, perhaps we agree. 

No amount of discussion however will change the stark fact that in this scenario, one partner's response to inequity in the relationship was to be *less* attentive to their spouse and the other partner's response was to be *more* attentive to their spouse. I honestly don't know how that can ever be spun positively.

I also think you are glossing over the fact that in your scenario, the husband wasn't deliberately trying to be uncaring or mean. He was trying, but failing as far insofar as his wife was concerned. 

Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but dissatisfaction with someone who is honestly trying has an entirely different 'flavor' to it then dissatisfaction with someone who simply doesn't care.

The former smacks of a demand for perfection, which is a standard that no human being can hope to live up to. 




lilith23 said:


> But maybe adding how she might have read books, prepared lovely dinners and so on make it sound less selfish? So are we competing here for who is the one who had put most effort, so that we could conclude who is to blame for the failure of this relationship?


Less concern about self is by definition, less selfish. 

But this is not a competition and that question is actually a false dilemma. My comments on your scenario today were intended to help you see that it was not even remotely impartial. It was written from a woman's point of view and while that view is certainly very important in a marriage, there are actually two views that are equally important. 




lilith23 said:


> With my example I wanted to show how lots of time it's not about who cares and who doesn't, as both sides of a couple can care a lot, but due to lack of compatibility, the relationship fails. Why should fighting about who is right and who is to blame always matter? Of course it matters sometimes, but then sometimes, there are other things more important to consider.


On that we can agree.


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> The unfortunate reality is that "B" comes across weak and needy quite often which add a new problem with attraction. Enter NMMNG.


And my inherent problem with this is that if A has a problem with B's behavior coming off as "week and needy", than A needs to be mature, and responsible enough to express her own issues with that behavior. Even if she is not sure why she's losing attraction to her husband, it's primarily her responsibility, as a married, committed woman, to find out why she's detaching.

That is a major problem I have with these books. It's not that they are devoid of sound advice. It's that they let women off the hook for being totally in tune with, and expressive of, their _true_ desires.

If a man needs to work on becoming his best self, that is admirable. But on the inverse more women need to work on being honest, open, and in tune with their actual needs.



Holland said:


> Agree with you here jaquen, the flaw with this is that many of us thought we were marrying like minded people. Life happens, kids happen, work, financial stuff, moving houses, all all the other daily crap.
> Ok none of this is an excuse but life is not perfect.


Yes Holland, life does happen. I just had a "life happens" moment regarding sex 10 minutes ago.

However what continues to appall the hell out of me, what really gets under my skin, is that millions of people march toward marriage having never truly ironed out basic expectations, views, and attitudes about sex before they married. Your basic premarital counseling even tends to gloss over sex.

Even people having sex before marriage, which is most people, don't truly sit down and go blow by blow, for months, even years, on end having in depth conversations about basic needs, desires, fantasies, and expectations regarding sex.

With as much due diligence as humanly possible, _know who you are marrying_.


----------



## jaquen

ocotillo said:


> Shifting definitions of semantic descriptors....
> 
> ---I'd point out that while preaching about your needs is definitely not passive, it is still egocentric in nature and not even remotely comparable to taking an increased interest in your spouse's needs and trying to do a better job at meeting them, which is what I characterized as 'Active' and 'Positive.'
> 
> In a similar vein, the cessation of a response after it clearly fails is neither positive nor negative. It's actually not a response at all.


Anecdotal evidence I know, but by far the worst times in my wife and I's relationship have been when one, or both of us, were prattling endlessly on about our "needs".

We are fine communicators. We've been in relationship for 19 years now, first as best friends, than as romantic partners, and now married. We can get a good talk going.

It's not that the discussion of needs is unimportant. It so is. But take it from a man who is extremely proficient as self, and relationship analysis; talking is overrated.

What is underrated? Shutting your mouth. Accepting your partner for who they are, vs who you think they should be for you. Letting a lot of sh*t just go. Loving them, loving them, loving them for who they are. Concentrating less on your own needs, which are often actually just fantasies, and putting more emphasis on theirs.

If two people are doing this, it's amazing how much the conflict dissipates, and how all those big, bad problems, that once seemed so threatening, just melt away.

But, again, it takes two.


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> Anecdotal evidence I know, but by far the worst times in my wife and I's relationship have been when one, or both of us, were prattling endlessly on about our "needs".
> 
> We are fine communicators. We've been in relationship for 19 years now, first as best friends, than as romantic partners, and now married. We can get a good talk going.
> 
> It's not that the discussion of needs is unimportant. It so is. But take it from a man who is extremely proficient as self, and relationship analysis; talking is overrated.
> 
> What is underrated? Shutting your mouth. Accepting your partner for who they are, vs who you think they should be for you. Letting a lot of sh*t just go. Loving them, loving them, loving them for who they are. Concentrating less on your own needs, which are often actually just fantasies, and putting more emphasis on theirs.
> 
> If two people are doing this, it's amazing how much the conflict dissipates, and how all those big, bad problems, that once seemed so threatening, just melt away.
> 
> But, again, it takes two.


:iagree:


----------



## Deejo

Halien said:


> From my cultural point of view, I think it is far more revealing to ask about what we do to foster intimacy and connection in marriage than to ask about 'having sex'.


That is actually where I operated from for a very long time. There were genuine physical issues at play, which I understood. Wasn't simply about sex to me. Was most certainly about intimacy. In the scheme of things, her issue was likely far more about intimacy then it ever was sex. Sex was simply the path of least resistance to grab onto and build a wall around.


----------



## Holland

jaquen said:


> Yes Holland, life does happen. I just had a "life happens" moment regarding sex 10 minutes ago.
> 
> However what continues to appall the hell out of me, what really gets under my skin, is that millions of people march toward marriage having never truly ironed out basic expectations, views, and attitudes about sex before they married. Your basic premarital counseling even tends to gloss over sex.
> 
> Even people having sex before marriage, which is most people, don't truly sit down and go blow by blow, for months, even years, on end having in depth conversations about basic needs, desires, fantasies, and expectations regarding sex.
> 
> With as much due diligence as humanly possible, _know who you are marrying_.


Yes absolutely. Sadly many of us did not do this, were not mature enough, intune with ourselves etc. 
I can tell you that I will never be in a sexless relationship again.

So I come back to one of my first points which is that people either fix it or end it. 

I will talk with my kids at length at the appropriate ages about all of these issues, I hope they get the benefit of all I have been through and learnt so that they can go into marriage with more of a realistic expectation.

I will teach my children that sex is good, love is good, self respect, honesty, communication are all vital to sustain healthy relationships.


----------



## jaquen

Holland said:


> jaquen you stated earlier that women are the majority of the rejectors, do you have any evidence for this statement? I can tell you through my own journey of discovery and talking to countless women that this is not necessarily the case.


The fact that women, all over the world, are the majority chronic withholders, or perpetrators of low sex volume, is a pretty widely accepted fact. It, however, does not negate the fact that plenty of men refuse sex as well.

Married Women Hate Sex | momlogic.com

Surprising reasons you're not having sex - CNN

Sexual Expectations and Realities in Marriage

http://www.spc.int/prism/country/sb/stats/Publication/DHS07/factsheet/SOL-DHS_8-Gender.pdf

Is There Sex After 35? Survey Says 'Maybe Not' - Lemondrop.com

Why You Don't Want to Have Sex - Oprah.com

New Study: Most Women Don't Marry Their "Best Sex Ever" | Love + Sex - Yahoo! Shine



The Wifely Duty - Caitlin Flanagan - The Atlantic

'I'd rather mop the floor than have sex with my husband!' Why one in three Brits see sex as just another chore | Mail Online

When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I - Dennis Prager - Page 1

Why The Passive Aggressive Woman Withholds Sex

Why women must learn to say yes in the bedroom, says leading female therapist | Mail Online

9 in 10 men say wives refuse sex

Why Women Lose Interest in Sex | BettyConfidential.com


----------



## Deejo

Yeah you keep saying that, but WHERE is the evidence?

Oh ... nevermind. 



jaquen said:


> The fact that women, all over the world, are the majority chronic withholders, or perpetrators of low sex volume, is a pretty widely accepted fact. It, however, does not negate the fact that plenty of men refuse sex as well.
> 
> Married Women Hate Sex | momlogic.com
> 
> Surprising reasons you're not having sex - CNN
> 
> Sexual Expectations and Realities in Marriage
> 
> http://www.spc.int/prism/country/sb/stats/Publication/DHS07/factsheet/SOL-DHS_8-Gender.pdf
> 
> Is There Sex After 35? Survey Says 'Maybe Not' - Lemondrop.com
> 
> Why You Don't Want to Have Sex - Oprah.com
> 
> New Study: Most Women Don't Marry Their "Best Sex Ever" | Love + Sex - Yahoo! Shine
> 
> 
> 
> The Wifely Duty - Caitlin Flanagan - The Atlantic
> 
> 'I'd rather mop the floor than have sex with my husband!' Why one in three Brits see sex as just another chore | Mail Online
> 
> When a Woman Isn't in the Mood: Part I - Dennis Prager - Page 1
> 
> Why The Passive Aggressive Woman Withholds Sex
> 
> Why women must learn to say yes in the bedroom, says leading female therapist | Mail Online
> 
> 9 in 10 men say wives refuse sex
> 
> Why Women Lose Interest in Sex | BettyConfidential.com


----------



## Holland

Interesting reading there Jaquen, honestly though it does not show that women are witholding sex for no good reason.

The only article that hinted at the fact that men are also refusers said that the reasons were different to why women do it and that it would not be discussed in that article.

The 9 in 10 article was refering to the fact that adultery is rife in that society that wives refuse to have sex with their husband unless he is wearing a condom in order to avoid STDs.

In the end most of it is saying that there are either real or perceived reasons why couples are not doing it. So then we come back to meeting each partners needs.

I do believe that couples should be engaging in quality sex and that it is a right of marriage to expect so but when we look at the deeper levels of what is going on in so many marriages then that right is often being eroded by poor behaviours leading to less sex.

I also think that many people are crap at communicating (guilty) which only exacerbates the problems.


----------



## jaquen

Holland said:


> Interesting reading there Jaquen, honestly though it does not show that women are witholding sex for no good reason.


Yes, but you asked me for evidence that the sex doing the majority of refusing is women, and that's what I attempted to back up.

I also will mention that I totally ignored the dozens of threads I saw in the search from men who are baffled why their wives and girlfriends almost always turn down sex. 



Holland said:


> The only article that hinted at the fact that men are also refusers said that the reasons were different to why women do it and that it would not be discussed in that article.


I never suggested men don't refuse, but rather that women do more refusing.



Holland said:


> The 9 in 10 article was refering to the fact that adultery is rife in that society that wives refuse to have sex with their husband unless he is wearing a condom in order to avoid STDs.


Yet when you actually study the numbers, the amount of women refusing vastly outweighs the amount of men who are projected to be sleeping around.

The article writer concludes that the refusing is happening because of the high infidelity. Except the numbers actually don't support that conclusion at all.




Holland said:


> I do believe that couples should be engaging in quality sex and that it is a right of marriage to expect so but when we look at the deeper levels of what is going on in so many marriages then that right is often being eroded by poor behaviors leading to less sex.
> 
> I also think that many people are crap at communicating (guilty) which only exacerbates the problems.


I agree.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I can tell you that you would not want to be my partner as I would absolutely put toothpaste in your shoes on a regular basis! I'm a radical woman like that and I have a tenacity that annoys most but my husband says is, "cute".
> 
> I do applaud you for not raping or beating your way into your wife's vagina. That's a great feat always!


Don't I recall you putting dry macaroni in his pockets when you were p!ssed? I do love your creativity.


----------



## Holland

Actually jaquen I don't see your thinking as that radical, I tend to agree with much of it. The difference being that I have first hand experience of sexual abandonment and look at the issue with a different, less B&W perspective. 

I think what comes across in many of the articles you linked to is that women do want sex but they have abandoned ship for many reasons. I am not condoning this but just observing.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> No doubt I agree that your thinking is radical. I hope it serves your marriage well over the long-term and it very well may for whatever reasons. I can tell you that you would not want to be my partner as I would absolutely put toothpaste in your shoes on a regular basis! I'm a radical woman like that and I have a tenacity that annoys most but my husband says is, "cute".


I really think this is the crux of our vehement disagreement.

I married a woman who doesn't think like you, despite our radical differences, on this we are totally in sync. So that allows me the freedom to enjoy my perspective without "toothpaste" consequence.

If your attitude is "cute" to your hubby, gets you guys lots of chandelier swinging, enjoyable sex, and generally satisfies you both, my hat is off to you, and I am genuinely happy it's working out for you guys.

That's what it comes down to, what works for any given marriage.



Trenton said:


> Forget all those articles...read this one...as it shows you that culturally & systematically women have been told what you preach...sex is a duty. Unfortunately, it just doesn't jive with love in the minds of women.


I haven't preached "duty sex" in a single one of my posts.

That is just how you, and a couple others, are interpreting my perspective.

I don't do "duty sex". I do marrying somebody who is so sexually compatible with you that they to don't do duty sex, and they keep the embers burning because_* they want sex just as much as you do*_.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> What is this then:
> 
> Jaquen: "I am one of the more "radical" TAMers when it comes marriage, and sex, believing it an absolute expectation, right, and entitlement."
> 
> What...? Simply because you didn't come out and say, "I preach duty sex." it means you're not sending that message with your words???
> 
> If you believe a man is entitled to sex and it his right to have it with his wife...you absolutely preach duty sex.



And there you go again, ignoring the other side of my perspective, and painting women as victims. All women do NOT view their sexuality as passively as you do.

I have stated, and will state yet again:

I believe married_ people_ are entitled to sex. That includes men *and *women. I married a like minded woman who feels the same. My wife is so the same that if she has a week where she wants sex more than I do, she will flat out say "we haven't had enough sex." I've even had to remind my wife that we just had sex a day or two ago, when she gets in one of her "we aren't have enough sex" moments.

Hence we do not have "duty sex". If I don't want sex, I say no. If she doesn't want sex, she says no. But because sex is equally important to us both, we have enough of it to stay satisfied, while still not expecting the other to submit when they aren't in the mood.

I would not have married a woman like you, or anyone else who feels radically different about sex than I do.

Which is why I have reiterated over, and over again that compatibility, and like mindedness, is the key.

But you can continue to make assumptions about my views, or find hidden meaning in between the lines, if you like.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> Let's just say we agree that sex and emotional support are both important and understood "duty" in a marriage relationship. (if you disagree please explain why)
> 
> Sex in general favors a man's wants/needs and emotional support favors a woman's wants/needs.
> 
> As I've said before, you can quantify sex as in we have sex once a month. Since you can't quantify emotional support here is where the disconnect happens.
> 
> So it's not as if I disagree that a sexless marriage is a marriage headed for divorce or two unhappy partners, but rather that you're criticizing one specific duty and gender without appropriately criticizing or even taking into consideration the other duties.
> 
> A man can do as many dishes as he wants. This will never equate emotional support.


And, once again, this specific thread is not about men who refuse to meet their wives emotional needs.

This thread is a direct response to the TAM culture of "men need to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into figuring out how to get sex in their marriage". It was not conceived as a broad topic to discuss all the many ways in which men and women fail one another, and how that can lead to a sexless marriage. That is a tangent, not the intent.



Trenton said:


> Sex in general favors a man's wants/needs and emotional support favors a woman's wants/needs.


Then men who don't need emotional support, but sex, shouldn't marry women who don't need sex, but emotional support.

If you can't find a spouse who is sexually compatible with you, AND who believes in the mutual fulfillment of emotional needs, try the radical step of _not getting married_.


----------



## Deejo

Yeah ...

Read your article too. Classic illustration of what I have been saying here, as well as in your thread in the Ladies Lounge.

She needed to confront her issue.
The concept of 'Duty Sex' and her aversion to it, _was completely hers_, her husband had nothing to do with it.

And then lo and behold, when she spoke up, he disavowed all of those notions, _which prior to the talk, she believed he also held_, incorrectly. 



> And so, when my husband said “do you want to have sex tonight?” I heard not “shall we hop between the sheets for some mutual fun and pleasure?” but rather “it’s been three days and I need sex, would you do that for me?” And given that I love my husband, there were many, many times when I said “yes,” not because I wanted to have sex but because I wanted to fulfill his need. As I’d been taught I was supposed to. Even if I had to fake it.


So sure, the lesson is communication, but presume for a moment that she didn't share how she viewed sex ... you can easily see how that snowballs into resentment for her, and resentment for him, and then you end up with Lilith's example where the issue is no longer even about the fact that Libby Anne (from the article) had issues with her perception of sex, the issue has now become focused on the fact that she and her husband aren't having it, and each holds the other responsible.

As for feminism ... well, be careful of what you wish for. Did you read some of the freak show comments on that post? More than one insinuating that her husband was raping her? 
And to think you're worried about 'Man Up' 

I liked the article. I liked very much that they worked it out.
I think everyone would agree that's all we can wish for ... working it out.



Trenton said:


> Forget all those articles...read this one...as it shows you that culturally & systematically women have been told what you preach...sex is a duty. Unfortunately, it just doesn't jive with love in the minds of women.
> 
> "Sex shouldn’t about someone “giving” and someone else “taking.” Sex shouldn’t be about one person “fulfilling” another person’s “needs.” This is the problem when people set everything up hierarchically and treat men and women as though they are so different neither can ever really see eye to eye with the other."
> 
> The Purity Culture and Sex as a “Duty”
> 
> But perhaps that is the reason why feminism is still required. It's a push back. Has it gone too far. That's a different topic, different argument.


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> Right. You believe in duty sex and I don't. That's what I thought.


And with that, you have rendered any further debate between the two of us null and void.

Because you, apparently, know both my wife and I better than we know each other. 18 years of intimate, close interaction, all trumped by some woman on the internet who believes that our mutual views on marriage are akin to you narrow ideas on "duty sex". No matter what I say, you continue to project your ideas onto our reality. 

Bottom line, do what works for you. I hope you two are happy. I know that we are, and that's what matters to me.


----------



## jaquen

So moving beyond assumptions about personal relationships...

If husbands and wives are not, indeed, entitled to sex within marriage....

What differentiates marriage from friendship?

Do married people have any entitlements?

And also if sex is not a "right", then does that mean that sexual faithfulness is likewise not a "right" either?


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> I'm not sure if you're still typing to me but...
> 
> The questions you are asking me are more fluid than firm.
> 
> A good marriage will definitely include sex, making love, f&cking, experimentation and overall excitement in a marriage.
> 
> A bad marriage won't and if all that's left is friendship, then you're going to be headed for divorce.
> 
> Sexual faithfulness is not a right either.
> 
> Free will baby. You either do the work or you get out and if you don't have the courage to get out then you risk the end to the relationship.
> 
> BUT
> 
> There are many women and men who are willing to have sex and still get cheated on. There are many men and women who try very hard to meet their partner's expectations and needs but do not have their own needs met regardless of asking, hoping or desperately trying.
> 
> It's not as simple as being entitled to sex or a partner who won't cheat. It's just not black and white.
> 
> Daughter wrote a poem recently that basically said my husband was the head and I was the heart. He was black and white and I was gray.
> 
> When working together this leads to a really wonderful thing. When out of sync...all holy hell.


So in light of all of this, what is the point of making martial vows that clearly state promises, and entitlements?


----------



## Lyris

I don't think there is much point really. At least, not promises that involve feelings rather than actions. I can promise to be sexually faithful. I can't promise to continue to be sexually attracted to my husband, although I think and hope I will.

People change. What you think you are at 20 is different to 30 and that's different to 40. Hopefully you will continue to grow and change in a complementary way, but that's a bit of a crap shoot, especially if you fall in love very young.

For women in particular there is the great unknown of how pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding etc will change her levels of sexual desire, and how she feels about her body and sexuality. Testosterone drops, oxytocin and prolactin rise. No-one knows, pre children, how they will feel post. It's not reasonable to expect any different.

Men too, can be badly affected by their wives' transition to motherhood in ways they could not necessarily have predicted.

So while ensuring compatibility, similarities of expectations and levels of desire are obviously very important, they have limited usefulness when predicting the long-term sexual success of a marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> I don't think there is much point really. At least, not promises that involve feelings rather than actions. I can promise to be sexually faithful. I can't promise to continue to be sexually attracted to my husband, although I think and hope I will.
> 
> People change. What you think you are at 20 is different to 30 and that's different to 40. Hopefully you will continue to grow and change in a complementary way, but that's a bit of a crap shoot, especially if you fall in love very young.
> 
> For women in particular there is the great unknown of how pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding etc will change her levels of sexual desire, and how she feels about her body and sexuality. Testosterone drops, oxytocin and prolactin rise. No-one knows, pre children, how they will feel post. It's not reasonable to expect any different.
> 
> Men too, can be badly affected by their wives' transition to motherhood in ways they could not necessarily have predicted.
> 
> So while ensuring compatibility, similarities of expectations and levels of desire are obviously very important, they have limited usefulness when predicting the long-term sexual success of a marriage.


I'm sorry,
I really cannot agree with that synopsis of sexual attraction in marriage.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong...
But,if my wife got pregnant with my child, that's _our _baby, what happens to her body cannot cause me to loose sexual attraction for her.We planned this, I knew that her body would be going through changes. Even the house goes through changes when couples plan for babies.
I would expect that the sex would be affected and we could talk about it.
We should be able to find ways to deal with it just like we have dealt with all the other problems.
Telling me there is nothing that we can do to deal with the expected fallout from a pregnancy doesn't make sense to me.

I have known couples who tell me that they've had sex almost right up to delivery and started back having sex just 
8 - 10 weeks after. These are people who I know have a good marriage.
I'm not saying its the same with every couple. what I'm saying is that they have an intimate connection that helps them understand and deal with these types of problems.
There is no " situation " biological or man made that they cannot work on together.
That's the difference.

Mid life crisis in men, Pregnancy in women, hormonal changes in both parties [ especially low testosterone in men ] as they age are all " great unknowns " in married life that can cause anything to change.
What trumps all of this is self actualization, getting in touch with your inner soul , encouraging yourself and each other to grow , to blossom and expand. 
As we live circumstances change and so should we,that is called growth.
For better and not for worse.


Compatibility and similarity of expectations in the beginning of marriage is absolutely not an indicator of long term sexual success in marriage, but working on oneself and working on these issues when they arise* TOGETHER AS A PARTNERSHIP* and not just from a selfish position of
" one upmanship " most definitely is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I am really trying to understand this....
Why would a man marry a woman an vice- versa knowing fully well that somewhere along the marriage they are _supposed_ to loose sexual attraction for each other and here is nothing they can do about it?


----------



## jaquen

Trenton said:


> Hope & Love


Both of which you can have without ever going through the courts, or before family, and your Deity, to make vows that are absolutely steeped in promise and entitlement. Yes you are uncomfortable with the fact that marriage is quite literally a contract, which probably speaks volumes; but the truth is that it is just about the oldest, most prevalent human contract in existence.

Your view nullifies the need for marriage totally, utterly, and completely. It says "I hope to do good things by you", vs marriage which says "I promise to do good things by you". 

Further reiterating my now belief that most people, especially in the West, should not get married. Because we widely now view marriage as having plenty of outs, there actually is no point in many people getting married at all. A good, long term relationship can well render your vision for marriage, and without all the hideous steps of divorce if things fall apart.


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> Okay, but the _a priori _assumption here seems to be that sex is only a man's need in a relationship. I think Holland would disagree with you. Do you think men feel the need to be understood too? Do you think women are born with any particular talent at this?


Of course the man's emotional needs are also relevant. Although I only wrote the most relevant points in this imaginary example, or else we might be writing too much information here (like the small list of extra possible details written in one of my previous posts).

Just want to add that I don't see man's sexual needs as only sexual needs myself. I believe that for many men, it's also about bonding, sharing intimacy, feeling desired and loved.



ocotillo said:


> I'm not using the term, 'egocentric' as a pejorative or even as a psychological term. Instructing your spouse about your needs is egocentric by definition.


True, but please understand that the reason I have to comment on this is coz of what this word "egocentric" can imply or lead to. Again, whoever that had his/her needs starting to lack first, while his/her partner was happy (before the partner's needs also started lacking), would be the one making efforts to communicate, which would be self focused anyways.



ocotillo said:


> I'm not sure there is a 'good guy' and 'bad guy' in this and in that, perhaps we agree.
> 
> No amount of discussion however will change the stark fact that in this scenario, one partner's response to inequity in the relationship was to be *less* attentive to their spouse and the other partner's response was to be *more* attentive to their spouse. I honestly don't know how that can ever be spun positively.


Again, when one person's needs are not met and the other is fine, then the focus would always be on only one person anyways. When both's needs are not met, then the focus would be on both. Problem is, after some time of the woman being emotionally unhappy and disconnected, she was long "gone" so that when the man's needs also started lacking, he tried to fix what he perceives the woman needed (house chores, more romance and so on), while the woman is not there anymore.

Although of course, we all agree that the woman should have divorced the moment she gave up anyways.



ocotillo said:


> I also think you are glossing over the fact that in your scenario, the husband wasn't deliberately trying to be uncaring or mean. He was trying, but failing as far insofar as his wife was concerned.


I mentioned that the man tried to offer her support whenever she needed (like having a bad day or so), but then aside of giving constructive criticisms that he thinks that can help on the woman to feel better, he also dismissed the woman's emotional reactions as overreacting towards her concerns.



ocotillo said:


> But this is not a competition and that question is actually a false dilemma. My comments on your scenario today were intended to help you see that it was not even remotely impartial. It was written from a woman's point of view and while that view is certainly very important in a marriage, there are actually two views that are equally important.


Maybe if I have given an example in which a man was the one unable to have physical intimacy, it would have been better? Well here it goes:

Man and woman were doing it like rabbits. But by time, the man is starting to feel that the sex life is not satisfying. He tried to explain it to her, but things were not improving much. She is a more reserved type, only into a few positions and not into toys. She gave in and tried some of husband's suggestions, but she was still not much into them. Husband find her "lack of something", and continued to talk about it for some time. Woman might give in to the stuffs husband is interested in, but her reactions might be dull (sorry I don't know how to say it in a better way) and husband still feels like "missing something". Then husband is getting less and less into sex, and he eventually gave up insisting. Then he started to seem colder and more distant. Wife finally notices it, and talks to husband. She started to read books and take advices. Yet she still does not know how to do things in a way husband sees her interesting again. On the other hand, husband might see her attempts as being needy and demanding or even forceful, to demand him to be romantic for her all the time.

Now let's say:

person A = the one who has their needs unmet first
person B = the one who eventually also has their needs unmet

Here is another case in which the efforts of A were to communicate their own needs being unmet while the other person was fine; and the efforts of B were just going along with what person A asks, but then B's efforts were more intense when having own needs unmet too.
Also, it is the case in which A should have ended the relationship as soon as it reached the bottom.

And is any of them more wrong than the other? Here I see the main cause is incompatibility, and that the only things we could really point fingers at is also how they could have taken more time to see if they have minimum compatibility, as well as breaking up in the right moment instead of letting things go too long.


----------



## jaquen

Lyris said:


> I don't think there is much point really. At least, not promises that involve feelings rather than actions. I can promise to be sexually faithful. I can't promise to continue to be sexually attracted to my husband, although I think and hope I will.
> 
> People change. What you think you are at 20 is different to 30 and that's different to 40. Hopefully you will continue to grow and change in a complementary way, but that's a bit of a crap shoot, especially if you fall in love very young.
> 
> For women in particular there is the great unknown of how pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding etc will change her levels of sexual desire, and how she feels about her body and sexuality. Testosterone drops, oxytocin and prolactin rise. No-one knows, pre children, how they will feel post. It's not reasonable to expect any different.
> 
> Men too, can be badly affected by their wives' transition to motherhood in ways they could not necessarily have predicted.
> 
> So while ensuring compatibility, similarities of expectations and levels of desire are obviously very important, they have limited usefulness when predicting the long-term sexual success of a marriage.


Very true. Any number of things can, and will, go ary during a marriage.

My bone to pick is with the people, plentiful in number, who don't do as much prep work before marriage to help combat issues, or at least help ensure you have a stronger chance at weathering them if they do arise.

It reminds me of this vital lesson I had back in university. As actors we were asked to make a list of the factors we do have control over before an audition, and the factors which are beyond our reach.

Surprise, surprise, the list of factors you can not change were all the classic issues that actors typically worry and angst over prior, during, and after an audition. Surprisingly little attention in comparison was spent on the many factors we could influence.

Now does this mean that the non-changeable actions would render the audition a failure, or that the changeable ones a success? Nope, because there are so many variables whenever two, or more, human beings interact for a common goal. But going in prepared, concentrating on the many ways you can help affect a positive outcome, certainly does improve your chances of being cast in the long run, overall.


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> Of course the man's emotional needs are also relevant. Although *I only wrote the most relevant points* in this imaginary example,


What Ocotillo is saying, I believe, is encapsulated perfectly in the highlighted phrase.

You believe you wrote only the most relevant points. He is saying that you actually missed half of the points relevant to a man. Your example is told from a feminine perspective, but you mistakenly believe that it's told from a neutral perspective.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> What Ocotillo is saying, I believe, is encapsulated perfectly in the highlighted phrase.
> 
> You believe you wrote only the most relevant points. He is saying that you actually missed half of the points relevant to a man. Your example is told from a feminine perspective, but you mistakenly believe that it's told from a neutral perspective.


Then can you add details to what would be relevant to a man?


----------



## lilith23

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm sorry,
> I really cannot agree with that synopsis of sexual attraction in marriage.
> Maybe I'm reading this wrong...
> But,if my wife got pregnant with my child, that's _our _baby, what happens to her body cannot cause me to loose sexual attraction for her.We planned this, I knew that her body would be going through changes. Even the house goes through changes when couples plan for babies.
> I would expect that the sex would be affected and we could talk about it.
> We should be able to find ways to deal with it just like we have dealt with all the other problems.
> Telling me there is nothing that we can do to deal with the expected fallout from a pregnancy doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I have known couples who tell me that they've had sex almost right up to delivery and started back having sex just
> 8 - 10 weeks after. These are people who I know have a good marriage.
> I'm not saying its the same with every couple. what I'm saying is that they have an intimate connection that helps them understand and deal with these types of problems.
> There is no " situation " biological or man made that they cannot work on together.
> That's the difference.
> 
> Mid life crisis in men, Pregnancy in women, hormonal changes in both parties [ especially low testosterone in men ] as they age are all " great unknowns " in married life that can cause anything to change.
> What trumps all of this is self actualization, getting in touch with your inner soul , encouraging yourself and each other to grow , to blossom and expand.
> As we live circumstances change and so should we,that is called growth.
> For better and not for worse.
> 
> 
> Compatibility and similarity of expectations in the beginning of marriage is absolutely not an indicator of long term sexual success in marriage, but working on oneself and working on these issues when they arise* TOGETHER AS A PARTNERSHIP* and not just from a selfish position of
> " one upmanship " most definitely is.


I guess that I can understand what Lyris is trying to say, it's not a doom that she is trying to portray, but rather possibilities of how attraction might be gone or feelings might change. So that we can't really say it in a contract how our feelings would be the same. Thought we can add in a contract of what we can or cannot do. Just not really how we can or cannot feel, at least for the life time.

We can promise each other fidelity and to work hard on issues together. But feelings and attraction are not really controllable.


----------



## jaquen

Caribbean Man said:


> I am really trying to understand this....
> Why would a man marry a woman an vice- versa knowing fully well that somewhere along the marriage they are _supposed_ to loose sexual attraction for each other and here is nothing they can do about it?


Make me wonder how many people would actually be racing to the altar if the ever increasing perspective lined out in this thread was actually reflected in the vows:

_I promise to be faithful to you for as long as I truly feel like it.
_
_I promise to be there, for better and worse, until such a time as I emotionally disconnect from you, and then all bets are off.
_
_I want you to promise to forsake all others, even though I won't promise to give myself freely in exchange.
_

_I hope this works out. _


----------



## jaquen

lilith23 said:


> Then can you add details to what would be relevant to a man?


Ocotillo did a great job at doing just that a few posts ago.


----------



## lilith23

jaquen said:


> Ocotillo did a great job at doing just that a few posts ago.


Hmm then I guess that I already answered them.


----------



## Thundarr

We sabotage intimacy when we go into "parent" mode *as if there's a switch from partner-lover to partner-coparent and nothing in between*. 

It doesn't help that culture in the U.S. at least, preaches that the family orbits around the children in every media outlet. So many women and some men worry about little Johnny or Sally knowing mom and dad still do it. As if their tender little hearts couldn't take it. *Forsaking the role of lover to assume the role of mom or dad is messed but it happens* all of the time.


----------



## jaquen

Thundarr said:


> We sabotage intimacy when we go into "parent" mode *as if there's a switch from partner-lover to partner-coparent and nothing in between*.
> 
> It doesn't help that culture in the U.S. at least, preaches that the family orbits around the children in every media outlet. So many women and some men worry about little Johnny or Sally knowing mom and dad still do it. As if their tender little hearts couldn't take it. *Forsaking the role of lover to assume the role of mom or dad is just simple minded but it happens* all of the time.



So mother****ing true. One of my wife's besties basically has revolved her entire existence around her daughter. The marriage is absolutely secondary to her little princess's every whim, and I'm not sure she even notices the absolute weariness, with a hint of disgust, ever present on her husband's face.

They're also a young, once-a-month-if-we're-lucky couple.


----------



## Caribbean Man

lilith23 said:


> We can promise each other fidelity and to work hard on issues together. *But feelings and attraction are not really controllable*.


Lilith,
Im really trying to understand this.
Maybe I'm a bit of a hardliner.
But I believe every man [ and woman ] is master of their own destiny, feelings included.
I understand that we cannot legislate feeligs into a contract, but contract aside, I firmly believe we can control our feelings, especially attraction.
Maybe there's more than one type or level of attraction.

I worked in an industry where casual sex was the norm and I used to interface on a personal level with some of the most beautiful models on the Caribbean fashion scene. I have worked with these women backstage ,topless, having to fit them and pin them up in order for then to get back on the ramp and strutt their stuff.
I managed them backstage. I was married then, I had plenty offers and I never accepted. I never attended the after parties either because I genuinely wasn't interested.
Everyone thought I was gay.[ Had lots of offers from gay men too.ha ha!]
I was married, in my mind I reserved that level of sexual attraction for her.
Nobody else could get that.
Not because the contract said so, but because I wanted her to have it.
If things should go awry, and we no longer nurtured it,then that attraction would die.
However, if we work on it , then it stays.
I'm not attracted to her alone, but she's the only one I'm attracted to in that way.

But maybe I'm different.


----------



## ocotillo

Thank you for being fair, Lilith. I appreciate that. It's a rare quality in people. 



lilith23 said:


> Man and woman were doing it like rabbits. But by time, the man is starting to feel that the sex life is not satisfying....


The irony here is that a man in this position would be well advised to keep his dissatisfaction private. If he were foolish enough to tell anyone else, he would be the object of considerable derision and not just from women. 

If my comments on this thread have come across as cynical or jaundiced, I apologize. I've come by it honestly.

My wife and I had a happy and active sex life for almost nine years. Then children were born and sex went off the table for almost the next thirty years. Not entirely, but we're talking gaps of twelve and eighteen months at a time. From physical complaints to mental complaints to emotional complaints, I've heard every reason for not wanting sex that has ever been conceived by womankind. 

This continued right up until her rock-steady cycle started to falter and she entered perimenopause. And by God did things change....

The elaborate emotional mystique that sex had been wrapped up in fell away like magic. Sex was no longer sacrosanct; it was now in the same category as a good back rub or foot massage which are things we do primarily for the benefit of the *other* person. Emotional needs? Sex became an emotional need in its own right. Headache? Sex is now a cure for it. Threw your back out? Sex is good therapy for that. Bad sex? Well practice makes perfect, here have an energy drink. Have I offended you? Let's have sex. Have you offended me? Let's have sex. Too tired? Well go to bed early tonight and no excuses tomorrow. 

(This is a fairly unusual condition that some women experience at this stage of life, but still common enough that there are support groups for them.) 

Don't misunderstand. I'm not complaining about my wife. You don't stay married to someone for forty years unless you love them dearly for reasons other than sex. The point to this back-story is that I have seen firsthand what happens when a woman is absolutely consumed by sexual desire herself. 

Their attitude is not materially different than that of a man and all those reasons for all those years were revealed as simply window dressing for a lack of desire.


----------



## lilith23

Caribbean Man said:


> Lilith,
> Im really trying to understand this.
> Maybe I'm a bit of a hardliner.
> But I believe every man [ and woman ] is master of their own destiny, feelings included.
> I understand that we cannot legislate feeligs into a contract, but contract aside, I firmly believe we can control our feelings, especially attraction.
> Maybe there's more than one type or level of attraction.
> 
> I worked in an industry where casual sex was the norm and I used to interface on a personal level with some of the most beautiful models on the Caribbean fashion scene. I have worked with these women backstage ,topless, having to fit them and pin them up in order for then to get back on the ramp and strutt their stuff.
> I managed them backstage. I was married then, I had plenty offers and I never accepted. I never attended the after parties either because I genuinely wasn't interested.
> Everyone thought I was gay.[ Had lots of offers from gay men too.ha ha!]
> I was married, in my mind I reserved that level of sexual attraction for her.
> Nobody else could get that.
> Not because the contract said so, but because I wanted her to have it.
> If things should go awry, and we no longer nurtured it,then that attraction would die.
> However, if we work on it , then it stays.
> I'm not attracted to her alone, but she's the only one I'm attracted to in that way.
> 
> But maybe I'm different.


I don't know if I fully agree, but I like your way of thinking.  I think that at least to an extent, we can be sure that we are in control with what we feel (working on maintaining/increasing attraction and love, not allowing side attractions develop for the sake of maintaining the bond with our partners, and so on). Although I'm not sure if we can really control it in the more extreme cases, like for example, the one we love changes radically.
We feel intimate and hold unique feelings towards someone for how they are and how we interact with each other, as well as the fond memories we build through the years. But what if this person changes, the way we interact changes, and what attracts us is not there anymore, as well as there are no new things that can attract us? Maybe the fond memories would still maintain some attraction and love feelings.


----------



## techmom

I think that people are forgetting the original purpose of marriage, which was a way for families to share land and property. The bride and groom didn't even know each other most of the time because these marriages were arranged by the parents. 

Nowadays, in the west we have these romantic and sexual expectations to be fulfilled by this one person for life. In Mexico they were thinking about renewing marriages every two years, I am thinking that it is a good idea co nsidering what some people go through in their relationships.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TrustInUs

jaquen said:


> My bone to pick is with the people, plentiful in number, who don't do as much prep work before marriage to help combat issues, or at least help ensure you have a stronger chance at weathering them if they do arise.
> .


My question is what do you do or how do you help the couples that didn't do this, but have put years into their relationship? It's seen all across this board.

Before we got married, we did a 4 week pre-marital course, after the 2 sessions with our pastor. But that was at the recommendation from a friend who had taken a similar course. If it wasn't for that, I don't think I was mature enough to think some of the things we discussed in class, on our own. Even though my husband had a more sex positive and open environment growing up, and communicated about sex more openly than I, even he says he's glad somethings came out during those discussions.

Not everyone thinks to have these conversations, the type of conversations that seem common sense to me now that I'm married, but it wasn't before.







Thundarr said:


> We sabotage intimacy when we go into "parent" mode *as if there's a switch from partner-lover to partner-coparent and nothing in between*.
> 
> It doesn't help that culture in the U.S. at least, preaches that the family orbits around the children in every media outlet. So many women and some men worry about little Johnny or Sally knowing mom and dad still do it. As if their tender little hearts couldn't take it. *Forsaking the role of lover to assume the role of mom or dad is messed but it happens* all of the time.


This is so true! I think sometimes we have it backwards in our thinking, where people sometimes think you have to give everything to the children during the young years, and will have more time for the spouse once they leave the nest. When in actuality, those are the years you need to work on building a strong foundation with your spouse while raising children, because once they leave, it's just you and your spouse.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Or you could look at it in terms as being a casualty of modernity. When people died at 29, "till death do us part" wasn't that big a sacrifice. With people living till 80 you've got people staring into the mirror thinking 'what have I got myself into?'.


----------



## Halien

lilith23 said:


> I don't know if I fully agree, but I like your way of thinking.  I think that at least to an extent, we can be sure that we are in control with what we feel (working on maintaining/increasing attraction and love, not allowing side attractions develop for the sake of maintaining the bond with our partners, and so on). Although I'm not sure if we can really control it in the more extreme cases, like for example, the one we love changes radically.
> We feel intimate and hold unique feelings towards someone for how they are and how we interact with each other, as well as the fond memories we build through the years. But what if this person changes, the way we interact changes, and what attracts us is not there anymore, as well as there are no new things that can attract us? Maybe the fond memories would still maintain some attraction and love feelings.


I think this is one of the most striking examples of how culture can influence our assumptions about this subject. I have much respect for different cultural conventions, but just happened to grow up in an environment and time where it was believed that the human spirit has far more control over attraction than many others believe. If two are committed to each other, and view the natural progression of age and life with maturity, the assumption is that this maturity will bring a new appreciation to the deeper types of attraction that comes with going through life together. Even outside of a native american history, I've always been touched by the letters of President John Adams from his wifein her later years. She admits that attraction was a problem in the early years, but found herself very attracted later on. I'm too practical to see this as the norm long term, but that doesn't mean that mindset can't be an influencing factor.

Even circumstances can influence us to some degree, I believe. Many of us have probably seen people we know who go through infidelity, and then when the betrayed spouse tries to leave, the one who cheated claims "true love" and real "attraction" were only temporarily forgotten during the time of the affair.


----------



## jaquen

techmom said:


> I think that people are forgetting the original purpose of marriage, which was a way for families to share land and property. The bride and groom didn't even know each other most of the time because these marriages were arranged by the parents.


That has been *a* hallmark of marriage, but there is no evidence to suggest that is the original impetus behind marriage. All of the different cultures have varying stories behind the origins of marriage, with the practice predating written history.

What we do know about the earliest recorded marriages were that the purpose shifted depending on where in the world, and under which culture, you married. Many early marriages were actually primarily about securing exclusive sexual activity, and ensuring the legitimacy of children.


----------



## jaquen

TrustInUs said:


> My question is what do you do or how do you help the couples that didn't do this, but have put years into their relationship? It's seen all across this board.
> 
> Before we got married, we did a 4 week pre-marital course, after the 2 sessions with our pastor. But that was at the recommendation from a friend who had taken a similar course. If it wasn't for that, I don't think I was mature enough to think some of the things we discussed in class, on our own. Even though my husband had a more sex positive and open environment growing up, and communicated about sex more openly than I, even he says he's glad somethings came out during those discussions.
> 
> Not everyone thinks to have these conversations, the type of conversations that seem common sense to me now that I'm married, but it wasn't before.


There is seemingly unending stream of help available to married people who might have married incompatible partners, and are looking to make marriages work that are tougher because of this. Marriages aren't dying today for lack of available, sound advice and help.

I just think there needs to come a seismic shift in how we view marriage, why we are still marrying, and what we need to prepare for marriage during the lead up time.



Runs like Dog said:


> Or you could look at it in terms as being a casualty of modernity. When people died at 29, "till death do us part" wasn't that big a sacrifice. With people living till 80 you've got people staring into the mirror thinking 'what have I got myself into?'.


I dealt with this in another post. It's an enormous misnomer that people commonly "died at 29". That's a fallacy that stems from confusion over how those low averages were reached.

My post:

"This is not true. The average life expectancy rates appear to be much lower pre-20th century because of staggeringly high infant and toddler mortality rates, and rates of women who died during childbirth. Those skew the numbers incredibly. But plenty of census data from pre-20th century showed many people living well into their golden years. If you made it through childbirth, and past early childhood, your chances of growing old were not that much lower than your chances of growing old today.

Where there is high infant and child mortality rates, low average life expectancy rates always appear. But the fight is less about getting through early adulthood as much as it is early childhood."


----------



## lilith23

ocotillo said:


> Thank you for being fair, Lilith. I appreciate that. It's a rare quality in people.
> 
> 
> 
> The irony here is that a man in this position would be well advised to keep his dissatisfaction private. If he were foolish enough to tell anyone else, he would be the object of considerable derision and not just from women.
> 
> If my comments on this thread have come across as cynical or jaundiced, I apologize. I've come by it honestly.
> 
> My wife and I had a happy and active sex life for almost nine years. Then children were born and sex went off the table for almost the next thirty years. Not entirely, but we're talking gaps of twelve and eighteen months at a time. From physical complaints to mental complaints to emotional complaints, I've heard every reason for not wanting sex that has ever been conceived by womankind.
> 
> This continued right up until her rock-steady cycle started to falter and she entered perimenopause. And by God did things change....
> 
> The elaborate emotional mystique that sex had been wrapped up in fell away like magic. Sex was no longer sacrosanct; it was now in the same category as a good back rub or foot massage which are things we do primarily for the benefit of the *other* person. Emotional needs? Sex became an emotional need in its own right. Headache? Sex is now a cure for it. Threw your back out? Sex is good therapy for that. Bad sex? Well practice makes perfect, here have an energy drink. Have I offended you? Let's have sex. Have you offended me? Let's have sex. Too tired? Well go to bed early tonight and no excuses tomorrow.
> 
> (This is a fairly unusual condition that some women experience at this stage of life, but still common enough that there are support groups for them.)
> 
> Don't misunderstand. I'm not complaining about my wife. You don't stay married to someone for forty years unless you love them dearly for reasons other than sex. The point to this back-story is that I have seen firsthand what happens when a woman is absolutely consumed by sexual desire herself.
> 
> Their attitude is not materially different than that of a man and all those reasons for all those years were revealed as simply window dressing for a lack of desire.


Thank you for sharing, I don't know how to put it but it saddens me a bit to picture how a strong loving couple can lose physical intimacy by time... Although it also makes me happy every time I read such honest words from men, that shows how sex to them is much more than just a physical need.
Me and my husband are still young, and our sex life got affected when we started to live together, since we were under the stress of having many new responsibilities to deal with. Good thing is, things improved again (we learned how to manage the new responsibilities), but I don't want to imagine how it would be to lose physical intimacy for years... Our relationship would be incomplete. The bond, the connection would be incomplete.

I don't think that your responses were cynical or jaundiced, maybe I should be the one apologizing as I might have been too intense with my comments. It's just it kind of bothers me whenever I spot unfair judgments towards any gender, I wish that the whole gender war could stop so that we could truly understand each side better.


----------



## Racer

lilith23 said:


> person A = the one who has their needs unmet first
> person B = the one who eventually also has their needs unmet
> 
> Here is another case in which the efforts of A were to communicate their own needs being unmet while the other person was fine; and the efforts of B were just going along with what person A asks, but then B's efforts were more intense when having own needs unmet too.
> Also, it is the case in which A should have ended the relationship as soon as it reached the bottom.


There’s something in there.... 

Two issues (at least for more typical scenarios and sane humans):
What is a need? I’ve noticed a lot of the time they are based on not so much who your spouse is, and know to be, but instead on how you envision the perfect marriage. It’s like in your head you have a long list of “the perfect spouse” (and it continues to grow as kids, house, jobs, etc., all start playing a part on that dream). Now if you spend your time looking at where your spouse isn’t living up to your dream, all you are seeing is the negative. That will clump into your “turn off” category. Doesn’t really matter if they are 99%.... you’ll just see that 1%. Add to this is unrealistic expectations that aren’t even based on ‘typical humans’. Your spouse is going to get pissy, depressed, sick, angry, etc. Totally normal ‘human’ emotions that for some reason you don’t account for in your perfect marriage. Those are “failings” because as they go through those emotions, there are going to actions that correspond, and you will let those things “define who they are”. 

How do you process the source of emotions? I’ve noticed a lot of people dump it on the shoulders of others. When did your spouse become responsible for yours alone? You need to take back responsibility for how you feel about things and at least own that part of it. Example... the dreaded “I want to feel you wanted and desired me” garbage my wife stated. I made passes all the time, gave her cat calls, etc. That’s how I do this. She interprets those things as me wanting sex, turns that into a bad thing with the “that is all you want from me”. Even when I did things her way like date nights, she turned it into “he’s just doing it for sex later”. There is no winner here. She and she alone is responsible for how she feels about things and interprets my actions. It’d take “above and beyond” actions to override her base thoughts... Even then, all I really did is set the bar higher and higher on her expectations on what it took to feel attracted to me.

By dumping her emotional needs onto me as being solely responsible for them, I was setup for a sexless marriage. Of coarse she wasn’t going to be “turned on” when she’s feeding herself a ton of reasons for being “turned off” by my actions. <=== This is what she needs to own about the whole thing. The reality is there was nothing I could be doing that she couldn’t morph into a negative emotion by reading between the lines and filling in the blank for my “motivation” behind any action. This is also why it is a folly to try and “fix” this in your spouse by doing “more stuff” they say they want. Things like my wife told me “I haven’t felt real attraction toward you since that trip to (some exotic location)”... The bar got higher and higher. Until they recognize they are doing this to themselves, you can’t change their emotional status about how they feel toward you.

If you are trying to convince yourself of ‘the worst in them’, you won’t feel attraction. I’ll go ahead and say you won’t ever find a lasting relationship either. Once the puppy love wears off and the daily grind sets in, the reality is your spouse WILL do stuff that annoys you. It’s really your ability to keep yourself from letting it distract you from how much they really do mean to you and what they are doing that you love that gets in the way of feeling attraction toward them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TrustInUs said:


> *Before we got married, we did a 4 week pre-marital course, after the 2 sessions with our pastor. But that was at the recommendation from a friend who had taken a similar course. If it wasn't for that, I don't think I was mature enough to think some of the things we discussed in class, on our own*.


Before we got married,
My wife insisted that we do a premarital course.It went for three months!
Beside that, we paid money and went to lots of marital seminars etc. I remember one in particular which lasted for an entire weekend,the book " Love Languages " was used.
I made it my business to get that book....
That was BEFORE we got married.
We have been married for 17 yrs.
I now see it being highly recomended here on TAM lol!


----------



## Thundarr

jaquen said:


> What we do know about the earliest recorded marriages were that the purpose shifted depending on where in the world, and under which culture, you married. Many early marriages were actually primarily about securing exclusive sexual activity, and ensuring the legitimacy of children.


*Ensuring bloodline is legitimate and ensuring survival of the bloodline*. It's why monogamy is more prevelant than other types of relationships throughout history, it's why men are possesive and jealous, it's why women hold providers in high esteem, it's why men hold virtuous women high in esteem. It's easy to see the correlation.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Racer said:


> * You need to take back responsibility for how you feel about things and at least own that part of it. Example... the dreaded “I want to feel you wanted and desired me” garbage my wife stated. I made passes all the time, gave her cat calls, etc. That’s how I do this. She interprets those things as me wanting sex, turns that into a bad thing with the “that is all you want from me”. Even when I did things her way like date nights, she turned it into “he’s just doing it for sex later”. *.


:iagree:

Which is what I'm trying to say.
We can't just depend on hormones or " biology "' to maintain our attraction for our spouse after 10 + years of marriage and kids.
That attraction must have grown and developed into something more.[ If it was nurtured ]
My feeling is that people don't take responsibility for their own happiness and expect their spouse to" fix" them , because they have " suddenly " become unhappy with themselves, and their lives. 
When we start looking for excuses instead of solutions ,the marriage is over.


----------



## TrustInUs

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> My feeling is that people don't take responsibility for their own happiness and expect their spouse to" fix" them , because they have " suddenly " become unhappy with themselves, and their lives.
> When we start looking for excuses instead of solutions ,the marriage is over.


Whew! If this isn't the truth!!

I'm extremely blessed that my husband decided to marry me knowing I personally had some issues to work on. However the key point is that *I * had to do the work. I had to *want* to do the work. However he likes to take the credit


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> That has been *a* hallmark of marriage, but there is no evidence to suggest that is the original impetus behind marriage. All of the different cultures have varying stories behind the origins of marriage, with the practice predating written history.
> 
> What we do know about the earliest recorded marriages were that the purpose shifted depending on where in the world, and under which culture, you married. Many early marriages were actually primarily about securing exclusive sexual activity, and ensuring the legitimacy of children.


I thnk Techmom is correct.
The main purpose of monogamous marriage was to secure land and property.
I cannot access the exact website now, but researchers suggest that marriages became necassary after early man began their journey towards becoming civilized.
They discovered how to plant and irrigate land, so land became a precious commodity necessary for the survival of families , communities, tribes and civilizations.
Marriage was used to build society, love was not really the reason behind marriage. Most marriage were arranged because it ensured land and property stayed within the clan.


----------



## Thundarr

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Which is what I'm trying to say.
> We can't just depend on hormones or " biology "' to maintain our attraction for our spouse after 10 + years of marriage and kids.
> That attraction must have grown and developed into something more.[ If it was nurtured ]
> My feeling is that people don't take responsibility for their own happiness and expect their spouse to" fix" them , because they have " suddenly " become unhappy with themselves, and their lives.
> When we start looking for excuses instead of solutions ,the marriage is over.


:iagree: TOO. 
This naive notion that our spouse is what makes us happy is a time bomb. We make our selves happy and our spouse makes it better. It's really not even a marriage issue at the core. It's blame shifting and entitlement thinking. Unhappy partners divorce and cheat all of the time only to still be unhappy but also regretful..


----------



## Caribbean Man

lilith23 said:


> I don't know if I fully agree, but I like your way of thinking.  I think that at least to an extent, we can be sure that we are in control with what we feel (working on maintaining/increasing attraction and love, not allowing side attractions develop for the sake of maintaining the bond with our partners, and so on). Although I'm not sure if we can really control it in the more extreme cases, like for example, the one we love changes radically.
> We feel intimate and hold unique feelings towards someone for how they are and how we interact with each other, as well as the fond memories we build through the years. But what if this person changes, the way we interact changes, and what attracts us is not there anymore, as well as there are no new things that can attract us? Maybe the fond memories would still maintain some attraction and love feelings.


We are both saying the same thing dear!

If a person changes for the worse, then how under heavens can we still be attracted to them?

But as the years go by the initial attraction matures and two people actually become one. The sex act is a type of medium through which this happens.When husband and wife have sex in an environment of true love and respect, not only their bodies are joined but their spirit.
I think Halien was making a similar point.
That's why I say when two people grow together , sex can never be " boring ".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Thundarr said:


> :iagree: It's really not even a marriage issue at the core. *It's blame shifting and entitlement thinking. Unhappy partners divorce and cheat all of the time only to still be unhappy but also regretful.*.


".....The paradox of choice..."

The more options [ choices ] we have , the greater our chances of being unappy.


----------



## lilith23

Caribbean Man said:


> We are both saying the same thing dear!
> 
> If a person changes for the worse, then how under heavens can we still be attracted to them?
> 
> But as the years go by the initial attraction matures and two people actually become one. The sex act is a type of medium through which this happens.When husband and wife have sex in an environment of true love and respect, not only their bodies are joined but their spirit.
> I think Halien was making a similar point.
> That's why I say when two people grow together , sex can never be " boring ".


I love how you said this.  Just a "like" would not be enough!


----------



## Lyris

Caribbean Man said:


> I'm sorry,
> I really cannot agree with that synopsis of sexual attraction in marriage.
> Maybe I'm reading this wrong...
> But,if my wife got pregnant with my child, that's _our _baby, what happens to her body cannot cause me to loose sexual attraction for her.We planned this, I knew that her body would be going through changes. Even the house goes through changes when couples plan for babies.
> I would expect that the sex would be affected and we could talk about it.
> We should be able to find ways to deal with it just like we have dealt with all the other problems.
> Telling me there is nothing that we can do to deal with the expected fallout from a pregnancy doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> I have known couples who tell me that they've had sex almost right up to delivery and started back having sex just
> 8 - 10 weeks after. These are people who I know have a good marriage.
> I'm not saying its the same with every couple. what I'm saying is that they have an intimate connection that helps them understand and deal with these types of problems.
> There is no " situation " biological or man made that they cannot work on together.
> That's the difference.
> 
> Mid life crisis in men, Pregnancy in women, hormonal changes in both parties [ especially low testosterone in men ] as they age are all " great unknowns " in married life that can cause anything to change.
> What trumps all of this is self actualization, getting in touch with your inner soul , encouraging yourself and each other to grow , to blossom and expand.
> As we live circumstances change and so should we,that is called growth.
> For better and not for worse.
> 
> 
> Compatibility and similarity of expectations in the beginning of marriage is absolutely not an indicator of long term sexual success in marriage, but working on oneself and working on these issues when they arise* TOGETHER AS A PARTNERSHIP* and not just from a selfish position of
> " one upmanship " most definitely is.


I wasn't at all saying those changes were inevitable. They haven't, in fact, happened in my own marriage.

I do think though, that there are some things that are not under willful control and that sexual attraction can be one of them.


----------



## Holland

Caribbean Man said:


> Before we got married,
> My wife insisted that we do a premarital course.It went for three months!
> Beside that, we paid money and went to lots of marital seminars etc. I remember one in particular which lasted for an entire weekend,the book " Love Languages " was used.
> I made it my business to get that book....
> That was BEFORE we got married.
> We have been married for 17 yrs.
> I now see it being highly recomended here on TAM lol!


See this is smart. It was unheard of when I got married, maybe it is something we were behind on in Aussie all those years ago.

Should I ever marry again (never say never) then I would do something like this. Second marriages don't have such a good success rate. having said that, I am one of those that has learnt from marriage/divorce and know so much more about myself and life than I did 20 years ago.

That and the fact that I am now with a man with a very high EQ bodes well for the future.


----------



## jaquen

Caribbean Man said:


> I thnk Techmom is correct.
> The main purpose of monogamous marriage was to secure land and property.
> I cannot access the exact website now, but researchers suggest that marriages became necassary after early man began their journey towards becoming civilized.
> They discovered how to plant and irrigate land, so land became a precious commodity necessary for the survival of families , communities, tribes and civilizations.
> Marriage was used to build society, love was not really the reason behind marriage. Most marriage were arranged because it ensured land and property stayed within the clan.


No, I don't believe she is. You should look into very early version of marriage, called beena, where fully independent women married men. The women maintained financial control, often staying completely attached to their kin. In some versions the man moved to her village, and became enfolded into her family's wealth and property. 

I never suggested that love has ever been the prevailing impetus for marriage, but to suggest that all early marriage was based on land, and were pre-arranged, is not historically accurate. 

Evidence shows that the roots of early marriage can appear altered, depending on which culture you study.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jaquen said:


> No, I don't believe she is. You should look into very early version of marriage, called beena, where fully independent women married men. The women maintained financial control, often staying completely attached to their kin. In some versions the man moved to her village, and became enfolded into her family's wealth and property.
> 
> I never suggested that love has ever been the prevailing impetus for marriage, but to suggest that all early marriage was based on land, and were pre-arranged, is not historically accurate.
> 
> Evidence shows that the roots of early marriage can appear altered, depending on which culture you study.


Ok,

You are correct on the Beena.
It being the earliest for of _Jewish_ marriage, and the rights etc.

However, there were much older civilizations that practised monogamous marriages, the Mesopotamians , [ Sumer, Akkad , Assyria ]. According to archaeologist, the Hammurabi code [ 1790 B.C ] contained very strict laws regarding marriage , divorce, property,land the rights of women and children.
That is what made them into one of the greatest known civilization in history, Babylon.

Don't want to hijack the thread , but the history behind marriage is fascinating and varies widely from culture to culture.
It makes quite an interesting discussion.
Sorry for the hijack,
Proceed!


----------



## ocotillo

Trenton said:


> Hope & Love





jaquen said:


> Both of which you can have without ever going through the courts, or before family, and your Deity, to make vows that are absolutely steeped in promise and entitlement.....


Well only Trenton knows what kind of ceremony she had and what was actually said. A promise of some sort of sex life could be viewed as an implicit ethical corollary to a vow of fidelity, but again, only Trenton knows if that was even said and if so, what implicit assumptions there were.

Your point speaks to me loud and clear.

My wife was/is a very conservative Christian and insisted that the ceremony take place in her church. Since I'm Jewish and agnostic, I had no strong preference, so I agreed. 

Here pastor/elder/deacon/minister (Whatever they call them in her church) spoke for about ten minutes on marriage and during the course of his little sermon, he read verses 3 - 5 of 1 Corinthians 7 and explained the meaning beyond any doubt whatsoever 

I don't know how many (If any) other Christian religions go into this level of detail, but in her church, that aspect of the commitment was not left to the imagination.


----------



## TrustInUs

ocotillo said:


> My wife was/is a very conservative Christian and insisted that the ceremony take place in her church. Since I'm Jewish and agnostic, I had no strong preference, so I agreed.
> 
> Here pastor/elder/deacon/minister (Whatever they call them in her church) spoke for about ten minutes on marriage and during the course of his little sermon, he read verses 3 - 5 of 1 Corinthians 7 and explained the meaning beyond any doubt whatsoever
> .


I think many Christians forget this part of the bible.... This wasn't said during my vows, and I don't recall it being said at other weddings I attended, but it was talked about during our counseling sessions with our Pastor.


----------



## morituri

Today, marriage is nothing more than a contract between three parties in which one is the State. Remove the State and you have no more contract and no more entitlement from the remaining parties. Aside from children, I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing.


----------

